Only registered users can comment.

  1. Enjoyed the presentation, tho IMO it seems much more like four lawyers versus three justices rather than two lawyers versus two lawyers. As for the hypothetical case, based on the arguments I'd favor Congress's presumption of Constitutionality. I think it's a very high bar to show otherwise. Again, enjoyed – thx

  2. This is interesting. My father was born on the Rosebud Sioux reservation and was adopted into a white family in 1973. The year of Wounded Knee 2 and just 5 years before such adoption was outlawed in 1978.

  3. I think court should have been adjourned until the young woman had medical attention to make sure she was in sound medical condition.

  4. Waiting to hear how old the child is. The foster parents want to keep the child. Will a psychologist testify? I can't imagine this as anything other than racial discrimination. It appears the tribe will benefit from another member. Would a White child be sent to a particular rural area to benefit the population of the area? No! I the Caldwells should argue on Equal Protection. The argument is whether a child never knowing its cultural heritage will be psychologically harmed by being adopted by a non-indian family. To insure the child's psychological well-being could the court order that the child's adoptive paraents take classes in Indian ancestry and make sure the child is educated about Indian ancestry?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *