Native Americans...

[raison de arizona]

It's hard to overstate how bad this decision is for indigenous peoples. Oklahoma straight up made shit up, and . SCOTUS is off it wheels. Or whatever the saying is. It's totally rogue.

When it comes to tribal sovereignty the Supreme Court is repeatedly more wedded to the expectations of white Americans than our constitution, federal law, or even the truth.

If you want to understand how the Supreme Court rules on politics rather than the law look no further than the arena of Federal Indian Law.

Today #SCOTUS changed who has criminal jurisdiction on over 300 reservations not based on precedent or even the facts on the ground…

But based on #Oklahoma’s exaggerated & demonstrably false claims about the impact of #McGirt.

Our reporting found OK’s claims in #Castro were incorrect & likely fabricated. But it didn’t matter.

[raison de arizona]

A good argument to return all lands to the indigenous peoples.
https://twitter.com/LakotaMan1/status/1 ... 8424150017

Setup abortion clinics on Indian reservations. Whereas, sovereign nations, Supreme Court decisions, like overturning Roe V Wade — DO NOT APPLY.

Not likely and not a really viable solution, even if they wanted to, which is a big if.

https://khn.org/news/article/native-ame ... ibal-land/

Here's a thought I ran across on that. I tend to think there was a lot more to this decision than just this, and definitely wasn't decided on so-called justice on a reservation, but a ruling that the state can prosecute crimes on sovereign reservations does raise the question.

Given the timing of its release, one must wonder if today’s 5-4 #SCOTUS ruling in #Oklahoma v. #Castro_Huerta was decided mostly for concern over justice in #IndianCountry, or rather as a hedge against tribal governments allowing #abortions to be performed in their territories.

[raison de arizona]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, Gorsuch really takes issue with this ruling. I'm not a fan of his, but in this case I'll make an exception. The dissent begins at page 29 of this PDF (before that is Kavanaugh, fuck what he says.) Gorsuch minces no words. Also, the highlighted portion could be applied TO EVERY RULING this court has been making.

Today the Court rules for Oklahoma. In doing so, the
Court announces that, when it comes to crimes by non-Indians against tribal members within tribal reservations,
Oklahoma may “exercise jurisdiction.” Ante, at 4. But this
declaration comes as if by oracle, without any sense of the
history recounted above and unattached to any colorable legal authority. Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken
statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom.
The source of the Court’s error is foundational. Through
most of its opinion, the Court proceeds on the premise that
Oklahoma possesses “inherent” sovereign power to prosecute crimes on tribal reservations until and unless Congress “preempt[ s ]” that authority. Ante, at 5–18. The Court
emphasizes that States normally wield broad police powers
within their borders absent some preemptive federal law.
See ante, at 4–6; see also Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren,
587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (lead opinion) (slip op., at 12).
But the effort to wedge Tribes into that paradigm is a category error. Tribes are not private organizations within
state boundaries. Their reservations are not glorified private campgrounds. Tribes are sovereigns. And the preemption rule applicable to them is exactly the opposite of the
normal rule. Tribal sovereignty means that the criminal
laws of the States “can have no force” on tribal members
within tribal bounds unless and until Congress clearly ordains otherwise. Worcester, 6 Pet., at 561. After all, the
power to punish crimes by or against one’s own citizens
within one’s own territory to the exclusion of other authorities is and has always been among the most essential attributes of sovereignty. See, e.g., Wilson v. Girard, 354
U. S. 524, 529 (1957) (per curiam) (“A sovereign nation has
exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws
committed within its borders”); see also Schooner Exchange
v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 136 (1812); E. de Vattel, Law
of Nations 81–82 (1835 ed.).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_8o6a.pdf

[raison de arizona]

Steven Crowder praises the Supreme Court's decision against Native Americans: “You're a conquered people”
https://mediamatters.org/steven-crowder ... cans-youre