Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TigerBasket t1_ivg5lu9 wrote

I'm confident the Supreme Court will make the worst decision possible on this case

219

Robbotlove t1_ivg6pz1 wrote

depends. if your goal is to hurt people as much as possible then it'd be the best decision possible.

56

mohammedibnakar t1_ivgh4q5 wrote

Gorsuch has historically sided with the liberal wing of the court on matters related to Native Americans so I could actually see this going either way.

29

214ObstructedReverie t1_ivgiyo7 wrote

It'll be 5-4 in favor of whatever fucks over Native Americans.

They trashed McGirt immediately after they got to replace RBG with the crazy cult lady.

64

chiseledarrow t1_ivglq6x wrote

McGirt didn't hurt the tribes though. It strengthened the argument that Congress and the states have to abide by treaties and agreements signed ages ago.

22

214ObstructedReverie t1_ivgnkmm wrote

Right, because we had five justices that agreed, the four liberals plus Gorsuch.

Now, we're down to three liberals plus Gorsuch, and as a result, we get rulings like Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.

24

greeneggzN t1_ivi3ws0 wrote

They’re referencing Castro v Huerta in which the ignored precedence, including certain aspects of McGirt, to dial back tribal sovereignty in their own territories. Gorsuch wrote the dissent on that one and was not very happy.

11

artfulorpheus t1_ivig6gr wrote

"Not happy" might be an understatement. He saw McGirt as a career defining achievement and seeing it overturned by his peers made him furious. Not enough to, you know, actuallydo anything but enough to write one of the most angry dissents put to pen. Thing about Gorsuch is that he's actually drank the Federalist Society kool-aid and thinks he is impartial and in an impartial system, unlike Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and beer boy.

12

lawbotamized t1_ivgmxcl wrote

Gorsuch has been more pro-tribe than the liberal wing of the court historically has been.

16

1LizardWizard t1_ivhdvh2 wrote

Probably gonna pull some shit like with Roe and say that there is no historical precedent for giving native Americans welfare and therefore it is unconstitutional….

6

WyrdHarper t1_ivig7ci wrote

Oh there is. Not that it makes much of a difference.

There’s Cherokee Nation vs Georgia (1831) and Worcester vs Georgia (1832) where the supreme court ruled that the government could not forcibly evict 15000 or so people whose families had been living in “Georgia” for generations. Andrew Jackson then proceeded to ignore that and thus started the trail of tears.

Honestly at this point it wouldn’t surprise me if they decided to overrule the 1879 ruling that First Americans were “persons”

6

greeneggzN t1_ivi46kh wrote

The thing is that ICWA is not preferential treatment based on race, it’s about nation to nation agreements and special political/citizen status of tribal members that allows laws and policies like ICWA to exist. If ICWA is struck down it will likely have a domino affect in the realm of Indian law

4

Art-Zuron t1_ivhkfc8 wrote

Well, they're not wrong really... sadly. (welfare as in respect and care and not genociding them)

3

1LizardWizard t1_ivhmt9w wrote

Hah. Gosh I didn’t even think about that wordplay. Rather macabre…

1

PacmanIncarnate t1_ivkd0vn wrote

“Supreme Court today decided the case by stating that the child in question should be euthanized for the good of the foster parents and Native American population. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion appears to rely heavily on 19th century writings on Manifest Destiny, as well as, inexplicably, a full 3 pages on ‘what Columbus should have done’. The Federalist Society has issued a statement condemning the ruling as ‘too lenient’, saying it leaves it too ambiguous as to whether or not all Native Americans should be euthanized.”

6