Supreme Court sides with Wyoming Indian hunter

[dilbert firestorm]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...joins-liberals

This case is about treaties made with indian tribes and the U.S. govt. the catch here is this, the treaty was made when Wyoming was a U.S. territory.

the Indian Hunter says Treaty still in force. Wyoming says its not in force because Wyoming became as state, the treaty was made when it was a territory.

to me, this is a slam dunk. I'd go with the Wyoming hunter. the treaty remains in force regardless of Wyoming status as a state or territory. the treaty was made with the U.S. govt., not the Wyoming govt.

I was surprised to see the ruling by the dissenting side which went against the Wyoming hunters. the dissenting minority were conservatives judges. Gorsuch joined the liberal majority ruling.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...joins-liberals

This case is about treaties made with indian tribes and the U.S. govt. the catch here is this, the treaty was made when Wyoming was a U.S. territory.

the Indian Hunter says Treaty still in force. Wyoming says its not in force because Wyoming became as state, the treaty was made when it was a territory.

to me, this is a slam dunk. I'd go with the Wyoming hunter. the treaty remains in force regardless of Wyoming status as a state or territory. the treaty was made with the U.S. govt., not the Wyoming govt.

I was surprised to see the ruling by the dissenting side which went against the Wyoming hunters. the dissenting minority were conservatives judges. Gorsuch joined the liberal majority ruling.

Hey Dilbert.

The treaty was made with the US Government, not Wyoming. There was an origional promise with the Indian tribe that must be honered. It is not about being conservative, or liberal: it is about honoring your agreements.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Hey Dilbert.

The treaty was made with the US Government, not Wyoming. There was an original promise with the Indian tribe that must be honored. It is not about being conservative, or liberal: it is about honoring your agreements.

that was my point.



what I don't get is the conservative judges not agreeing with the majority. only Gorsuch did.


It should have been unamimous but its not.