this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
48 points (100.0% liked)

News

76 readers
2 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago
 

The Navajo Nation had argued that their water rights were protected under an 1868 treaty.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So why not just say "The US Government" instead of "the Biden administration" If the battle has been going on for several decades, why call out the current administration particularly? Because then you can point to this and say "see what a horrible person Biden in who personally is responsible for this happening!"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because the facts are the facts. The Attny General of the Biden Administration could have conceded the case and the water rights at any point Biden wanted. Biden chose to do the same thing Trump, Obama, and Bush did. The same thing every US president has always done when the indigenous folks rouse some rabble about the promises we made to them.

The treaties aren't some secret, they were written down and you can read them for yourself. The people signing it agreed on the words to communicate their intentions. Make your own opinion and decide whether Bidens administration fought this over the genuine intentions of the promises made in the treaty, or over the modern interests of current and future non-indigenous voters. Think for yourself, form your own opinion rather than wringing your hands over the optics of the headline.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's just how legal cases work... if you sue a state, it's documented in court records as a suit against the sitting governor. If the governor changes, the title of the suit changes.

Same thing here with the president. It doesn't matter who wins the election... any ongoing court cases are now against the new chief executive of the government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Is that true? This case was Arizona v. Navajo Nation, which was consolidated with Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation. These cases were brought by the government, not by the Navajo, but if they were, this case would have still been Navajo Nation v. Arizona. Is the respondent/defendent not the same as who the case is "against?"