I don't really waste much time worrying about how much I do or do not like the case. It's just there, and isn't going anywhere without Congressional intervention, so I spend more of my time worrying about how to work with it.

I will say this, though...in my Constitutional Law class in law school the textbooks discuss this case in the same context as the civil rights cases involving school integration and abortion rights. It's viewed nationwide as one of the landmark Constitutional law cases ever to come down...and studied in every law school in the country.

Most of the excerpts that are in the textbooks don't have a lot about fish management, or what "in common with" means, which are the reasons why fishermen would or would not like the case.

They mainly cover the aspects of state law vs. federal law, and where treaties made between Indian tribes and the federal government fit in that context.

It really was an extraordinary case in that context, as it hadn't really been hashed out to that extent in the federal courts even though there have been such treaties for well over 100 years.

Fish on...

Todd

(*edited for grammar*)