Comments on: A Triple Smack Down for Obama in Supreme Court

By: Viet71

Viet71 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:34:34 +0000

The Supreme Court exists to do what each of us could do.

If each of us was properly educated in law, history, philosophy.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:53:56 +0000

Imagine if we didn’t have lifetime appointments or if Obama was able to arbitrarily select the composition of the court to match his whims… would we be seeing these rulings? Would we still have our gun rights? Would we have a prayer of a chance when it comes to Obamacare?

The SC is a powerful bulwark against legislative and executive tyranny. Indeed, the worst examples of judicial activism come from courts which were much more beholden to, and the direct result of, court packing and the agendas of the legislature and executive.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:36:44 +0000

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:21:26 +0000

The Quiet Title Act provides a means for resolving disputes over federal ownership of real property, but it does not waive sovereign immunity for suits involving Indian tribal trust lands. It prohibits suits that fall within the traditional aspect of quiet title actions: suits that seek to divest the government of title (as this case does) and which ask the court to grant title to the plaintiff, Patchak in this case (as this case does NOT). The govenment and Indians wanted it interpreted broadly to reach any suit that would result in the government would lose the land. In other words, if the government prevailed here, the Quiet Title Act under their interpretation would have prevented the suit since Patchak was not seeking title to the land, only that the federal government divest itself of the land.
Additionally, they ruled that the tribe in question, because they were not recognized by the federal government when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in 1934, were not protected by the laws that govern these transactions.
As someone else noted, Patchak won this battle, but may lose the eventual war and the casino may be built. This decision allows the lower courts to now proceed in that direction as they were on hold until this was decided. However, because the government challenged his standing on the merits, the Court also noted that as a neighbor of the proposed casino, he had a vested interest in the development of the nearby land. In a way, it is a small victory for property owners who stand the chance to lose value of their property due to nearby economic development or, as often happens with casinos, the increased traffic, potential crime, etc.

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:36:40 +0000

I’ll preface this by saying that while a narrowing of sovreign-immunity is good, I am decidedly NOT rooting for the plaintiff in the broader over-all case… EG, my view: It’s good he won this battle (on sov-im), now it’s time for him to lose the war….

The issue involves the complexities of how Indian Casinos can be built off-reservation in states that don’t have legalized gambling & won’t enact a state-level ‘exemption’ for off-reservation casinos…

In those cases, the tribes have figured out that any property owned by the federal government (under the dockyards clause of the Constitution) is subject to federal – not state – jurisdiction…

This is the same rule that exempts shoppers at the PX/BX/NEX (Military WalMart, essentially) from sales-tax – Federal land, state pounds sand… Also why Federal Buildings are protected by FPS Police under the Dept of Homeland Security, rather than the local PD or County Sheriff…

So, they obtain the land, transfer ownership to the US government, and then in return can build a casino there because there’s no federal law against casino gambling & state law doesn’t apply on federal property…

Now, enter everybody’s favorite PITA, ‘Neighbor NIMBY’ (Aka ‘Terror of the HOA’, ‘Lawn Nazi’, PropertyValueMan, etc, etc) , who doesn’t want the tribe to build a casino on the tribes/but-now-technically-the-Feds’-land, and sues to stop it…

First round (got to SCOTUS today) was the standard Federal defense against lawsuits – ‘sovereign immunity’….

The Supremes just said ‘Sorry, don’t buy that’…

Which allows the neighborhood menace’s lawsuit against Big.gov to go ahead (not so great) – but also narrows the cases where the Feds can use Sovereign Immunity to protect themselves from lawsuits (very good)…

By: checkmate2012

checkmate2012 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:46:43 +0000

or whoever can explain. Thx.

By: checkmate2012

checkmate2012 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:41:39 +0000

I’m confused on if the gov in essence transferred the land from an Indian trust, so now in the hands of the local gov. So now Patch guy says no casino but the gov’t said not our land (regardless of standing btw)? I guess I had a hard time figuring out chain of ownership of the land and in the end, the gov said we can’t help you, a protected Indian, to stop the casino since we don’t own the land?

I always enjoy your SCOTUS case synopsis and got the other 2 but this one I could not follow.

I plead duh on this case.

By: lineholder

lineholder — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:22:02 +0000

But by next Thursday at the latest. SCOTUS isn’t in court on Fridays. And the 28th is the last day on their calendar before recessing.

I don’t know of any cases that set a precedent for them to extend that day. But for right now….by next Thursday is the date that is being stated.

By: ladydoc

ladydoc — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:04:52 +0000

I’ve read elsewhere that tomorrow (Thursday 6/21) is potential announcement day on Obamacare….but you state next week??

Great to see the justices, at least in the 3 cases you discuss above, ruling as the controlling laws (apparently) require…though I guess those cases weren’t subject to extreme politicization like with the Obamacare package of laws. Hopefully the justices cut through the politics on Obamacare too.

By: ateam

ateam — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:56:48 +0000

Thank you for that excellent work.