> Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and repatriating the land out of Native American hands.

Oklahoma seems to have only five US Representatives (and two senators of course). It would be ridiculous if seven Congress members can hold a nation hostage.

I don't understand the full implications of this ruling but I don't see how I can support breaking more promises because of political gamesmanship over five representatives out of four hundred and thirty five.

From what I read in this thread, all crimes will still be prosecuted, but by a federal court of law. I don't see a problem.

What do you mean? One senator has been holding the nation hostage for years. One.

The only reason one senator can hold the nation hostage is because he has the support of the majority of senators.

Representing a minority of the United States's population.

That's obviously not true. He LEADS the others who choose to follow him and use him as a scapegoat. Big difference.

I'm out of the loop here, what are you referring to?

I'm guessing that they're referring to Mitch McConnell

What is he doing? Mostly looking for a few good keywords to google the issue.

He's the Senate majority leader. The above comment is not correct, one senator is not holding the nation hostage. The majority of the Senate is. The Senate majority leader just happens to be one of the more senior members of the majority party in the senate. Mitch McConnell, as far as legislating goes, is no different from any other Senator.

Well, one senator can hold up the nation easily enough with the filibuster or denying unanimous consent. Senators are very powerful and the Senate is explicitly designed to stop anything from happening. Most other countries have less powerful upper houses.

Yes, the compromise was to say all states are equal which is a ridiculous idea. I just don’t see a better way though. How does the European Union handle things? Does Latvia have the same vote as Germany? Or does nationality not matter because things are run by technocrats? I’d imagine at some point the elected representatives hold the decision makers accountable?

As far as I know, he's described himself as the "Grim Reaper" for progressive policies [0]. Now, I'm no expert but as the majority leader, he

> schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate [1]

and

> has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator [1]

- [0]: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/440041-mcconnell-pledges...

- [1]: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing...

He's an obstructionist. The plan is to block everything, no compromise. He's even taken contradicting stances when the other side raises an issue he previously supported.

I think that's the intent of the ruling, actually. Part of the conclusion says "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."

Sometimes I wish the SCOTUS would reinterpret things that were obviously wrong... but I'd much rather have the SCOTUS interpret the law as it was intended, and have Congress fix the actual problems with the law.

“As intended “ isn’t “as it is written “. See the recent ruling that came down saying that LGBTQ people are protected under the civil rights act of 1967 because the words are very plainly written. Just because the people in congress probably didn’t intend to protect the LGBTQ community given the culture at the time the WORDS of the law are very clear.

"As intended" versus "as written" really depends on the law being discussed and the justice interpreting the law. For example, constitutional scholarship seems to lean heavily on interpreting the law by its intent rather than purely by the words

I mean.... that case was neither "as it is written" nor "as intended".

In that case the court simply ruled on what was morally right.

LGBTQ people were not intended to be protected in the 1967 law, nor was it written as such.

I agree they deserve protections and Congress should amend the law as such. It's sad SCOTUS is made to break its role to fix this.

>> obviously wrong

Who can say what this is?

There's quite a variety of ways that the Five Tribes and the State of Oklahoma / the federal government can resolve this, two of the extremes being "Congress formalizes its reneging on its treaties with the Five Tribes, thus fucking over Native Americans yet again, but in writing this time" and "Tulsa experiences karmic retribution in the form of Trail of Tears 2: Electric Boogaloo".

Hopefully neither happens, and instead we get something that at least tries to work to the interests of both parties, e.g. "non-tribal residents are allowed to stay but are subject to tribal law (and pay "state" taxes to applicable tribal authorities instead of Oklahoma)" or "Oklahoma and/or Congress pays the Five Tribes a fair price for lands already occupied by population centers (e.g. Tulsa) and releases the rest to respective tribal authorities" or somesuch. Or perhaps something even crazier, like "the Five Tribes make another attempt at founding the State of Sequoyah" (with Tulsa being a decent-enough candidate for becoming a state capital).

Realistically, though, knowing this country's tendencies toward addressing hard-to-solve issues, the most likely outcome is "nothing changes and Schrödinger's Indian Reservations continue to simultaneously exist and not exist".

The ruling is about whether or not the state can enforce state law on Native Americans on this land. It doesn't change whether or how Oklahoma law applies non-native Americans.

What are the consequences to people in Tulsa who aren't tribe members? Landowners who aren't tribe members? Can the tribe expel them and confiscate the land?

Nothing. The tribe members lost that land with the Dawes Act before Oklahoma was a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act

Real estate prices will likely drop.

nobody knows what will happen yet. This is just opening page of that book.

Or they won’t?