As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG

196979899101

Posts

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I hate Susan Collins because she is determined to prove Zap Brannigan has a point:

    https://youtu.be/JY6RyRkl9uo

    Collins is as neutral as Joe Biden’s a raging Leninist

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    But Thawmus, she has concerns.
    So many concerns.

    She and Merrick Garland

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    But Thawmus, she has concerns.
    So many concerns.

    She and Merrick Garland

    Merrick has to actually put together a case before he says anything.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    But Thawmus, she has concerns.
    So many concerns.

    She and Merrick Garland

    Merrick has to actually put together a case before he says anything.

    Couldnt expect them to be ready?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    so... close this thread at midnight, and open a new one on the shadow docket?

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    But Thawmus, she has concerns.
    So many concerns.

    She and Merrick Garland

    Merrick has to actually put together a case before he says anything.

    This was in reference to Garland’s statement earlier about how he’s deeply concerned about this

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    But Thawmus, she has concerns.
    So many concerns.

    She and Merrick Garland

    Merrick has to actually put together a case before he says anything.

    This was in reference to Garland’s statement earlier about how he’s deeply concerned about this

    Yes a statement about how with the developments as of hours before the press release the DOJ would be weighing its options with how to proceed

    Edit: I get that Garland did use the word concerned by for real folks he isn’t Susan Collins.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Captain Inertia on
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    We're in a world where Congress is almost halfway filled with members of a death cult and since the checks granted to the institution didn't account for that possibility it's just pretty much totally fucked

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Ok What can they do against this SCOTUS with a bare min 50+1 majority in the senate? This SCOTUS that famously invalidated the VRA which passed with a lot heftier margin than this theoretical legislation will pass by.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    But Thawmus, she has concerns.
    So many concerns.

    She and Merrick Garland

    Merrick has to actually put together a case before he says anything.

    This was in reference to Garland’s statement earlier about how he’s deeply concerned about this

    Yes a statement about how with the developments as of hours before the press release the DOJ would be weighing its options with how to proceed

    Edit: I get that Garland did use the word concerned by for real folks he isn’t Susan Collins.

    Seriously. Real people are concerned about things all the time and aren't just being Susan Collins. She doesn't own the word.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Ok What can they do against this SCOTUS with a bare min 50+1 majority in the senate? This SCOTUS that famously invalidated the VRA which passed with a lot heftier margin than this theoretical legislation will pass by.

    They can remove the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court!





    Which Manchin and Sinema already said they're against.

    Well, then kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party!



    Okay then McConnell owns the Senate and we don't get any judges at all!

    And round and round we go

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Ok What can they do against this SCOTUS with a bare min 50+1 majority in the senate? This SCOTUS that famously invalidated the VRA which passed with a lot heftier margin than this theoretical legislation will pass by.

    They can remove the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court!





    Which Manchin and Sinema already said they're against.

    Well, then kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party!



    Okay then McConnell owns the Senate and we don't get any judges at all!

    And round and round we go

    People keep wringing their hands about "what if push comes to shove" but won't even let us suggest tapping them on the shoulder.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Ok What can they do against this SCOTUS with a bare min 50+1 majority in the senate? This SCOTUS that famously invalidated the VRA which passed with a lot heftier margin than this theoretical legislation will pass by.

    They can remove the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court!





    Which Manchin and Sinema already said they're against.

    Well, then kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party!



    Okay then McConnell owns the Senate and we don't get any judges at all!

    And round and round we go

    People keep wringing their hands about "what if push comes to shove" but won't even let us suggest tapping them on the shoulder.

    Nobody is doing that. We're just worried about pushing Manchin out when we have the literal barest minimum advantage we can possibly have. You literally cannot have any barer of an advantage right now.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Ok What can they do against this SCOTUS with a bare min 50+1 majority in the senate? This SCOTUS that famously invalidated the VRA which passed with a lot heftier margin than this theoretical legislation will pass by.

    They can remove the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court!





    Which Manchin and Sinema already said they're against.

    Well, then kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party!



    Okay then McConnell owns the Senate and we don't get any judges at all!

    And round and round we go

    People keep wringing their hands about "what if push comes to shove" but won't even let us suggest tapping them on the shoulder.

    Nobody is doing that. We're just worried about pushing Manchin out when we have the literal barest minimum advantage we can possibly have. You literally cannot have any barer of an advantage right now.

    You just did it. You just said you are worried about Manchin defecting, so we can't pressure him.

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    edited September 2021
    Edit: This is spilling over into US Congress discussion, so I'm going to take my post over there.

    Brody on
    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I mean Biden had his eviction moratorium struck down by SCOTUS. Demanding the dems do something while ignoring the people they'd do something about are the same people who invalidate what they do is kind of silly.

    SCOTUS because of our system of government has the power and there ain't a lot other entities can do change that.

    Confirming appointments isn’t the only check over judiciary the constitution affords congress and I’m not talking about impeachment

    Ok What can they do against this SCOTUS with a bare min 50+1 majority in the senate? This SCOTUS that famously invalidated the VRA which passed with a lot heftier margin than this theoretical legislation will pass by.

    They can remove the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court!





    Which Manchin and Sinema already said they're against.

    Well, then kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party!



    Okay then McConnell owns the Senate and we don't get any judges at all!

    And round and round we go

    People keep wringing their hands about "what if push comes to shove" but won't even let us suggest tapping them on the shoulder.

    Nobody is doing that. We're just worried about pushing Manchin out when we have the literal barest minimum advantage we can possibly have. You literally cannot have any barer of an advantage right now.

    You just did it. You just said you are worried about Manchin defecting, so we can't pressure him.

    Absolutely do not put words in my mouth.

    I said I am worried about the repercussions. I did NOT say we cannot even tap him on the shoulder. But what people are proposing (taking away committee assignments, investigating his daughter) are not "tapping him on the shoulder". Those are nuclear options that will absolutely push him out of the party.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    There is nothing we can do, because anything we might do will push him out. Gotcha.

    Yeah, I see this is getting pages of play in the Congress thread, too, so I'm gonna drop it. Nothing new is going to be said.

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    Maybe I'm late to the party but I'm not understanding how this isn't Pandora's fucking box. The logic being applied here doesn't seem to have anything to do with abortion, specifically. Couldn't states pass laws to negate *every* single constitutional right via a bounty system?

    Officiating Same-sex marriage.

    Owning Guns

    Publishing damaging information about government officials

    Blasphemy against Christianity

    Voting while black woman Democrat under 50 years old

    It's tantamount to saying that Judicial oversight doesn't exist. Even blue states would find ways to abuse that.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    I suspect that the internal reasoning is that these five justices don't agree that abortion is a constitutional right, and have decided that this means it no longer is one.

    The other ways this law is blatantly unconstitutional don't trouble them, because of the doctrine that anything five justices agree with automatically becomes law.

    Tarantio on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Maybe I'm late to the party but I'm not understanding how this isn't Pandora's fucking box. The logic being applied here doesn't seem to have anything to do with abortion, specifically. Couldn't states pass laws to negate *every* single constitutional right via a bounty system?

    Officiating Same-sex marriage.

    Owning Guns

    Publishing damaging information about government officials

    Blasphemy against Christianity

    Voting while black woman Democrat under 50 years old

    It's tantamount to saying that Judicial oversight doesn't exist. Even blue states would find ways to abuse that.

    I think they're depending on the lingering view of the SCOTUS as a nonpartisan institution rather than a very non-representative legislative body. All of the above are certainly possible, but the moment that California introduces a gun-buying bounty or something, they'll issue a technical ruling with no language stating oop actually no not that one, and the headlines will be "Possibility of Massive Overreach in California According to Court" with no reference to the end of Roe.

    They're relying on the fact that so long as they do this in a slightly weird way instead of by issuing a booming proclamation followed by a villainous cackle, around 60% of left-leaning people will consistently say they're basically neutral. And so long as they continue to eliminate voting rights and the rights of the individual in general, 40% of Republicans will think they're mostly okay if a little bit weak on the real issues such as making it illegal to be a woman.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Nah, they are relying on the 6 months it takes for this to get repealed to complete destroy any infrastructure for actual abortions in the state, while leaving increasing room for family planning clinics to fill the space, so even once it's repealed the ability to find an abortion is effectively gone.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Nah, they are relying on the 6 months it takes for this to get repealed to complete destroy any infrastructure for actual abortions in the state, while leaving increasing room for family planning clinics to fill the space, so even once it's repealed the ability to find an abortion is effectively gone.

    Heck, just relying on women being too scared to have an abortion for the next six months (26 weeks) means anyone already pregnant (and as yet unaware), or concieving in the next six weeks, would be outside the bounds of most regulations for abortions not being permitted except for health reasons beyond 20 weeks.

    So anyone in that situation is likely going to be forced to give birth.

    Cruelty (and subjugation of women's bodies) is the point.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Nah, they are relying on the 6 months it takes for this to get repealed to complete destroy any infrastructure for actual abortions in the state, while leaving increasing room for family planning clinics to fill the space, so even once it's repealed the ability to find an abortion is effectively gone.

    Heck, just relying on women being too scared to have an abortion for the next six months (26 weeks) means anyone already pregnant (and as yet unaware), or concieving in the next six weeks, would be outside the bounds of most regulations for abortions not being permitted except for health reasons beyond 20 weeks.

    So anyone in that situation is likely going to be forced to give birth.

    Cruelty (and subjugation of women's bodies) is the point.

    I think more specifically: the hierarchical subjugation is the point. We mustn’t forget it’s not like the family members, spouses and mistresses of the players and brokers in Texas will ever be under threat from this

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Texas is sending another horrible case to SCOTUS

    Cheroke writer:

    Days after functionally banning abortion, Texas is asking #SCOTUS to strike down a 40 year old law that protects Native families in child welfare & adoption systems.

    So after Native ppl can’t access abortion in TX, it would be easier for the state to take their children.

    Vox has more details
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/2/20/21131387/indian-child-welfare-act-court-case-foster-care

    Two assholes adopt a kid:
    The foster couple ... were “self-conscious about their material success,” the New York Times reported, and told the paper that fostering a child was a way to “rectify their blessings.”
    The next year, the Brackeens were temporarily held back in their plans to adopt the boy, when, under the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Navajo tribe located a Native family unrelated to the boy to take him in. So the Brackeens filed a federal lawsuit. Last year, the Brackeens fought to obtain custody of the boy’s sister, whose Navajo extended family wanted to take her in.

    In court, they are now arguing the extended family isn't rich enough to care for the kid. And it all boils down to evangelicals being assholes as usual:
    “The core of their argument is that it’s an unfair racial preference and that we should have a colorblind system,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, told Vox. “What that misses is what’s a bedrock of federal Indian law in this country, which is that tribes are sovereign, not distinguished as a race but as a special political designation. That’s a critical underpinning of not just ICWA, but many laws that relate to housing and healthcare and education and employment. For that to be eroded by a successful attack on ICWA — that would have broad implications on all of these.”

    Kastelic said that ICWA has long been subject to lawsuits from two groups — those with the ultimate goal of eroding tribal sovereignty, and those in the adoption community who disdain the lengthier process that must be undertaken to adopt a Native child.

    “We’ve seen the rise of think tanks — Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato — that have a broader agenda about state rights and subverting or dismantling tribal sovereignty as part of their agenda,” Kastelic said. “And then there’s a religious agenda, a number of Christian organizations wanting access to Native children still with the premise of ‘saving Indians’ — that because of high rates of poverty or substance abuse or mental health challenges, that that still warrants them to take our children. They feel entitled to them.”

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    So Texas was getting jealous about not being the biggest story about genocide for a few minutes.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So Texas was getting jealous about not being the biggest story about genocide for a few minutes.

    Florida does not like being usurped.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    At this point, the Supreme Court barely exists. They're just writing legislation via shadow docket now.

    A fact that shows up in a scathing dissent by Kagan.
    Without full briefing or argument, and after less than 72 hours’ thought, this Court green-lights the operation of Texas’s patently unconstitutional law banning most abortions. The Court thus rewards Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf. As of last night, and because of this Court’s ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek them—in clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey.

    Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals—which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion—that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow docket decision-making—which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.

    Good. Now do something about it. I wanna hear these fuckers openly advocating for court packing or major court reforms.

    My one hope is that this law is so bad, and so blatantly not constitutional that if the conservative justices try to force it through with horribly tortured logic, it will effectively delegitimize the court (which the shadow docket rulings are already doing a ton of damage.) I'm actually surprised Gorsuch signed on to the order because he's typically not happy when laws are written this poorly.

    This is a hope for civil war. The nation can't hold together with one body being broadly viewed as illegitimate.

    You're almost eight months late to this party

    The GOP views the Executive as illegitimate already

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    At this point, the Supreme Court barely exists. They're just writing legislation via shadow docket now.

    A fact that shows up in a scathing dissent by Kagan.
    Without full briefing or argument, and after less than 72 hours’ thought, this Court green-lights the operation of Texas’s patently unconstitutional law banning most abortions. The Court thus rewards Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf. As of last night, and because of this Court’s ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek them—in clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey.

    Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals—which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion—that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow docket decision-making—which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.

    Good. Now do something about it. I wanna hear these fuckers openly advocating for court packing or major court reforms.

    My one hope is that this law is so bad, and so blatantly not constitutional that if the conservative justices try to force it through with horribly tortured logic, it will effectively delegitimize the court (which the shadow docket rulings are already doing a ton of damage.) I'm actually surprised Gorsuch signed on to the order because he's typically not happy when laws are written this poorly.

    This is a hope for civil war. The nation can't hold together with one body being broadly viewed as illegitimate.

    You're almost eight months late to this party

    The GOP views the Executive as illegitimate already

    The left are starting to view SCOTUS as illegitimate.
    The right view the POTUS as illegitimate.
    Neither side respects Congress (they topped out at 35% earlier this year, but have been about 21% over the last fifteen).

    Yeah, it's not going to take much for the American Experiment to collapse.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Texas is sending another horrible case to SCOTUS

    Cheroke writer:

    Days after functionally banning abortion, Texas is asking #SCOTUS to strike down a 40 year old law that protects Native families in child welfare & adoption systems.

    So after Native ppl can’t access abortion in TX, it would be easier for the state to take their children.

    Vox has more details
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/2/20/21131387/indian-child-welfare-act-court-case-foster-care

    Two assholes adopt a kid:
    The foster couple ... were “self-conscious about their material success,” the New York Times reported, and told the paper that fostering a child was a way to “rectify their blessings.”
    The next year, the Brackeens were temporarily held back in their plans to adopt the boy, when, under the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Navajo tribe located a Native family unrelated to the boy to take him in. So the Brackeens filed a federal lawsuit. Last year, the Brackeens fought to obtain custody of the boy’s sister, whose Navajo extended family wanted to take her in.

    In court, they are now arguing the extended family isn't rich enough to care for the kid. And it all boils down to evangelicals being assholes as usual:
    “The core of their argument is that it’s an unfair racial preference and that we should have a colorblind system,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, told Vox. “What that misses is what’s a bedrock of federal Indian law in this country, which is that tribes are sovereign, not distinguished as a race but as a special political designation. That’s a critical underpinning of not just ICWA, but many laws that relate to housing and healthcare and education and employment. For that to be eroded by a successful attack on ICWA — that would have broad implications on all of these.”

    Kastelic said that ICWA has long been subject to lawsuits from two groups — those with the ultimate goal of eroding tribal sovereignty, and those in the adoption community who disdain the lengthier process that must be undertaken to adopt a Native child.

    “We’ve seen the rise of think tanks — Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato — that have a broader agenda about state rights and subverting or dismantling tribal sovereignty as part of their agenda,” Kastelic said. “And then there’s a religious agenda, a number of Christian organizations wanting access to Native children still with the premise of ‘saving Indians’ — that because of high rates of poverty or substance abuse or mental health challenges, that that still warrants them to take our children. They feel entitled to them.”

    Well that's incredibly fucking monstrous but, you know, Texas.

    But isn't this the same court that ruled in a pretty big win for Native Americans wrt to treaties actually having something resembling teeth?

    By no means a slam dunk but I'm sorta wondering if Texas may have bit off more than it can chew with this one.

  • cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Texas is sending another horrible case to SCOTUS

    Cheroke writer:

    Days after functionally banning abortion, Texas is asking #SCOTUS to strike down a 40 year old law that protects Native families in child welfare & adoption systems.

    So after Native ppl can’t access abortion in TX, it would be easier for the state to take their children.

    Vox has more details
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/2/20/21131387/indian-child-welfare-act-court-case-foster-care

    Two assholes adopt a kid:
    The foster couple ... were “self-conscious about their material success,” the New York Times reported, and told the paper that fostering a child was a way to “rectify their blessings.”
    The next year, the Brackeens were temporarily held back in their plans to adopt the boy, when, under the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Navajo tribe located a Native family unrelated to the boy to take him in. So the Brackeens filed a federal lawsuit. Last year, the Brackeens fought to obtain custody of the boy’s sister, whose Navajo extended family wanted to take her in.

    In court, they are now arguing the extended family isn't rich enough to care for the kid. And it all boils down to evangelicals being assholes as usual:
    “The core of their argument is that it’s an unfair racial preference and that we should have a colorblind system,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, told Vox. “What that misses is what’s a bedrock of federal Indian law in this country, which is that tribes are sovereign, not distinguished as a race but as a special political designation. That’s a critical underpinning of not just ICWA, but many laws that relate to housing and healthcare and education and employment. For that to be eroded by a successful attack on ICWA — that would have broad implications on all of these.”

    Kastelic said that ICWA has long been subject to lawsuits from two groups — those with the ultimate goal of eroding tribal sovereignty, and those in the adoption community who disdain the lengthier process that must be undertaken to adopt a Native child.

    “We’ve seen the rise of think tanks — Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato — that have a broader agenda about state rights and subverting or dismantling tribal sovereignty as part of their agenda,” Kastelic said. “And then there’s a religious agenda, a number of Christian organizations wanting access to Native children still with the premise of ‘saving Indians’ — that because of high rates of poverty or substance abuse or mental health challenges, that that still warrants them to take our children. They feel entitled to them.”

    Well that's incredibly fucking monstrous but, you know, Texas.

    But isn't this the same court that ruled in a pretty big win for Native Americans wrt to treaties actually having something resembling teeth?

    By no means a slam dunk but I'm sorta wondering if Texas may have bit off more than it can chew with this one.

    Gorsuch is better than most when it comes to Indian issues. But the Oklahoma case you're referring to came in July 2020, before there was a 6-3 conservative majority. It doesn't matter if he joins with the liberals anymore.

    cckerberos.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Rebecca Nagle's This Land podcast is going into ICWA now and it's fantastic and heart wrenching and disappointing in all the ways. I can't recommend her work enough.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Texas is sending another horrible case to SCOTUS

    Cheroke writer:

    Days after functionally banning abortion, Texas is asking #SCOTUS to strike down a 40 year old law that protects Native families in child welfare & adoption systems.

    So after Native ppl can’t access abortion in TX, it would be easier for the state to take their children.

    Vox has more details
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/2/20/21131387/indian-child-welfare-act-court-case-foster-care

    Two assholes adopt a kid:
    The foster couple ... were “self-conscious about their material success,” the New York Times reported, and told the paper that fostering a child was a way to “rectify their blessings.”
    The next year, the Brackeens were temporarily held back in their plans to adopt the boy, when, under the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Navajo tribe located a Native family unrelated to the boy to take him in. So the Brackeens filed a federal lawsuit. Last year, the Brackeens fought to obtain custody of the boy’s sister, whose Navajo extended family wanted to take her in.

    In court, they are now arguing the extended family isn't rich enough to care for the kid. And it all boils down to evangelicals being assholes as usual:
    “The core of their argument is that it’s an unfair racial preference and that we should have a colorblind system,” Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, told Vox. “What that misses is what’s a bedrock of federal Indian law in this country, which is that tribes are sovereign, not distinguished as a race but as a special political designation. That’s a critical underpinning of not just ICWA, but many laws that relate to housing and healthcare and education and employment. For that to be eroded by a successful attack on ICWA — that would have broad implications on all of these.”

    Kastelic said that ICWA has long been subject to lawsuits from two groups — those with the ultimate goal of eroding tribal sovereignty, and those in the adoption community who disdain the lengthier process that must be undertaken to adopt a Native child.

    “We’ve seen the rise of think tanks — Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato — that have a broader agenda about state rights and subverting or dismantling tribal sovereignty as part of their agenda,” Kastelic said. “And then there’s a religious agenda, a number of Christian organizations wanting access to Native children still with the premise of ‘saving Indians’ — that because of high rates of poverty or substance abuse or mental health challenges, that that still warrants them to take our children. They feel entitled to them.”

    Well that's incredibly fucking monstrous but, you know, Texas.

    But isn't this the same court that ruled in a pretty big win for Native Americans wrt to treaties actually having something resembling teeth?

    By no means a slam dunk but I'm sorta wondering if Texas may have bit off more than it can chew with this one.

    Gorsuch is better than most when it comes to Indian issues. But the Oklahoma case you're referring to came in July 2020, before there was a 6-3 conservative majority. It doesn't matter if he joins with the liberals anymore.

    Agreed, Gorsuch is actually great on Native American issues but yeah, you need Roberts too. That's a lot more iffy.

    spool32 on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Unless Roberts looks at the crazy train chugging along and decides he wants to get off. Which I don't think is super likely. I don't think he wants to go over the cliff like they just did but he sure does want to be right at the cliff edge...

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited September 2021
    Gorsuch cast a historic vote in one case, but purely because he thought the text of a specific law could only reasonably be interpreted in one specific way.

    It's premature to conclude that, in general, he's going to vote well when Native American law comes up.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Gorsuch cast a historic vote in one case, but purely because he thought the text of a specific law could only reasonably be interpreted in one specific way.

    It's premature to conclude that, in general, he's going to vote well when Native American law comes up.

    There was at least one other case where he was on the opposite of the expected that involved Native American law. This appears to be an area where he has actual beliefs that aren't in line with the conservative orthodoxy.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Gorsuch cast a historic vote in one case, but purely because he thought the text of a specific law could only reasonably be interpreted in one specific way.

    It's premature to conclude that, in general, he's going to vote well when Native American law comes up.

    There was at least one other case where he was on the opposite of the expected that involved Native American law. This appears to be an area where he has actual beliefs that aren't in line with the conservative orthodoxy.

    I hadn't heard of Herrera. I still think that's a short record to be drawing strong conclusions from, but it is interesting.

    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    guilty until proven innocent is a perfectly fine metric for a justice sitting in a stolen seat as far as i'm concerned

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    guilty until proven innocent is a perfectly fine metric for a justice sitting in a stolen seat as far as i'm concerned

    He's a Republican-appointed Federalist-Society-vetted SCOTUS justice. Any metric by which he isn't a huge piece of shit needs to come with a ton of evidence because he's been deliberately selected by a long and very competitive process to be one.

This discussion has been closed.