chiseledarrow t1_ivglq6x wrote
Reply to comment by 214ObstructedReverie in Native child welfare law faces major Supreme Court challenge by Banemorth
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.
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.
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments