Fogbow

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to resolve a dispute over the legality of decades-old federal requirements that give Native American families priority to adopt Native American children in a challenge pursued by a group of non-Native adoptive families and the state of Texas.

The justices will review lower court decisions that declared several key parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 unconstitutional. President Joe Biden's administration and several Native American tribes are defending the law, which aims to reinforce tribal connections by placing Native American children with relatives or within their communities.

The U.S. Congress passed the 1978 law in response to concern over child welfare practices that had resulted in the separation of large numbers of Native American children from their families through adoption or foster placement, usually in non-Native American homes. Tribes and Native American advocacy groups have maintained that the child welfare law helps preserve their culture and family connections.

The law set federal standards for removing children from their families and placing them for foster care or adoption, including requiring that "preference" be given to members of a child's extended family, other tribe members or "other Indian families."

neeneko wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 4:39 pm Damn. What a mean spirited hill to die on. With an adoption system overburdened with children needing homes, they are bothering to complain that there is a tiny number that they do not have preferential access to?

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 1:50 pm I mean, can't the Native American adoption agencies legally discriminate on faith-based grounds in Texas now? "I'm sorry, but we don't serve families who aren't enrolled actively in a recognized Native American church." I know we don't want ANYONE to discriminate that way, but sauce, goose, gander.

After college, Carlson tried to join the Central Intelligence Agency, but his application was denied, after which he decided to pursue a career in journalism with the encouragement of his father, who advised him that "they'll take anybody."

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:50 pm I won't say it, but you can't stop me from thinking it.

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:43 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:50 pm I won't say it, but you can't stop me from thinking it.

I 2nd that

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was admitted to Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, DC, on Friday evening "after experiencing flu-like symptoms," the court's public information office said Sunday evening, but he does not have Covid-19.

"It is not COVID related. The Justice does not have COVID," a spokesperson for the Supreme Court said.

* * *

Thomas' hospitalization comes as the justices, all of whom are vaccinated and boosted against Covid-19, are expected to take the bench Monday morning for arguments. Thomas will not participate remotely in oral arguments over the telephone Monday, according to the Supreme Court spokesperson. After years of near total silence from the bench, Thomas now regularly asks the first questions at oral arguments.

Blackburn: Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate CRT into our legal system?

At first blush, the fact that Sen. Marsha Blackburn released a video statement over the weekend, criticizing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, may not seem interesting. After all, the Tennessee Republican has earned a reputation as one of the Senate’s most reflexive far-right partisans. The idea that Blackburn would even consider supporting a Supreme Court nominee from President Joe Biden is difficult to take seriously.

With this in mind, much of the GOP senator’s statement was forgettable, including Blackburn’s claim that she was “shocked” when Jackson said in writing that she doesn’t have a judicial philosophy, per se. But in the same video, the Tennessean, reading carefully from a teleprompter, eventually said something genuinely interesting:

“Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut, Kelo v. City of New London, and NFIB v. Sebelius confuse Tennesseans and leave Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.”

The rhetoric came less than a month after Republican candidates for state attorney general in Michigan also denounced the Griswold v. Connecticut precedent.

Circling back to our earlier coverage, Griswold was a landmark case in modern American history. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples’ access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans’ right to privacy.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:12 pm They're really trying to relitigate same sex marriage...

Aaron Rupar @atrupar wrote: the thing you have to remember as you watch Republicans have performative tantrums during Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing is that they're trying to craft perfect 20-second clips of owning libs for Fox News. it all makes so much more sense when you keep this in mind.