Post by rizdek on May 20, 2019 23:41:45 GMT
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gorsuch-breaks-with-conservative-justices-delivering-win-to-native-american-hunter/ar-AABDNIT?ocid=spartandhp
One of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees sided Monday with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for the second time in two weeks, as Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a narrow majority in support of a Native American man convicted for hunting in a national forest.
The case, Herrera v. Wyoming, deals with a treaty from 1868 which allowed members of the tribe to hunt in “unoccupied lands” in the U.S. in exchange for their land, which went on to become part of Wyoming and Montana. At issue was whether the hunting rights in the treaty are still in effect or were nullified when Wyoming became a state in 1890.
The case, Herrera v. Wyoming, deals with a treaty from 1868 which allowed members of the tribe to hunt in “unoccupied lands” in the U.S. in exchange for their land, which went on to become part of Wyoming and Montana. At issue was whether the hunting rights in the treaty are still in effect or were nullified when Wyoming became a state in 1890.
Why would liberals, particularly, want to permit native Americans to be able to hunt in national forests per a treaty allowing tribe members to hunt unoccupied lands and conservatives, particularly, not want to permit it?
Do the those who consider themselves generally conservative think this was a bad decision? Why?
I personally have no problem with the decision.
edit...shoot, I did it again. Sorry, I posted this in the wrong section.
Admin...can this be moved.