OK, finally have time to respond to Salmog's original post:
Slabquest attributes fisheries mismanagement to the "idiotic Boldt decision." We may not like the Boldt decision and disagree about many of its effects. But if the decision is so idiotic, why do most legal scholars who have reviewed it consider it an excellent piece of judicial work? And why has it never been overturned? Seems like an idiotic decision wouldn't be so likely to be upheld by appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. I do agree with you, however, that adequate implementation of the decision lies somewhere between difficult and impossible.
The idiocy lies in several areas.
First, it is idiotic to render a decision that (as you agree) is nearly impossible to implement.
Second, it must be understood that the decision is an
interpretation. The second amendment states that one's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Obviously, since one can not own a stinger missle or machine gun (thank God)it is being infringed. Long ago the courts interpreted the amendment to exclude most weapons. Why? BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE WRITERS ENVISIONED OR THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. I have yet to meet a person that claims that the fiasco we now have is what was envisioned or intended by the signers of the treaties.
Finally, yes the decision has withstood legal challenge. Overturning a legal decision is akin to challenging a NFL call - you must show irrefutable proof of illegality. Judge Boldt could have ruled the "other way" and that, too would have most likely held up. There is (and was) a great deal of sympathy for the indians in the general population and his decision was "politically correct" for the times. If he were, say, ruling in 1946 on a treaty we held with the Japanese, I would guess bias of interpretation would be different, eh?
Previous Topic
Index
