wrote:
Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Personally, I don't agree with that precedent, since if I buy
stolen merchandise, I'm held liable. But at this point, Indian
law consists of the courts scrambling to think of a legal
reason Indian claims are in the wrong; the Oneida were tied up
in the legal system for decades, and when they finally got
their day in court, the Supreme Court invoked the laches
defense. It doesn't help much that Rehnquist never saw a case
of Indian law where he couldn't rule in an insane way.
According to the Oliphant and Duro decisions, for all practical
purposes any interracial crime on a reservation basically has
to be taken before an all-white jury.

As far as slavery reparations go, it won't help anyone.