Supreme Court takes up challenge to Indian Welfare Act

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-takes-dispute-native-american-adoption-law-rcna17948

The 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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

[Sol]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

Ok, I suppose you want to destroy native cultures no?

[brucejoel99]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

lol imagine so clearly not even knowing what ICWA actually is

[lfromnj]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

Ok, I suppose you want to destroy native cultures no?

Protecting Native Culture doesn't mean overriding the desire of the biological parents to place their child in a home they feel will be safe for them.

County, which up to this point had supported the Cliffords’ intention to adopt Child P., abruptly
reversed course and insisted that ICWA compelled them to take Child P. from the Cliffords and
place her in foster care. App. 38. The state court declined to rule on their motion and instead
ordered the County to remove Child P. from the Cliffords—the only stable home she has ever
known—and formally

Baby O. was born in Nevada in March 2016 to Plaintiff Altagracia Hernandez and E.R.G.,
an unmarried couple. App. 72. While pregnant with Baby O., Ms. Hernandez decided that she
would not be able to provide the support that Baby O. would need to thrive and made the difficult
decision to put Baby O. up for adoption at her birth. A

Baby O.’s biological father, E.R.G., is descended from members of the Ysleta del sur
Pueblo Tribe, located in El Paso, Texas. At the time of Baby O.’s birth, E.R.G. was not a registered
member of the Tribe, App. 73, but E.R.G.’s mother is a registered member of the Ysleta del sur
Pueblo Tribe. App. 69. The Tribe has intervened in the court proceedings regarding custody of
Baby O. Contrary to the wishes of Ms. Hernandez, the County removed Baby O. from the Librettis
and placed her with a different foster family when Baby O. was only three months old. App. 68–
69. Baby O. failed to thrive in her new placement. Id. After two weeks of heated negotiations,
the County agreed to return Baby O. to the Librettis, where she has remained. Id.
In its effort to justify Baby O.’s removal, the Tribe repeatedly brought forward potential
foster placements. App. 69. Because of the Final Rule’s “diligent search” requirements, Nevada
cannot simply conduct its normal review of potential alternate placements before concluding that
adoption by the Librettis is in Baby O.’s best interests. Instead, the State must conduct full reviews
of any placement that the Tribe deems more culturally suitable than allowing Baby O. to remain
with the only family she has ever known. The Librettis cannot petition to adopt Baby O. until this
“diligent search” is complete. In its efforts to prevent Baby O.’s adoption by the Librettis, the
Ysleta del sur Pueblo Tribe has identified more than 40 placements. Id. Nevada conducted several
home studies of individuals designated by the Tribe, but each potential placement either withdrew
from consideration or was found unsuitable in light of Baby O.’s substantial medical needs. Id.

Literal insanity.

Biological mother wishes to give her daughter away but still maintains a close relation but instead the goal is to somehow decide this baby needs saving from colonizers.

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/80-indv_mtdandsj.pdf

The Legal argument is a bit more shaky because technically speaking Native Tribes aren't a race, I assume some tribes have and do adopt non Native Americans into their tribes.

[brucejoel99]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

Ok, I suppose you want to destroy native cultures no?

Protecting Native Culture doesn't mean overriding the desire of the biological parents to place their child in a home they feel will be safe for them.

County, which up to this point had supported the Cliffords’ intention to adopt Child P., abruptly
reversed course and insisted that ICWA compelled them to take Child P. from the Cliffords and
place her in foster care. App. 38. The state court declined to rule on their motion and instead
ordered the County to remove Child P. from the Cliffords—the only stable home she has ever
known—and formally

Baby O. was born in Nevada in March 2016 to Plaintiff Altagracia Hernandez and E.R.G.,
an unmarried couple. App. 72. While pregnant with Baby O., Ms. Hernandez decided that she
would not be able to provide the support that Baby O. would need to thrive and made the difficult
decision to put Baby O. up for adoption at her birth. A

Baby O.’s biological father, E.R.G., is descended from members of the Ysleta del sur
Pueblo Tribe, located in El Paso, Texas. At the time of Baby O.’s birth, E.R.G. was not a registered
member of the Tribe, App. 73, but E.R.G.’s mother is a registered member of the Ysleta del sur
Pueblo Tribe. App. 69. The Tribe has intervened in the court proceedings regarding custody of
Baby O. Contrary to the wishes of Ms. Hernandez, the County removed Baby O. from the Librettis
and placed her with a different foster family when Baby O. was only three months old. App. 68–
69. Baby O. failed to thrive in her new placement. Id. After two weeks of heated negotiations,
the County agreed to return Baby O. to the Librettis, where she has remained. Id.
In its effort to justify Baby O.’s removal, the Tribe repeatedly brought forward potential
foster placements. App. 69. Because of the Final Rule’s “diligent search” requirements, Nevada
cannot simply conduct its normal review of potential alternate placements before concluding that
adoption by the Librettis is in Baby O.’s best interests. Instead, the State must conduct full reviews
of any placement that the Tribe deems more culturally suitable than allowing Baby O. to remain
with the only family she has ever known. The Librettis cannot petition to adopt Baby O. until this
“diligent search” is complete. In its efforts to prevent Baby O.’s adoption by the Librettis, the
Ysleta del sur Pueblo Tribe has identified more than 40 placements. Id. Nevada conducted several
home studies of individuals designated by the Tribe, but each potential placement either withdrew
from consideration or was found unsuitable in light of Baby O.’s substantial medical needs. Id.

Literal insanity.

Biological mother wishes to give her daughter away but still maintains a close relation but instead the goal is to somehow decide this baby needs saving from colonizers.

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/80-indv_mtdandsj.pdf

The Legal argument is a bit more shaky because technically speaking Native Tribes aren't a race, I assume some tribes have and do adopt non Native Americans into their tribes.

The easiest fix is that there could clearly just be an exception for the preferences of biological parents written into the law.

As for the bolded, that's exactly what I was referring to in clapping-back against Mr. Reactionary's assertion that ICWA constitutes "government sponsored racism," lol.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

lol imagine so clearly not even knowing what ICWA actually is

Ive written a journal article on the ICWA in the past and its totally racist. As written it literally treats "Indians" as interchangeable regardless of tribe or location. Its absurd. Look at the tiering of potential adoptive patents. If a Cherokee baby in NC is up for adoption the idiotic racist law says a Navajo in Arizona or a Tlingit in Washington State or a Menominee in Wisconsin get priority over say a black applicant also in NC. Look it up. The racist law considers a parent in any indian tribe as being preferential as adoptive parents to parents of a different skin color, even though Indian tribes are in many cases extremely different. The goal of ICWA was purportedly to stop babies from a tribe from being skimmed off through adoption dooming that tribal culture, but the solution was just to say any Indian in any Indian tribe gets preference over any indian adoption regardless of what tribe that baby may be affiliated with. That is extremely racist and segregationist. The Blackfeet are not the Lakota, the Nez Perce are not the Hopi, the Seminole are not the Apache. The stupid idea that a NC Cherokee baby would automatically and always be better off being adopted by a Navajo in AZ rather than a black local in NC is not at all in the best interest of the child.

But yeah, I know the progressive racists in this thread would rather adoptive babies be segregated by race than go to a better home that happens to have family members who look different than the baby. Such progressive compassion there. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. Im guessing yall support the stupid Duro fix law too.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The easiest fix is that there could clearly just be an exception for the preferences of biological parents written into the law.

As for the bolded, that's exactly what I was referring to in clapping-back against Mr. Reactionary's assertion that ICWA constitutes "government sponsored racism," lol.

25 U.S. Code § 1915 - Placement of Indian children

(a)Adoptive placements; preferences

In any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.

The tiering preferences for adoption as laid out in federal law:

1. Family

2. Fellow Tribe Member

3. Literally any Indian anywhere regardless of tribal affiliation or geography. This literally treats Indians as interchangeable and prioritizes race. Its disgusting.

[lfromnj]

Yeah section 3 clearly should be struck down. Section 2 probably should stand but be weakened to include preferences of child's biological parents although that should probably be done by law.

[brucejoel99]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

lol imagine so clearly not even knowing what ICWA actually is

Ive written a journal article on the ICWA in the past and its totally racist. As written it literally treats "Indians" as interchangeable regardless of tribe or location. Its absurd. Look at the tiering of potential adoptive patents. If a Cherokee baby in NC is up for adoption the idiotic racist law says a Navajo in Arizona or a Tlingit in Washington State or a Menominee in Wisconsin get priority over say a black applicant also in NC. Look it up. The racist law considers a parent in any indian tribe as being preferential as adoptive parents to parents of a different skin color, even though Indian tribes are in many cases extremely different. The goal of ICWA was purportedly to stop babies from a tribe from being skimmed off through adoption dooming that tribal culture, but the solution was just to say any Indian in any Indian tribe gets preference over any indian adoption regardless of what tribe that baby may be affiliated with. That is extremely racist and segregationist. The Blackfeet are not the Lakota, the Nez Perce are not the Hopi, the Seminole are not the Apache. The stupid idea that a NC Cherokee baby would automatically and always be better off being adopted by a Navajo in AZ rather than a black local in NC is not at all in the best interest of the child.

But yeah, I know the progressive racists in this thread would rather adoptive babies be segregated by race than go to a better home that happens to have family members who look different than the baby. Such progressive compassion there. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. Im guessing yall support the stupid Duro fix law too.

Ok, then "imagine writing a journal article on ICWA but still not grasping that Natives aren't a race, lol." Because, really, you're telling me that you know enough about ICWA to write a literal journal article about it, but not enough to know that it literally only involves "race" insofar as the federal government historically imposed racist blood-quantum requirements on Tribes so that Tribal citizenship - legally a political, & not a racial status (see: Morton v. Mancari, where the Court literally held unanimously that tribal preferences are political, rather than racial in nature) - could be tracked by pedigree, with the initial eventual goal thereof being to eventually all-but-breed the Natives out of existence? C'mon, the federal government acted for more than a century as if Tribal citizenship hinges on "race" despite Tribes legally being supposed to have the legal right to decide their own citizenship requirements for their own citizens. So, if anything, the federal government's initial activities as they related to all of this were "government-sponsored racism," with ICWA being the freakin' correction: by giving a Native infant's family, & then other families within their Tribe, &, if further still necessary, then Native Tribal cultures first dibs on adoption over the descendants of, yes, literal colonizers, you grant Tribes the opportunity to invoke their God-given, constitutionally-protected, & treaty-pursuant rights to preserve Native culture, aka the opposite of racism.

Now, if you still wanna claim that ICWA is race-based after (re-?)learning all of that, then that's you're prerogative, but you'll just be blatantly sticking your head in the sand in order to feign ignorance of Natives not being a "race" & this lawsuit actually representing nothing more than the latest attack on Tribal sovereignty. Yes, at the end of the day, this case isn't about race, nor is it about adoption rights; ultimately, as made evident by the clear judicial conservative interest (see: OK) in what's happened to be presented by this case, it's about helping to eliminate the power of distinct Tribal governments by attempting to have their legally-protected right to oversee adoption processes involving Tribal citizens struck down.

And yes, you're goddamn right that the Duro fix was necessary & proper. You may be the first soft-on-crime conservative I've ever (had the displeasure of) me(e)t(ing... well, other than maybe Roger Stone, I guess, but whether a "libertarian Nixonian-Trumpist" or whatever it is that he's describing himself as today qualifies as a "conservative" is another matter).

The easiest fix is that there could clearly just be an exception for the preferences of biological parents written into the law.

As for the bolded, that's exactly what I was referring to in clapping-back against Mr. Reactionary's assertion that ICWA constitutes "government sponsored racism," lol.

25 U.S. Code § 1915 - Placement of Indian children

(a)Adoptive placements; preferences

In any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.

The tiering preferences for adoption as laid out in federal law:

1. Family

2. Fellow Tribe Member

3. Literally any Indian anywhere regardless of tribal affiliation or geography. This literally treats Indians as interchangeable and prioritizes race. Its disgusting.

You're either misunderstanding me or misapplying the law: this ICWA case that's gonna be heard by the Court is about what happens when Tribal citizens wanna prevent their Tribes from overriding their decision to have non-Tribal citizens adopt their children. None of those 3 points equate to "an exception for the preferences of biological parents" in the law, as none of those 3 points would provide for the preferences of the biological parents to be followed in the event that their preferences are non-Tribal citizens, & what I was saying to lfromnj is that the easiest (normative, not necessarily political) fix to that conundrum would've just been to have Congress amend ICWA to write the previously aforementioned general exception for the preferences of biological parents into the law as the primary factor, to be ranked above family, Tribal citizens, & the Native community, as opposed to the alternative that's presently playing out before us: a case of group rights conflicting with individual rights, being bolstered by conservatives wholly intent on nuking Tribal sovereign rights.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

lol imagine so clearly not even knowing what ICWA actually is

Ive written a journal article on the ICWA in the past and its totally racist. As written it literally treats "Indians" as interchangeable regardless of tribe or location. Its absurd. Look at the tiering of potential adoptive patents. If a Cherokee baby in NC is up for adoption the idiotic racist law says a Navajo in Arizona or a Tlingit in Washington State or a Menominee in Wisconsin get priority over say a black applicant also in NC. Look it up. The racist law considers a parent in any indian tribe as being preferential as adoptive parents to parents of a different skin color, even though Indian tribes are in many cases extremely different. The goal of ICWA was purportedly to stop babies from a tribe from being skimmed off through adoption dooming that tribal culture, but the solution was just to say any Indian in any Indian tribe gets preference over any indian adoption regardless of what tribe that baby may be affiliated with. That is extremely racist and segregationist. The Blackfeet are not the Lakota, the Nez Perce are not the Hopi, the Seminole are not the Apache. The stupid idea that a NC Cherokee baby would automatically and always be better off being adopted by a Navajo in AZ rather than a black local in NC is not at all in the best interest of the child.

But yeah, I know the progressive racists in this thread would rather adoptive babies be segregated by race than go to a better home that happens to have family members who look different than the baby. Such progressive compassion there. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. Im guessing yall support the stupid Duro fix law too.

I had to look up Duro. Can't say I support that decision but it wasn't very ideological, the only two dissents were from Souter and Scalia.

As for this law it doesn't sound well designed if what you say is true so I'm only really curious in how Gorsuch will rule.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

lol imagine so clearly not even knowing what ICWA actually is

Ive written a journal article on the ICWA in the past and its totally racist. As written it literally treats "Indians" as interchangeable regardless of tribe or location. Its absurd. Look at the tiering of potential adoptive patents. If a Cherokee baby in NC is up for adoption the idiotic racist law says a Navajo in Arizona or a Tlingit in Washington State or a Menominee in Wisconsin get priority over say a black applicant also in NC. Look it up. The racist law considers a parent in any indian tribe as being preferential as adoptive parents to parents of a different skin color, even though Indian tribes are in many cases extremely different. The goal of ICWA was purportedly to stop babies from a tribe from being skimmed off through adoption dooming that tribal culture, but the solution was just to say any Indian in any Indian tribe gets preference over any indian adoption regardless of what tribe that baby may be affiliated with. That is extremely racist and segregationist. The Blackfeet are not the Lakota, the Nez Perce are not the Hopi, the Seminole are not the Apache. The stupid idea that a NC Cherokee baby would automatically and always be better off being adopted by a Navajo in AZ rather than a black local in NC is not at all in the best interest of the child.

But yeah, I know the progressive racists in this thread would rather adoptive babies be segregated by race than go to a better home that happens to have family members who look different than the baby. Such progressive compassion there. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. Im guessing yall support the stupid Duro fix law too.

Ok, then "imagine writing a journal article on ICWA but still not grasping that Natives aren't a race, lol." Because, really, you're telling me that you know enough about ICWA to write a literal journal article about it, but not enough to know that it literally only involves "race" insofar as the federal government historically imposed racist blood-quantum requirements on Tribes so that Tribal citizenship - legally a political, & not a racial status (see: Morton v. Mancari, where the Court literally held unanimously that tribal preferences are political, rather than racial in nature) - could be tracked by pedigree, with the initial eventual goal thereof being to eventually all-but-breed the Natives out of existence? C'mon, the federal government acted for more than a century as if Tribal citizenship hinges on "race" despite Tribes legally being supposed to have the legal right to decide their own citizenship requirements for their own citizens. So, if anything, the federal government's initial activities as they related to all of this were "government-sponsored racism," with ICWA being the freakin' correction: by giving a Native infant's family, & then other families within their Tribe, &, if further still necessary, then Native Tribal cultures first dibs on adoption over the descendants of, yes, literal colonizers, you grant Tribes the opportunity to invoke their God-given, constitutionally-protected, & treaty-pursuant rights to preserve Native culture, aka the opposite of racism.

Now, if you still wanna claim that ICWA is race-based after (re-?)learning all of that, then that's you're prerogative, but you'll just be blatantly sticking your head in the sand in order to feign ignorance of Natives not being a "race" & this lawsuit actually representing nothing more than the latest attack on Tribal sovereignty. Yes, at the end of the day, this case isn't about race, nor is it about adoption rights; ultimately, as made evident by the clear judicial conservative interest (see: OK) in what's happened to be presented by this case, it's about helping to eliminate the power of distinct Tribal governments by attempting to have their legally-protected right to oversee adoption processes involving Tribal citizens struck down.

And yes, you're goddamn right that the Duro fix was necessary & proper. You may be the first soft-on-crime conservative I've ever (had the displeasure of) me(e)t(ing... well, other than maybe Roger Stone, I guess, but whether a "libertarian Nixonian-Trumpist" or whatever it is that he's describing himself as today qualifies as a "conservative" is another matter).

The easiest fix is that there could clearly just be an exception for the preferences of biological parents written into the law.

As for the bolded, that's exactly what I was referring to in clapping-back against Mr. Reactionary's assertion that ICWA constitutes "government sponsored racism," lol.

25 U.S. Code § 1915 - Placement of Indian children

(a)Adoptive placements; preferences

In any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.

The tiering preferences for adoption as laid out in federal law:

1. Family

2. Fellow Tribe Member

3. Literally any Indian anywhere regardless of tribal affiliation or geography. This literally treats Indians as interchangeable and prioritizes race. Its disgusting.

You're either misunderstanding me or misapplying the law: this ICWA case that's gonna be heard by the Court is about what happens when Tribal citizens wanna prevent their Tribes from overriding their decision to have non-Tribal citizens adopt their children. None of those 3 points equate to "an exception for the preferences of biological parents" in the law, as none of those 3 points would provide for the preferences of the biological parents to be followed in the event that their preferences are non-Tribal citizens, & what I was saying to lfromnj is that the easiest (normative, not necessarily political) fix to that conundrum would've just been to have Congress amend ICWA to write the previously aforementioned general exception for the preferences of biological parents into the law as the primary factor, to be ranked above family, Tribal citizens, & the Native community, as opposed to the alternative that's presently playing out before us: a case of group rights conflicting with individual rights, being bolstered by conservatives wholly intent on nuking Tribal sovereign rights.

There is so much hateful garbage in your reply I dont even know where to begin. Derp derp "Colonizers" ... really!? WTF is a "colonizer in 1978?

WTF is a "native community"? Navajo and Hopi are not at all the same thing and yet are treated the same because of frickin race. Yes, blood quantum. Race. And youre claiming the Blackfeet Tribe have a "God-given right" to direct the adoptive placement of an Arapahoe child? What? How does that work unless you are making a racial determimation? Your viewpoint would have the "European Community" direct the placement of an Irish baby to an Italian or slavic family because blah blah blah colonizer blah blah native european culture. Indian law has been phucked forever but has def gotten worse since Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez which basically held race trumps rights. Which tribe has abandoned blood quantum rules for membership and basically says anyone can pay to enter the tribe? Have any?

The notion that Indian tribal membership is meaningless in this because "muh native community" is racist and nuts. Ditto with the Duro fix. How can you claim, in good faith, that on the Lakota Sioux reservation in SD white Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, an Hispanic Americans all retain the protections of the US Constitution, but not a Seminole from FL. The Lakota Sioux have no more jurisdiction over a Seminole that a Chinese guy, yet you are advocating for all red looking people to be treated interchangeably ... because muh "native community" "colonizer". There is no "native community" and the longer the ICWA is used to push racist segregationist family placement decisions, the worse we will all be.

I mean for real, "muh native community" ... talk about a crock of schit.

[brucejoel99]

Excellent news! Stamp out government sponsored racism!

lol imagine so clearly not even knowing what ICWA actually is

Ive written a journal article on the ICWA in the past and its totally racist. As written it literally treats "Indians" as interchangeable regardless of tribe or location. Its absurd. Look at the tiering of potential adoptive patents. If a Cherokee baby in NC is up for adoption the idiotic racist law says a Navajo in Arizona or a Tlingit in Washington State or a Menominee in Wisconsin get priority over say a black applicant also in NC. Look it up. The racist law considers a parent in any indian tribe as being preferential as adoptive parents to parents of a different skin color, even though Indian tribes are in many cases extremely different. The goal of ICWA was purportedly to stop babies from a tribe from being skimmed off through adoption dooming that tribal culture, but the solution was just to say any Indian in any Indian tribe gets preference over any indian adoption regardless of what tribe that baby may be affiliated with. That is extremely racist and segregationist. The Blackfeet are not the Lakota, the Nez Perce are not the Hopi, the Seminole are not the Apache. The stupid idea that a NC Cherokee baby would automatically and always be better off being adopted by a Navajo in AZ rather than a black local in NC is not at all in the best interest of the child.

But yeah, I know the progressive racists in this thread would rather adoptive babies be segregated by race than go to a better home that happens to have family members who look different than the baby. Such progressive compassion there. Woodrow Wilson would be proud. Im guessing yall support the stupid Duro fix law too.

Ok, then "imagine writing a journal article on ICWA but still not grasping that Natives aren't a race, lol." Because, really, you're telling me that you know enough about ICWA to write a literal journal article about it, but not enough to know that it literally only involves "race" insofar as the federal government historically imposed racist blood-quantum requirements on Tribes so that Tribal citizenship - legally a political, & not a racial status (see: Morton v. Mancari, where the Court literally held unanimously that tribal preferences are political, rather than racial in nature) - could be tracked by pedigree, with the initial eventual goal thereof being to eventually all-but-breed the Natives out of existence? C'mon, the federal government acted for more than a century as if Tribal citizenship hinges on "race" despite Tribes legally being supposed to have the legal right to decide their own citizenship requirements for their own citizens. So, if anything, the federal government's initial activities as they related to all of this were "government-sponsored racism," with ICWA being the freakin' correction: by giving a Native infant's family, & then other families within their Tribe, &, if further still necessary, then Native Tribal cultures first dibs on adoption over the descendants of, yes, literal colonizers, you grant Tribes the opportunity to invoke their God-given, constitutionally-protected, & treaty-pursuant rights to preserve Native culture, aka the opposite of racism.

Now, if you still wanna claim that ICWA is race-based after (re-?)learning all of that, then that's you're prerogative, but you'll just be blatantly sticking your head in the sand in order to feign ignorance of Natives not being a "race" & this lawsuit actually representing nothing more than the latest attack on Tribal sovereignty. Yes, at the end of the day, this case isn't about race, nor is it about adoption rights; ultimately, as made evident by the clear judicial conservative interest (see: OK) in what's happened to be presented by this case, it's about helping to eliminate the power of distinct Tribal governments by attempting to have their legally-protected right to oversee adoption processes involving Tribal citizens struck down.

And yes, you're goddamn right that the Duro fix was necessary & proper. You may be the first soft-on-crime conservative I've ever (had the displeasure of) me(e)t(ing... well, other than maybe Roger Stone, I guess, but whether a "libertarian Nixonian-Trumpist" or whatever it is that he's describing himself as today qualifies as a "conservative" is another matter).

The easiest fix is that there could clearly just be an exception for the preferences of biological parents written into the law.

As for the bolded, that's exactly what I was referring to in clapping-back against Mr. Reactionary's assertion that ICWA constitutes "government sponsored racism," lol.

25 U.S. Code § 1915 - Placement of Indian children

(a)Adoptive placements; preferences

In any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.

The tiering preferences for adoption as laid out in federal law:

1. Family

2. Fellow Tribe Member

3. Literally any Indian anywhere regardless of tribal affiliation or geography. This literally treats Indians as interchangeable and prioritizes race. Its disgusting.

You're either misunderstanding me or misapplying the law: this ICWA case that's gonna be heard by the Court is about what happens when Tribal citizens wanna prevent their Tribes from overriding their decision to have non-Tribal citizens adopt their children. None of those 3 points equate to "an exception for the preferences of biological parents" in the law, as none of those 3 points would provide for the preferences of the biological parents to be followed in the event that their preferences are non-Tribal citizens, & what I was saying to lfromnj is that the easiest (normative, not necessarily political) fix to that conundrum would've just been to have Congress amend ICWA to write the previously aforementioned general exception for the preferences of biological parents into the law as the primary factor, to be ranked above family, Tribal citizens, & the Native community, as opposed to the alternative that's presently playing out before us: a case of group rights conflicting with individual rights, being bolstered by conservatives wholly intent on nuking Tribal sovereign rights.

There is so much hateful garbage in your reply I dont even know where to begin. Derp derp "Colonizers" ... really!? WTF is a "colonizer in 1978?

WTF is a "native community"? Navajo and Hopi are not at all the same thing and yet are treated the same because of frickin race. Yes, blood quantum. Race. And youre claiming the Blackfeet Tribe have a "God-given right" to direct the adoptive placement of an Arapahoe child? What? How does that work unless you are making a racial determimation? Your viewpoint would have the "European Community" direct the placement of an Irish baby to an Italian or slavic family because blah blah blah colonizer blah blah native european culture. Indian law has been phucked forever but has def gotten worse since Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez which basically held race trumps rights. Which tribe has abandoned blood quantum rules for membership and basically says anyone can pay to enter the tribe? Have any?

The notion that Indian tribal membership is meaningless in this because "muh native community" is racist and nuts. Ditto with the Duro fix. How can you claim, in good faith, that on the Lakota Sioux reservation in SD white Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, an Hispanic Americans all retain the protections of the US Constitution, but not a Seminole from FL. The Lakota Sioux have no more jurisdiction over a Seminole that a Chinese guy, yet you are advocating for all red looking people to be treated interchangeably ... because muh "native community" "colonizer". There is no "native community" and the longer the ICWA is used to push racist segregationist family placement decisions, the worse we will all be.

I mean for real, "muh native community" ... talk about a crock of schit.

Ight, what you've just written contains so many misunderstandings & misapplications of Tribal law that it's impossible to figure out where to begin. I think I'll just say that it honestly makes me question whether your invocation of good-faith is psychological projection.

[brucejoel99]

Actually, even easier than a legislative fix to write an exception for the preferences of biological parents into the law, the cert question should've just been "Do the preferences of biological parents constitute sufficiently good cause to render the federal tiering preferences for the purposes of adoptive placements moot?," as there's already a "good cause" exception.

[brucejoel99]

Lol, lmao:

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1669347396273446913https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1669349705921486850

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What's interesting is that only Thomas and Alito dissented.

[brucejoel99]

What's interesting is that only Thomas and Alito dissented.

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1669347212630036483
&, thankfully, 3<5

[Ferguson97]

What's interesting is that only Thomas and Alito dissented.

I mean, if you asked me to guess which two of them dissented, I would have been right.

[Skill and Chance]

What's interesting is that only Thomas and Alito dissented.

I mean, if you asked me to guess which two of them dissented, I would have been right.

It's interesting that Barrett wrote the opinion.  She made a high profile decision against the tribes last  term with Gorsuch dissenting and was widely seen as the swing vote on Indian law.  Gorsuch seems to be slowly converting her. 

*Speaking of which, I still can't get over Gorsuch writing solo dissents from the left on this issue, as he did in the other tribal sovereignty case today. 

[politicallefty]

I'm surprised actually. I wasn't expecting this outcome or breakdown or that Justice Barrett would be writing.

Gorsuch doesn't surprise me at all. He's always in support of tribal rights, more than anyone else on the Court. It is interesting that we once again have another Gorsuch/Jackson concurrence (though this time with Sotomayor joining as well). I do wonder what's going on with those two (professionally speaking, of course).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Actually, even easier than a legislative fix to write an exception for the preferences of biological parents into the law, the cert question should've just been "Do the preferences of biological parents constitute sufficiently good cause to render the federal tiering preferences for the purposes of adoptive placements moot?," as there's already a "good cause" exception.

Do you think another case might arise presenting this question more precisely, or would the current SCOTUS just make the cert question another (attempted) full-court press against tribal rights again?

[Donerail]

Actually, even easier than a legislative fix to write an exception for the preferences of biological parents into the law, the cert question should've just been "Do the preferences of biological parents constitute sufficiently good cause to render the federal tiering preferences for the purposes of adoptive placements moot?," as there's already a "good cause" exception.

Do you think another case might arise presenting this question more precisely, or would the current SCOTUS just make the cert question another (attempted) full-court press against tribal rights again?

I'm not sure what brucejoel is talking about here tbh — preferences of bio parents are good cause to depart from the placement preferences already under the implementing regs