President Obama

White House Statement on Passage of Claims Settlement Act of 2010

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 19, 2010

 

Statement by the President on the Senate Passage of the Claims Settlement Act of 2010

 

I applaud the Senate for passing the Claims Settlement Act of 2010, which will at long last provide funding for the agreements reached in the Pigford II lawsuit, brought by African American farmers, and the Cobell lawsuit, brought by Native Americans over the management of Indian trust accounts and resources.  I particularly want to thank Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Salazar and Vilsack for their continued work to achieve this outcome.  I urge the House to move forward with this legislation as they did earlier this year, and I look forward to signing it into law.

 

This bill also includes settlements for four separate water rights suits made by Native American tribes.  I support these settlements and my Administration is committed to addressing the water needs of tribal communities.  While these legislative achievements reflect important progress, they also serve to remind us that much work remains to be done. That is why my Administration also continues to work to resolve claims of past discrimination made by women and Hispanic farmers against the USDA.

 

###

 

Linda Greenhouse on the Importance (Or Lack Thereof) of the Supreme Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Important reading, I think, for those who expect a “visionary” Supreme Court appointment…

From the NYTs:

In Obama’s view, the court is institutionally ill suited to solve the country’s problems. It’s hard to imagine that he wants to invest capital and energy into trying to turn the court into something he believes it was never intended to be.

Used as an epithet, “activist judge” is almost always applied to a judge who has just issued a decision that the speaker doesn’t like. Conservatives affix the label to the Supreme Court of the 1960’s and 1970’s, as well as to anything they object to about the current court. The ink on Justice John Paul Stevens’s letter of resignation last month was barely dry before conservative political candidates and bloggers lined up to bid good riddance to “the liberal activist now leaving the court.”

Exactly what the conservatives’ beef was with Justice Stevens wasn’t clear. Presumably, it was something other than the Stevens majority opinion inKelo v. City of New London, the 2005 decision that left democratically elected local governments free to condemn private property for the purpose of economic development.

Progressives, of course, have been having a field day denouncing the Roberts court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited political spending by corporations and overturned recent precedents in order to reach that result. The ruling was “an astounding example of judicial activism,” according to Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who in his capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution promptly convened a hearing on the decision’s implications.

Into this linguistic and jurisprudential thicket has stepped the former constitutional law professor Barack Obama, in a conversation with the pool reporters traveling with him on Air Force One last week. Asked whether he would use the pending Supreme Court nomination to push back against “conservative judicial activism,” the president responded with a 200-word soliloquy so densely packed as to lend itself to a variety of interpretations — and misinterpretations.

Characterizing an earlier era’s attacks on the Supreme Court, Mr. Obama said: “It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and ’70s the feeling was, is, that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.

“What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error,” he continued, and added, “The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”

Was the president in fact, as some have suggested with either glee or dismay, imposing a kind of moral equivalency on the court then and the court now — a kind of “we had our activists and now they have theirs, and both made mistakes, so let’s move on”? Has he fallen into such apostasy as to cast aspersions on the very judicial accomplishments that liberals treasure?

While it’s possible to interpret his words that way, I read them differently. In fact, I think he meant the opposite of equivalency, and I think he said so, albeit cryptically, when he offered this description of what he called conservative jurisprudence: “What you’re seeing is arguments about original intent and other legal theories that end up giving judges an awful lot of power; in fact, sometimes more power than duly elected representatives.” He went on to say that, by contrast, “the core understanding of judicial restraint is that, generally speaking, we should presume that the democratic processes and laws that are produced by the House and the Senate and state legislatures, etc., that the administrative process that goes with it, is afforded some deference as long as core constitutional values are observed.”

Continue reading →

NYTs on the White House Meeting with Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

White House receptions of American Indian leaders have too often been patronizing historical footnotes. President Obama opened what we hope will be a more promising chapter on Thursday when he met with the leaders from all 564 federally recognized tribes. He vowed that there would be no more “going through the motions” and that his administration would finally face the severe economic and social problems that are the result of centuries of federal abuse and neglect.

This is no easy vow, but Mr. Obama has taken important first steps: naming American Indians to senior policy and health positions and earmarking $3 billion of the stimulus package to tribal programs. The president told the leaders that he was ordering his cabinet members to come up with plans on how to improve relations with the sovereign tribes.

Already this week, Interior Department officials told Congress that they would work to overhaul the often intractable, decades-consuming process by which tribes apply for federal recognition. Recognition is required for tribes interested in seeking revenue by opening a casino. But, more importantly, recognition is the key for tribes ravaged by poverty and joblessness — and there are far more of those — to qualify for federal aid programs.

The tribes gathered at an interesting point in history. The last four censuses show tribal populations booming, where extinction had been the experts’ prediction a century ago. Stirred by the Red Power movement of the civil rights era, more and more people have self-identified as American Indians, raising the census count to more than four million.

Not all are in recognized tribes, and there is no agreement, even among tribal leaders, on what factors define American Indian-ness. But the vitality is stirring and must be met by greater sensitivity, creativity and sustained attention from Washington.

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

WASHINGTON — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” a surprising honor that came less than nine months after he made United States history by becoming the country’s first African-American president.

The award, announced in Oslo by the Nobel Committee while much of official Washington — including the president — was still asleep, cited in particular the president’s efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said. Continue reading →

GTB Chair Derek Bailey on the White House Consultation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:

Derek Bailey, the chairman of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, was among dozens of tribal leaders who attended listening sessions at the White House on Monday.

Bailey, who has served on the tribal council since 2004 and as chairman since 2008, said the sessions were just the beginning of an ongoing dialog with the Obama administration. He hailed White House officials for inviting tribes to Washington, D.C.

“Across the table, we saw indigenous faces, those that are from Indian Country, that understand when we speak as leaders from our own upbringing,” Bailey said in an interview yesterday. He called the meeting “inspiring.”

Jodi Gillette (Standing Rock Sioux) and Kim Teehee (Cherokee) from the White House, along with Indian Health Service Director Yvette Roubideaux (Rosebud Sioux) and Del Laverdure (Crow) of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, participated in the session that Bailey attended. He said they paid close attention as tribes shared a wide range of concerns.

“Never once did i feel that they were not interested listeners,” Bailey said. “They really were engaged.”

During the session, Bailey talked about regional approaches to providing health care, improving access and use of technology and appointing Native Americans to federal judgeships. He also spoke of the need to have a better understanding of the federal-tribal relationship.

“That is part of the consultative process,” he said. “The more of a cornerstone you have of tribal understanding, the better footed you’ll be.”

Bailey, who met with President Barack Obama in Michigan in July, said he has already noticed a change in atmosphere with the new administration. “From my understanding, there’s a huge turnaround, a very noticeable turnaround, and very much appreciated,” he said of the developing relationship.

During the campaign, Obama promised to hold an annual summit with tribes. The issue was raised yesterday but the White House has not said when the first meeting will occur.

Article on Age of Obama Judicial Nominees

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the New Republic:

David Fontana and Micah Schwartzman,  The New Republic Published: Friday, July 17, 2009

Attention was understandably focused on Sonia Sotomayor this week, as her confirmation hearings unfolded. But what about Obama’s other judicial nominees? The president has so far nominated five judges to federal circuit courts. On average, these nominees are 55 years old, more than a decade older than Sotomayor was when she was nominated to the Second Circuit. (She was 43.) For years, Republicans have been nominating sharp young conservatives to the lower federal courts. Now, rather than looking for young legal talent of its own, a Democratic administration seems to be favoring older nominees. In our view, this is a major mistake.

The obvious reason is that federal judges, like Supreme Court justices, have life tenure–which means that younger judges serve longer on the bench and, all else being equal, have more influence over the law. (And the influence of circuit-court judges is considerable: Although the Supreme Court may be the last word on major constitutional issues, the lower courts matter just as much, if not more, in the administration of the law. This past year, the Supreme Court decided 83 cases, while the federal circuit courts disposed of 61,104.)

Continue reading →

GTB Chairman Meets with Pres. Obama During Last Week’s Michigan Visit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the details — Tribal Chairman Email Blast Wk ending 071709

NYTs Op-Ed on Supreme Court Nominations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

Obama’s Choice

By H.D.S. GREENWAY

With the resignation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Barack Obama is about to make one of the most import appointments any president can make. For picking a justice for the Supreme Court will have more ramifications for the republic than any cabinet secretary or ambassador.

The United States may be a comparatively young country, but its institutions have influenced the world profoundly. The constitutional ideals put forth upon its shores in the late 18th century guided the way other societies organized themselves, from the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen in France in 1789, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, to the constitutions of dozens of other countries emerging from colonialism and Communism. From the earliest times, as the historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote: Liberty to Americans meant, “first freedom under laws of their own making, and, second, the right to do anything that did not harm others.”

Continue reading →

NCAI Talent Pool for Obama Administration

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The National Congress of American Indians has put out a call for recommendations for and resumes of people who would be good advocates for Indian country to serve in the new administration at all levels from secretary to staff.

A story about the NCAI initiative, which is part of the organization’s detailed “transition plan,” is here:
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/politics/33233399.html

You can find contact information for NCAI at its web site here: http://www.ncai.org

— from Gale Toensing

Commentary on Possible Obama SCT Nominees

Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Now that the election is over, the commentaries on who President Obama might nominate to serve on the Supreme Court have begun in earnest. The crop of leading names, all of which is crazily speculative, are very exciting in general. There may be more Indian law judicial and practitioner experience in this group than ever before.

Here are a list of the more prominent names, taken from the ABA Journal’s list on page 63 of its November 2008 issue, and their import for Indian Country based on their experience in Indian law cases:

1. Judge Diane Wood

Judge Wood sits on the Seventh Circuit, which doesn’t hear very many Indian law cases, but she does have a significant track record.

She wrote the majority opinion in U.S. v. Long (2003), in which the court upheld the Duro fix prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Lara. In Wisconsin v. EPA (2001), she wrote the majority opinion, in which the court held that the EPA’s decision to grant treatment-as-state status to the Sokaogon Chippewa Community was reasonable. In Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt (2000), she wrote the majority opinion in a case the court held it was reasonable for the district court to reject the St. Croix Chippewa Tribe’s motion to intervene in a gaming case involving three other Wisconsin tribes. In Thomas v. United States (1999), she wrote the majority opinion holding that the LCO Chippewa Band’s tribal council was not a necessary party to a claim challenging the outcome of a Secretarial election. Most recently, in Burgess v. Walters (2006), she wrote the majority opinion upholding the State of Wisconsin’s action in committing an Indian based on the PL280 criminal/prohibitory — civil/regulatory analysis.

Without a doubt, Judge Wood’s opinions in her several Indian law cases demonstrate that she is very respectful to Indian tribes and to tribal sovereignty. Wisconsin and Long could have easily gone the other way. Even in the cases she were rules against tribal interests, she does not denigrate Indians and tribes in any way.

2. Seth Waxman

Mr. Waxman is another interesting choice for Indian Country. He has more experience in litigating federal Indian law cases than any of the others mentioned for a nomination. As the US Solicitor General under President Clinton, his name is appended to dozens of Indian law cases (e.g., Minnesota v. Mille Lacs, Idaho v. United States, other cases from 1997-2001), but he never argued an Indian law case before the Court during that time. However, since he’s been back in private practice he’s worked at least three Indian law cases — City of Roseville v. Norton (D.C. Cir. 2003), San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2007), and MichGO v. Kempthorne (D.C. Cir. 2008), all on behalf of the tribes involved in those cases.

His experience in Indian law is outstanding and, like Judge Wood, might help the Court see Indian law in a new light.

Continue reading →