In response to my critique of biased reporting by @adamliptak, some have called for “more expertise” @nytimes. Indian law is often very difficult. This is not one of those times. Here is brief intro to McGirt& the shamelessly political Bosse petition: 1/ nytimes.com/2021/08/16/us/…
In July of 2020, the Supreme Court held in McGirt v. Oklahoma that Congress had *not* acted to abrogate the treaty that set reservation boundaries. The Court reached this holding after deliberating for *two full terms* and after reviewing 100 years of congressional action. 2/
The Court reached this holding by applying the settled rule from *unanimous* 2016 Supreme Court precedent. The rule: Congress has the power to unilaterally abrogate treaties. The Court does not have that power. 3/
Congress must act and the Court held that, by the year 2020, Congress had not acted. By deciding McGirt, the Supreme Court put Congress on notice that it thought that Congress had done nothing. In response to McGirt, issued a year ago, Congress has still done nothing. 4/
Congress could have quickly limited reservation borders. But it did not. Instead, it told OK to negotiate with the Native nations. OK has refused to negotiate. Months later, in a problematic petition, OK is asking the Court to do something that Congress will not. 5/
The Bosse petition contains wonderful arguments for *Congress.* It asks the Court to overrule McGirt because the Court's application of the law has allegedly harmed OK (the exact same party to litigate McGirt and lose!). 6/
Not only does @adamliptak 's “bold” petition ask the Court usurp the power of Congress, it asks the Court to lay bare its role as superlegislature—and an unelected one that shifts on the law every few months based on its composition. (See, wonderful testimony by @nikobowie) 7/
The Bosse petition doesn’t just put the “victory” of Native people “at risk.” It is an affront to the Supreme Court, Congress, the separation of powers necessary to protect liberty, and to the rule of law. 8/
As I’ve said before, colonialism doesn’t just hurt Natives, it undermines the United States. Colonialism hurts us all. It apparently also hurts the quality of reporting from @nytimes 9/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @nytimes has published numerous articles biased against Natives. But this @adamliptak piece is so one-sided that, with all due respect, it reads like a puff piece for Oklahoma (whose attorneys Adam knows personally). Let’s start with the title: 1/ nytimes.com/2021/08/16/us/…
Unlike Adam's article on the state of Miss. challenge to Roe v. Wade (another challenge that leverages the Court’s new composition) Adam calls OK challenge “bold” (courageous, not baldly political) and calls McGirt “at risk” rather than calling the petition "frivolous" 2/
He also doesn’t take the time to get the law right: Congress doesn’t just “remain free to address the matter.” Congress *must* be the branch that acts to unilaterally abrogate a treaty. The Court does not have that power. The Court held in McGirt that Congress had *not acted*. 3/