Bush Foundation’s Native Rebuilders

Here:

The Bush Foundation in St. Paul, Minnesota, has announced the first cohort of Native leaders to participate in its Native Nations Rebuilders initiative.

Launched late last year, the two-year Rebuilders initiative invites emerging and experienced Native leaders to participate in training seminars and other activities, share knowledge with peers and their nations’ governments, and develop and implement nation-building action plans. Training is led by national experts on Native self-determination from theNative Nations Institute at the University of Arizona and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, both of which work to help Native nations realize their political, economic, and community development objectives. Continue reading

Laura Spurr Obituary

From the Battle Creek Inquirer:

Laura Spurr wore many hats in her 64 years of life: nurse, health official, fundraiser and tribal chairwoman for the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi.

Spurr died Friday from a heart attack suffered while she was in Temecula, Calif., according to a statement released by her family. She was there to speak at the Pechanga Resort & Casino about what she is probably best known for publicly in the Battle Creek area: the FireKeepers Casino, a project Spurr and the tribe pursued for nearly a decade.

The casino was one of Spurr’s many projects she pursued throughout her life. After graduating from the University of Michigan in 1967 with a degree in nursing, she found herself working in the health field in Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago and Grosse Pointe.

Spurr also obtained a master’s degree from Chicago’s DePaul University with a double major in nursing administration and education.

In Washington, she was active in several organizations, such as the Personnel Committee for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington and the Committee of the League of Women Voters.

Health continued to be an issue for Spurr, who served as the Chair of the Education Committee and the Health Committee at the tribe’s Pine Creek reservation. Continue reading

Laura Spurr Walks On

News article here.

Dine Fundamental Law Survives Another Day

From the Santa Fe New Mexican via Pechanga:

WINDOW ROCK, Ariz. (AP) — Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. has vetoed legislation that he contends limits the Navajo way of life.

Lawmakers voted last month to amend a set of laws based on the tribe’s centuries-old traditional values and customs. Under the measure, any dispute regarding the validity, application or interpretation of Dine (Din-EH’) Fundamental Law would not be heard in Navajo courts but be resolved consensually through peacemaking.

Shirley struck down the measure last week, saying the laws protect and preserve the Navajo way of life and what makes the tribal government unique. He also says the council’s vote was politically motivated.

Lawmakers can override the veto with 59 votes, representing two-thirds of the 88-member Tribal Council.

Rosen: Is Chief Justice Roberts a Radical?

From the New Republic:

Last month, the Supreme Court handed down its most polarizing decision since Bush v. Gore. The 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v.Federal Election Commission called into question decades of federal campaign finance law and Supreme Court precedents by finding that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want on election campaigns, as long as they don’t consult the candidates. It was precisely the kind of divisive and unnecessarily sweeping opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts had once pledged to avoid.

In 2006, at the end of his first term on the Court, Roberts told me and others that he was concerned that his colleagues, in issuing 5-4 opinions divided along predictable lines, were acting more like law professors than members of a collegial court. His goal, he said, was to persuade his fellow justices to converge around narrow, unanimous opinions, as his greatest predecessor, John Marshall, had done. Roberts spoke about the need for justices to show humility when dealing with the First Amendment, adding that, unlike professors writing law review articles, judges should think more about their institutional role. “Yes, you may have another great idea about how to look at the First Amendment,” he said, “but, if you don’t need to share it to decide this case, then why are you doing it? And what are the consequences of that going to be?”

Since then, Roberts has presided over some narrow, unanimous (or nearly unanimous) rulings and some bitterly divisive ones. And so, it’s been hard to tell how seriously he is taking his pledge to lead the Court toward less polarizing decisions. Then came Citizens United, by far the clearest test of Roberts’s vision. There were any number of ways he could have persuaded his colleagues to rule narrowly; but Roberts rejected these options. He deputized Anthony Kennedy to write one of his characteristically grandiose decisions, challenging the president and Congress at a moment of financial crisis when the influence of money in politics–Louis Brandeis called it “our financial oligarchy”–is the most pressing question of the day. The result was a ruling so inflammatory that the president (appropriately) criticized it during his State of the Union address. Continue reading

Students Sue to Restore Affirmative Action in California

From How Appealing:

“Students sue to restore affirmative action at UC”: Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Calif race-based admissions law challenged anew.”

Justice Breyer on Cherokee Cases and the Supreme Court’s History

From the Yale Daily News via How Appealing:

Even as a teenager, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer cast a long shadow, University President Richard Levin said Monday.

Breyer and his younger brother, Charles, attended Lowell High School in San Francisco — followed less than a decade later by Levin, who said the highest praise he received as a student was that his school work was the “best since the Breyer brothers.”

Levin then followed Breyer at Stanford and Oxford, but their paths diverged when Levin chose to attend Yale to get his doctorate in economics, and Breyer chose to attend Harvard Law School.

Thirty-five years later, Levin said he could sum up Breyer in a single word.

“He’s awesome,” Levin said, introducing the Justice to a packed Law School Auditorium crowd Monday afternoon for a lecture titled “History: Challenges the Court Has Faced.” In the lecture, Breyer highlighted several key cases in the Supreme Court’s history in an attempt to answer one question that he said foreign judges often ask him about the Court: “Why does it work?”

The answer, Breyer said, is complicated. Over the course of United States history, Americans have come to accept the Court’s decisions as binding — though this was not always true. To demonstrate this, Breyer highlighted prominent cases that illustrate the establishment of the Court’s authority, including Marbury v. Madison in 1803, Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, Cooper v. Aaron in 1958 and Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Breyer began the lecture by praising Chief Justice John Marshall’s wisdom in Marbury v. Madison — which established the Court’s right to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches — without raising the ire of then-President Thomas Jefferson.

“Chief Justice Marshall called upon Houdini Marshall to get out of a jam,” Breyer joked, explaining that Marshall managed to make Jefferson think he had won while actually expanding the Court’s authority.

Breyer then referred to the conflict that arose between Marshall and President Andrew Jackson in 1832, when the Court ruled that the state did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee lands, quoting a famous — though possibly falsely attributed — line from Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision — now let him enforce it.” Eventually, Breyer said, Jackson came to regret this decision when South Carolina claimed that if Jackson and the state of Georgia did not have to submit to the Court’s decision, South Carolina did not have to pay federal tariffs. This disagreement is widely cited as influential in the start of the Civil War.

“Even Jackson figured out that was not such a good idea,” Breyer said. Continue reading

Michigan Messenger on EPA’s Draft Asian Carp Strategy

From MM:

A $78.5 million dollar federal plan to keep Asian carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes is drawing criticism from diverse groups that say the proposed temporary closure of the locks in Chicago area canals will disrupt the economy without stopping the spread of aquatic invaders.

The Chicago canal system that connects the Mississippi River system to the Great Lakes basin conveys much of the Chicago region’s petroleum, coal, road salt, cement, and iron, according to federal officials, along with 15,000 recreational boats and 900,000 passengers that travel through the locks on the system each year.

Photo via Flickr: kate.gardiner

Continue reading

WSJ Article on Asian Carp Issue

From the WSJ via How Appealing:

[SEPARATE]

More than a century ago, this city reversed the flow of its eponymous river, connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico and defining itself as the can-do capital of the American heartland.

Today, that engineering feat is coming under growing scrutiny, as scientists and politicians intensify their battle against a voracious flying fish that has been traveling up the Mississippi for 20 years. Amid signs that Asian carp have breached the last defensive barrier, calls are mounting for a massive do-over.

“We know these barriers aren’t working,” said Joel Brammeier, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes and the lead author of a 2008 report that laid out how this project might look. “An ecological separation is the only permanent solution.”

Continue reading