WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

How so?

[–] 0 pt

“The federal government promised the (Muscogee Creek Nation) a reservation in perpetuity,” Gorsuch wrote, adding that while Congress has “diminished” the sanctuary over time, lawmakers had “never withdrawn the promised reservation.”

“As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking.”

Obviously there are many other details that have to do with the American legal system and I won't claim I understand them all, but if the federal government promised a land and natives could live there without disturbing anyone and this promise wasn't kept, that would mean that the federal government wasn't a reliable conversationist. It would be even counterproductive for the general good, as segregation solves a lot of friction, though obviously US interior policy has long now been against segregation.

[–] 0 pt

The fact remains that Oklahoma is settled by Americans, and there's no reason to give away that land. Possession is 9/10s of the law. The only precedent giving it up sets is weakness.

And I doubt a precedent of the government keeping its promise is really going to be followed in the end anyway. Do you think they are going to keep an ancient promise when it hurts white people and then also go on to keep promises when it helps white people? If you're here on this site I wager you've been paying attention for long enough to know that's not how things work.