CFM,

Right, privilege, um, well, what does it matter? Todd's and others' points are on point - if the courts allow it, you get to do it, if they don't, you don't. Whether that is just and equitable in our society is a fun topic while you're waiting for the rod to go down. What word you use to describe it is of semantic interest - little else.

The fact of the matter is, our society is one of contract, and contracts get decided in courts when parties disagree. In the case of the Boldt decision, in my opinion, the various forces of the white man had reneged on the previously negotiated contract, and the judge said, wait an f'ing minute, and put a harsher agreement in place than what we could have had, if we hadn't been greedy jerks. Kind of a life lesson there, don't you think?

Seems to me that this discussion is on the ordere of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fun to think about, little real meaning.