justice Breyer citing "Felix Cohen" as an official interpretation of state/tribal jurisdiction w/o specifying any particular section of his 1000-page handbook is a very "i didnt do the reading but..." move
-
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
justice Alito asking the Creek attorney whether the state would have jurisdiction in a series of hypothetical situations... attorney had to break it to him that the "Court's precedent on that has been a little unclear" LOL give this man an award for understatements
Näytä tämä ketju -
love to hear Supreme Court justices learning about Indian law on the fly! like is this court Supreme bc it's knowledgeable? bc it's authoritative? or is it more of a "crunchwrap supreme" situation where it just has a bit more lettuce and some fun toppings??
Näytä tämä ketju -
Kavanaugh keeps trying to go back to 1890 to suggest that the US intended to remove tribal authority at the time bc of how many white people would have been subject to jurisdiction. 1901 statues and Court ruling in Hitchcock clearly show he is wrong about this.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Creek Nation attorney smashed his argument and provided historical/statutory evidence for continuing tribal sovereignty in under 60 seconds. Kavanaugh can take his rancid Jacksonian interpretations home.pic.twitter.com/5TPVlIzRVJ
Näytä tämä ketju -
justice ginsburg is playing devil's advocate so hard she might actually be working for the devil, can't wait to find out! she's asking leading questions @ the defense, referencing Oklahoma laws regarding racial non-discrimination as reason for abolishing tribal sovereignty.
Näytä tämä ketju -
OK Solicitor General trying to equate tribal sovereignty with Plessy-era 'separate but equal' in order to claim state's have authority over all land... "with the reservation, you're creating two separate societies that Congress had tried to abolish." wow.pic.twitter.com/gL0REahM8Q
Näytä tämä ketju -
OK Solicitor General is making the most insane attempts to counter Justice Kagan's well-founded clarification that possessing fee-simple land does not undo reservation status.
Näytä tämä ketju -
defense relying on the argument that a tribe "agreeing to divest itself of resources" ie land (under military threat, via typically fraudulent procedures, with little recourse to any semblance of justice at the time) should be interpreted as a permanent divestment of sovereignty.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Kavanaugh is saying AGAIN that Congress was "in a difficult position" in 1890 bc of # of white ppl in Indian Territory. Kavanaugh, like many racists, assumes that Tribal jurisdiction is an inherent threat to white people.pic.twitter.com/IqlDRBqP5c
Näytä tämä ketju -
US Dep. Solicitor General arguing that OK state law providing for equal treatment regardless of race in the 1890s somehow means that Creek Nation was no longer considered sovereign. Another ahistorical argument that racial equality is incompatible w/ Tribal Sovereignty.pic.twitter.com/VsdNKeDYKx
Näytä tämä ketju -
US Solicitor now arguing that the Dawes (General Allotment) Act meant that "Congress was preparing to substitute the state for the [Indian] Territory" and therefore allotment should be considered as extinguishing sovereignty, equivalent to complete cession of land. Wrong!!
Näytä tämä ketju -
Justice Breyer asks what it would mean to overturn Solem v. Bartlett. "I don't know the history of every tribe in the United States...and I'm not sure that you do." Suggests a "parade of horribles" would follow a decision overturning tribal sovereignty in OK.pic.twitter.com/KVeGbZX23G
Näytä tämä ketju -
ahh cool now the US Solicitor Gen. argues that we can't consider (settler) state officials as acting in bad faith in 1890. an insane argument for what theyve already conceded was a period when the US was usurping tribal sovereignty "in preparation for statehood."
Näytä tämä ketju -
Justice Gorsuch asked a good question, noted that the defense is relying on assumptions about demographics before OK statehood rather than actual texts of law. US Solic. Gen. rebuts that "general public understanding" was statehood required extinguishing tribal sovereignty.
Näytä tämä ketju -
throughout, the justices continue to assume that Native sovereignty and statehood are fundamentally opposed. Angela Riley and Maggie Blackhawk have recently made legal arguments to the contrary. i expect the justices haven't been keeping up w/ the Harvard Law Review.
Näytä tämä ketju -
our fave coming back strong, noting that "the arguments [re: racial equality language] the SG and the state of OK are making were made up for today," are NOT from the 1890 OK statutes in question, so cannot be used to argue tribal sovereignty was extinguished via statehood!pic.twitter.com/xbrGRA1CgO
Näytä tämä ketju -
tl; dr - no one on the Supreme Court ever took a course in Indian law taught by an Indian lawyer, and they've never made it through a Charles Wilkins, Robert Williams Jr, or Walter EchoHawk book, much less any recent law review essay on Native sovereignty. good to know!
Näytä tämä ketju -
also, keep your eyes out for Turtle Mountain historian and tribal justice Dr. Keith Richotte Jr.'s forthcoming Indian Law Textbook!! thank god
Näytä tämä ketju -
ask your library to purchase a copy, mail one to your least favorite Supreme Court justice, and definitely read it yourself: http://store.westacademic.com/s.nl?it=A&id=316495 …pic.twitter.com/161ImdQH1V
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.


