Excuse me if I misinterpreted. You are saying this ruling is not faithful to the Constitution? The liberal judges based this ruling on ideology, and ruled incorrectly- they should have ruled against the Indian tribes involved?
There are more informed people helping others understand why they ruled that way.
The decision is a stunning reaffirmance of the nation’s obligations to Native Americans. It confirms the existence of the largest tract of reservation land in the country, about 19 million acres encompassing the entire eastern half of Oklahoma.
The liberal judges vote the same on 99% of issues people care about.
There are usually conservative justices who cross over and vote with the liberal judges, as was the case in the Oklahoma ruling, and almost never vice versa.
Now is that because conservative justices follow the constitution or because conservative issues that are brought before the courts are attacks on basic freedoms? Seems you could argue the issue either way that the “liberal” justices follow the constitution which is why their voting is consistent.
Both conservatives and liberals assault basic freedoms. Anyone who’s objective will recognize that.
Justices all have ideological leanings, and they color most of their rulings. But if you’re faithful to the Constitution, you’d go against your ideology once in a while. The liberal justices never do this on the rulings that go in the media.
In every other ruling, one of the conservative justices cross over.
In this case, the liberal outcome was to give more power to the tribes. All the liberal justices agree with this. One of the conservative ones decided to go with the liberal ruling based on the Constitution.
I’m a liberal on everything except religious freedom and military spending, and I can’t think of a ruling in which I’m like, “Gee I wish there were more liberal justices on there,” because there almost always a conservative justice or two that tip the balance in my favor.
1 Like
Originalism is a joke IMO. If you believe you are faithful to the constitution you are still applying your own interpretation of what that means. If you try to predict what the founding fathers were thinking then you go down the rabbit of finding supporting documents to justify your case, and thus going outside of the constitution. That is exactly what Scalia did in the DC Heller ruling by going into English common law. So how is that original?
The alternative is to look at precedent and how laws are interpreted under socio political norms which seems more rational to stick to judicial precedent and understand outcomes of a ruling on society rather than putting your own interpretation of what someone thought 200 years ago.
This article aligns with that assumption that it’s based on norms as it should be. Some of the most landmark legislation like Brown v. Board of Education would not have happened if we just stuck to a society based on agrarian rich landholders in the 18th century. Seems to be the conservatives face more of a conflict of interest in committing to an ideology that is not practical and not what it claims to be.
Who said anything about originalism? Just interpret the law instead of implement your ideological agenda.
1 Like
That is exactly what conservatives claim to do through an “original” interpretation of the constitution. There is no liberal or conservative justice that would claim to do otherwise. You are arguing that one side did not adhere to the constitution. Regardless of what you or I think that is anything but objective.
Here is the constitutional provisions establishing tribal sovereignty and treaties are a precedent as well.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … excluding Indians not taxed.”
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”,determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 amends the apportionment of representatives in Article I, Section 2 above.
Funny.
Supreme Court ruling:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to give the nation’s employers more leeway in refusing to provide free birth control for their workers under the Affordable Care Act.
The ruling is a victory for the administration’s plan to greatly expand the kinds of employers who can cite religious or moral objections in declining to include contraceptives in their health care plans.
The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, gives the government authority to create the religious and moral objections, said Justice Clarence Thomas for the court’s 7-2 majority.
I know you may have forgotten this, but it was headline news- admittedly that was way back four days ago.