None of this made a difference to the conservatives on the Court, as they seemingly don't care for a federal law on Indian welfare. Krehbiel-Burton for Native American Times summarizes some of Justice Alito's comments thusly:
Wrong and Wrong and "Right" on Track
So the majority of the court (who are conservative) are taking up these critical racial issues and operating from both a conservative and White privileged perception of racial understanding. From the conservative justices we see both ideological biases and political influences. On the ideological side there is a perception that somehow basic civil rights and protections for real injurious processes are either no longer needed, or (as with Scalia) should never have been there in the first place. In the present "white" world (and it has been this way for some time), racial issues, and particularly institutionalized racist processes, are history and no longer part of today's social-political milieu. Somewhere we tipped over a line into racial "entitlement" for those deemed not white. Interestingly we did that without ever having once discussed (much less addressed) the issue of white privilege.
At least one justice is quite vocal in his personal opinions on racial issues coming before the court. We have multiple examples of Scalia referring to the The Voting Rights Act as a "perpetuation of racial entitlements." Now one would think that voting was a right and not an "entitlement," but Scalia felt that it was the duty of the Court to "fix" this "entitlement" problem since Congress lacked the political will to do so. Further, Alito's comments seem to assume that keeping children with Native ancestry with their families is somehow putting them "at risk." Really!? Does this mean that white adoptive families are inherently less "risky?" (Activist judges anyone? I am not hearing the right scream about these decisions.)
The Shelby County decision clearly furthers the political agenda of shrinking the electorate. The Baby Veronica decision indicates a clear disdain for legal protections for tribal families, and a willingness to overrule established law for political expedience - not Constitutional purity.
Notes:
1. Paul Weyrich, one of the "founding fathers" of the new conservative movement (founded the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and other organizations) speaking at a religious right convention in Dallas in 1980 stated: "How many of our Christians have what I call the "goo-goo syndrome"? "Good government." They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down." (YouTube recording)
2. Ben Shelly wrote a nice personal account relating to ICWA for the Washington Post in "Baby Veronica and the fight to preserve Native American rights."
Calling the Indian Child Welfare Act an 11th hour trump card for Brown, Justice Samuel Alito made multiple references to the child's blood quantum and claimed that the act could potentially put vulnerable children at risk because of a "remote Indian ancestor."
Wrong and Wrong and "Right" on Track
So the majority of the court (who are conservative) are taking up these critical racial issues and operating from both a conservative and White privileged perception of racial understanding. From the conservative justices we see both ideological biases and political influences. On the ideological side there is a perception that somehow basic civil rights and protections for real injurious processes are either no longer needed, or (as with Scalia) should never have been there in the first place. In the present "white" world (and it has been this way for some time), racial issues, and particularly institutionalized racist processes, are history and no longer part of today's social-political milieu. Somewhere we tipped over a line into racial "entitlement" for those deemed not white. Interestingly we did that without ever having once discussed (much less addressed) the issue of white privilege.
The Shelby County decision clearly furthers the political agenda of shrinking the electorate. The Baby Veronica decision indicates a clear disdain for legal protections for tribal families, and a willingness to overrule established law for political expedience - not Constitutional purity.
Notes:
1. Paul Weyrich, one of the "founding fathers" of the new conservative movement (founded the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and other organizations) speaking at a religious right convention in Dallas in 1980 stated: "How many of our Christians have what I call the "goo-goo syndrome"? "Good government." They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down." (YouTube recording)
2. Ben Shelly wrote a nice personal account relating to ICWA for the Washington Post in "Baby Veronica and the fight to preserve Native American rights."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
