Yeah, they had their sovereignty since before our ancestors ever saw this land.
I’m really worried now. Any chance someone can metaphysically talk me off the ledge following those two Supreme Court announcements?
Why don’t they just save themselves some time and issue a blanket opinion? “Republicans get whatever they want.”
Because they don’t. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on Mexican-migrant policies.
Oh, fine, spoil my mini-rant with facts.
That Mexican-migrant thing might qualify as “throwing the Dems a bone.”
I was thinking the same thing.
Or “recognizing that an underclass of undocumented workers benefits the economic status quo—all the benefits of labor without many of the costs of social services.”
And a bit of a poison pill, too. I don’t think Biden welcomed this decision coming right now, because it throws immigration back into the spotlight front and center, just before the mid-terms.
Back in December, Sotomayor said it well:
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she said. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
And to finish your sentence: . . .and then had it taken away from them while they underwent genocide and marginalization before fighting back in the courts to salvage a modicum of respect.
I’d like to see the argument for that that would hold up in court.
That was my point. There is no way to OBTAIN sovereignty from the USA. You either have it because you’re a sovereign nation, or you don’t.
This is one of the dumber lines of argument the revanchists on the court are taking. Yes, the U.S. Constitution clearly says state legislatures get to regulate State elections. And what have all the States done? They have written constitutions and passed laws that delegate significant oversight authority to the courts of their States. If a State legislature found sufficient support to amend their State constitutions and eviscerate the power of the State courts to hear State election law cases…that likely would be constitutional (but very poor policy.) If a State really wants to go that route, they should have to actually do the heavy lifting of amending their State constitution with a noxious, undemocratic amendment. They don’t need nor should they receive a grant from the Federal Supreme Court nuking what is frankly a matter that shouldn’t even be subject to Federal judicial review–namely how a State legislature has chosen to delegate granted authority.
Is this a big story in the US? it’s leading the main BBC News headlines today saying it’s a devastating blow to the world’s attempts to curb climate change.
It’s the lead story on the Washington Post and NY Times online sites. Everything is kind of secondary right now to the Dobbs ruling and 1/6 Committee reports though.
Neither you, nor I, nor the SDMB, the internet, or popular opinion determine what constitutes an Establishment Clause violation.
The Supreme Court does:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177.[37]
Note that Gorsuch strongly disapproved of this ruling.
Yeah, some are strict constructionists, and altho Roe was a wonderful decision, it was a stretch for strict constructionists.
The Southern states are sovereign. The Indian tribes are by no means sovereign nations, they are much like sovereign states. Many recognized tribes are kinda small states, coming under Federal, but not State, law.
This was sarcasm, right? I genuinely can’t tell, but I’m assuming/hoping so?
You, and I, and the SDMB, and the Internet, and popular opinion, can all of us tell what an establishment clause violation is. And most of us can see that the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Yes, we can all express our opinions to our hearts’ content. The SCOTUS determines what the law actually IS.