Judge Alito will be so pleased

[Lamplighter]

It took a day or so, but Indian tribal leaders are now responding to this "one-off" decision of Alito et al.

USA Today
Peter Harriman
6/25/13
Ruling on adopted Indian kids threatens tribes, some say
Leaders worry that the Supreme Court ruling opens the door to what was happening before Indian Child Welfare Act.

A Supreme Court decision that undercuts the presumptive rights
of biological Native American parents could threaten an entire slate of legislation
passed almost 40 years ago to strengthen tribal sovereignty, according
to a former South Dakota senator.

The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act is intended to keep Indian children
from being taken from their homes and placed with non-Indian adoptive or foster parents.
The law's intent is to preserve familial bonds between Indian parents
and their children and tribes and their children.<snip>

"It's an attack on tribal sovereignty through the children.
I can't believe they did this," retired Sen. James Abourezk, D-S.D.,
who was the driving force behind the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act
and the other bills, said Tuesday of the court's decision.

Clyde Bellecourt, an American Indian Movement activist who was a key player in the effort
to develop and strengthen the principle of tribal sovereignty in the 1970s, agreed with Abourezk.
He said the Supreme Court ruling

Because of widespread adoptions of tribal children by non-Indians before the law,
Bellecourt said, "there are thousands of people wandering the earth who have no idea
from whence they came even though they have a culture and a traditional way of life of their own."

My understanding of this, despite current wordings in some media,
is that the father proposed marriage when the mother learned she was pregnant.
When she said no to marriage, he then refused financial support of the child
and agreed to give full custody to the mother.

Later, the mother decided to put the child up for adoption.
The father and the tribe have a legal right to notification of such adoption proceedures.

It was not until afterward that the father learned of the adoption through informal tribal contacts.
It was at that time he gained custody through legal channels.
The non-Indian "adoptive" parents then appealed the case to the USSC.

The father has always maintained that he did give up "custody" before the baby was born,
but did not give up his "parental rights" or his legal Indian rights under ICWA.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina agreed with him, and he was given physical custody of his daughter.

Sam's opinion and the USSC majority have now made her parental custody unnecessarily tenuous.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Sam's opinion and the USSC majority have now made her parental custody unnecessarily tenuous.

It might make other custody battles more tenuous, but I would think that "decided by the Supreme Court" is as un-tenuous as parental custody can be.

[Lamplighter]

HM, I don't think so.
I suspect that by referring the case back to the South Carolina Supreme Court,
the issues can/will be debated again, and the decision may yet
go with the father.

Who knows ...

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It might make other custody battles more tenuous, but I would think that "decided by the Supreme Court" is as un-tenuous as parental custody can be.

Unfortunately, they didn't clearly rule. South Carolina said, the father gets the girl. The Supreme Court said, the law does not require taking the child away from the adoptive couple in this case--but having issued this ruling on the spirit of the law, they did not actually make a ruling on custody, they just kicked it back to the South Carolina court with their opinion added. Now, the South Carolina court may choose to re-examine the case in light of the Supreme Court's clarification and reverse their previous ruling, or they may decide to stick with their original ruling in favor of the father anyway.

It should be noted that I am strongly on the adoptive couple's side here. Aside from everything else fucked up about the situation,

Veronica is 3/256ths Cherokee.

[Lamplighter]

Sam Alito strikes again...

Previously.

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, however,
the plaintiffs have asked for a radical redefinition of takings so elastic
that even Justice Antonin Scalia, a strong advocate of property rights
and of a broad interpretation of the takings law, rose up in protest.

“A taking of what?” he asked the petitioner’s lawyer during
oral argument before the Supreme Court last week.
His question was echoed by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked,
“Where is the taking?” and by Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
who was even blunter: “Why are we even in this case?”

In government "permit" situations, conditional meant:
If you do this..., your permit will be approved
If you don't do this..., your permit will not be approved.

According to Sam, not any more. Corporations rule !

NY Times
By JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Published: June 26, 2013
A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development

<snip>
The court handed down a decision on Tuesday that, in the words of
Justice Elena Kagan, will “work a revolution in land-use law.”

The court’s 5-to-4 decision, with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing for the majority,
arose from an order issued by a Florida water management district denying
an application by Coy A. Koontz Sr. to fill more than three acres of wetlands
in order to build a small shopping center.

The district made clear that it was willing to grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed
to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety
of wetlands-restoration projects designed to offset the project’s environmental effects.
Because Mr. Koontz declined to pursue any of these options, the district denied the permit.
<snip>

Before Koontz, a developer could raise a constitutional challenge if the charges were unreasonable,
but judges typically deferred to local governments in such cases.
After Koontz, developers have a potent new legal tool to challenge such charges
because now the legal burden of demonstrating their validity is on the communities themselves.

In the wake of this under-the-radar ruling, the cost of protecting a community
from a harmful building project now lies not with the developer
but with the local residents and taxpayers.

It’s hard to fathom that the framers of the Constitution would call this either fairness or justice.

[Lamplighter]

Once more Sam et al. will change the course of US public life
... CORPORATIONS [SHALL] RULE !


NY Times
ADAM LIPTAK
November 24, 2013

Court Confronts Religious Rights of Corporations

The stores play religious music.
Employees get free spiritual counseling.
But they do not get free insurance coverage for some contraceptives,
even though President Obama’s health care law requires it.

Hobby Lobby, a corporation, says that forcing it to provide the coverage
would violate its religious beliefs. A federal appeals court agreed,
and the Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether it will hear the Obama
administration’s appeal from that decision or appeals from one of several related cases.

Legal experts say the court is all but certain to step in,
setting the stage for another major decision on the constitutionality
of the Affordable Care Act two years after a closely divided court
sustained its requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

“The stakes here, symbolically and politically, are very high,” said Douglas Laycock,
a law professor at the University of Virginia, citing the clash between religious teachings
and the administration’s embattled health care law.

In weighing those interests, the Supreme Court would have to assess
the limits of a principle recognized in its 2010 decision in Citizens United,
which said corporations have free speech rights under the First Amendment.
The question now is whether corporations also have the right to religious liberty.

<snip>

[Lamplighter]

It is announced today that the USSC will take up this case.

Get ready for GE to tell you which god (CEO) to worship.