SCOTUS Ruling

Name:
Instructor:
School:
Date:
SCOTUS Case
Introduction
In issues concerning rulings over tribal related matters, it because easy to have controversial endings. These premises emanate from the considerations of the sensitivity of ethnic matters, which becomes most twisted when there is involvement of law. In the ruling concerning whether an Indian attacking a nontribal person who is of outside the tribe, there is a need to look at the prevailing circumstances as well as the possible outcomes of any given ruling so as to have a concise judgment on the validity of the ruling. In so doing, there is consideration of the general observations in law while at the same giving regard to the sensitivity of the ethnic matter. These premises form the basis of this paper, with citations from peer reviewed-articles.
The case
The case at hand is that of the power of the Indians in exercising judicial rulings to the non-Indian members who happen to be accused while they are in the Indian land. Such a scenario may appear like it is ordinary, by a superficial look. However, there is much sensitivity due to the considerations of the biasness that may arrive from the basis of tribal, ethnic alignment hence; creating space for unfair judgment. As much as there is acceptance of the supreme power of ethnic orientations, when it comes to law, there is much orientation to the practice of justice. If there is any obstruction to the delivery of justice, then it might be as well adequate to just not have a case or a ruling.

These two contradicting elements of the case present the much controversy associated with the ruling.
It is on the basis of these two premises that there have been speculations that the ruling could have been for a certain group. Many people may be tempted to think that it is a straight case concerning the entity that could have received the favor in the judgment. These views emanate from the orientations that people would associate the favorable judgment with Indians whereby; the natives would favor the natives. However, on a deep perspective, there could also be a twisted kind of judgment whereby; the Indians, out of the fear of being seen as favorable, especially on the basis of faith, there could be a ruling favoring the non-Indians in the wrong way.
The association of this ruling with unfairness by the ethnic grounds is not a unique happening. In the world over, there has been the existence of such happenings in the courts whereby ethnic grounds have precipitated the rulings. Even where there have been fair judgments, it becomes difficult to convince the lay people of the grounds of the judgment since there is already a cultivated mindset which orients towards a discrimination for the nonethnic members.
In the face of the law, there cannot be exemptions in practice, (Brewer, 26). There is no room for hiding in the shades of being of a certain tribe or not. There is a tendency for people to hide in the precincts of not being a member of a particular group in a bid to convince the courts of getting a judgment that is influenced by pity. Even outside the premises of law, critical thinking itself would not offer pity as grounds for offering judgment. It is the reality on the ground which ought to form the basis of the judgment. If there happens to be a deviation from such grounds, then, the deliberations of the judgment are futile. There is no superiority of the common law to the ethnic law. If there is breakage of the ethnic law, there is no excuse to the perpetrator; rather, the full force of the law has to take place without having to hide behind the lame excuse of the possible accusations of being unfair due to the nonethnicity of the person receiving the judgment.
Dollar General versus Mississippi Band of Choktaw Indians
In a bid to have clarity on the issue of discussion and the ruling, it is essential that there is the realization of the background to the case. There was an agreement from Dollar General that there would be an allowance of the Indian members to be part of work training program. The program was essential as it would allow the tribe members to have adequate preparation for work. Such preparation would go a long way in helping them to secure work in the future. Since there were tribal aspects in the agreement, it was right for the engagement in the tribal court jurisdiction.
There is understanding of the superiority of the tribal law. In the full exercise of the tribal jurisdiction, there is an allowance for the ethnic tribe that feels offended, to take the matter to court in the world over. Such directions do not tie the enactments to the people of a different tribe. As long as it is a court of law, there is freedom to take the case there just as happened with the Scotus case. Nevertheless, there is an exception in dealing with purely nonethnic persons against an ethnic person or group. In such a scenario, there is bound to be an observation of the lack of jurisdiction of the tribal court in dealing with nonmembers who are not on their land.
The exceptions that got enactment, in this case, emanated from the one exception that was in consideration in the ruling. The exception was in the consensual relationship of business related engagement. As earlier mentioned, there had been an agreement with the tribe concerning the training for preparation of jobs. That relationship created the basis for the association of the case with unusual premises in the jurisdiction. There is an acknowledgment that; if there had not been such engagements before the case and the ruling would have been unjust if it had been the same. On the same note, there is the conviction that; even the ruling would have been much different if there had not been the ethnically related engagement concerning the preparations for work.
Prompts of the case
There is an acknowledgment that the engagement in the business related relationship of Dollar with the tribe was right within the precincts of the law and therefore, the engagement in itself did not have problems. However, the provocation came from the deviation of the agreement by Dollar. Cases involving deviations from agreements usually get tough hearings. These heights emanate from the considerations that; by an entity entering into an agreement, they are conscious of what they are doing and therefore, a deviation from the same cannot receive the mitigation of omissions or being prone to ignorance. These views do not align to a consensus that ignorance could be an excuse in the face of the law. In law practices all over the world, there is a general expectation that every person is aware of what binds them in as far as the law is concerned. Ignorance, therefore, cannot be used as a defense when one is faced with a case. The same predications apply in the cases involving ethnic aspects.
From the year 2010, there has been much seriousness in matters concerning ethnic cases. These deliberations follow the signing of the ethnic bill by President Obama in the same year making it a law. Considerations of the abuses that had been there in the absence of the law have done a judgment of such cases to receive a lot of seriousness. It is in the knowledge of every law practitioner that no amount of heavy judgment could atone for the past lack of justice. However, when there is the input of the right zeal in making the law prevail, there is a display of seriousness in the matter, and many people who would have chosen to engage in a vice would deviate to avoid the harsh judgment.
The judgment of Dollar, was also in consideration of the utterances of the solicitor general that the store did not have foundations. Such predicaments sought to present the store of Dollar as not having had the right presuppositions for the engagements that he sought. As such, there is already a deviation from the law even before the placing of the case involving the deviation from the agreement. If one is found to have engaged in aspects that touch in breaching the law in one way or the other before the presentation of the case, there is usually a harsh judgment. Such precincts follow the realizations that; such an entity may possess the attitude of engaging in law breaking activities, whether at a high or a law magnitude.
As it is usually said, the work of the judges is not just to sentence the law breakers in a bid to punish them. There is usually an underlying function of ensuring that; there is a presentation to the public, a clear indication that; there is no tolerance of the slightest deviation from the law. Hence, the matter of consideration is not only the case that is on the table. In dealing with the case, there ought to be a consideration of any other engagement associated with the entity; which passes as a break of the law, (Amy, 1). When there is any slight indication of such engagement; there is a serious need for an engaging investigation to ascertain the extent of such engagement
is, therefore, a right direction that the solicitor general pointed to the store of Dollar, not having been of the right position. It is essential to note that; such side notifications of deviations from law induce many sentiments on the purity of the entity in as far as keeping the law is concerned. It would be wrong to say that; the judgment got basis from such side aspects. However, it would not be right to assert that; such engagements did not have any effect on the judgment. In as much as there is every attitude in the jurisdiction to have objectivity in carrying out judgments, it goes without saying, that having other burdens of breaking the law would yield a subjective judgment.
The prior agreement
It might not be possible to exhaust the many misalignments to the law that came to arise in the case of Dollar. In spite of every other aspect, Dollar had agreed to use the land on terms of the lease. The lease was tied on the ethnic relationship that was emanating from the working relationship concerning preparations of the myriads of the people for work. Therefore, there is no way there could have been a separation of the engagement of dollar with the breaking of law. It is intriguing to notice that; when Dollar was in need of the land, as a property for use, he did not have a problem in engaging the ethnic authorities. However, when there rise issues, which there is no contradiction in saying that they were originating from him, everyone is up against the engagement of the tribal judgment.
This scenario portrays many of the happenings in the world today, and which keep intriguing the judiciary, (Stephen, 12). When individuals are in need of something that they deem beneficial to them, there is engagement in different paths, which are not illegal by themselves. However, when there happen to be miscalculations, and there arise issues, it becomes a problem when the jurisdiction takes the basis of the very paths they first chose for engagement, as the point of reference. Such predicaments present the judiciary with no other option but to engage in their duties without a consideration of the masses, which at times, can be a means of transformation by force.
In understanding the twists in the judgment, it is essential to note that there was the engagement of many judges in the case; a matter which is highly appreciated in such a case as this one. These views emanate from the considerations that; with a case of this magnitude, it would be highly sensitive to leave it to the hands of one or a few judges. Such engagements would subject the judge or the few judges to the fury of people following the outcome, However, with the engagement of the many judges, there is no subjection of the individual judges to the misunderstanding because; the judgment is collective.
Although there happened to be different perspectives on the way out concerning the case; the ultimate agreement was that the Indians as an ethnic group did have the right to engage in punishing a person who had wronged them on their land. The judgment was not purely by the ethnic law which superiority, has rather, and rather was consideration of other aspects such as the relationship that existed before the commission of the offense, (Ed Gehres, 23). Since the relationship had ethnic ties, there was no loophole for excusing the ethnic considerations in the ruling. If anything, it is Dollar himself, who had initiated the transaction in the first place, and therefore, there was no way he could have run away from consideration of the ethnic law and its superiority.
Opinions
Thurgood Marshal, in offering his opinions said that; tribes have superiority and can govern themselves. What he was pointing to was that; there was no point in an individual offending a tribe or its people by the consideration of their tribe. It was an appreciation that; tribes are superior and that; given the opportunity; they are capable of guiding themselves in their living. In an inner analysis of law precincts, there is an appreciation that; what Marshall was doing, was not a direct implication on Dollar He was engaging in attempts of portraying tribes as having a kind of superiority which goes beyond the superiority of a single individual regardless of the social-economic class. Although it may not come out direct in any jurisdiction, there is usually a consideration that; a person of a high social-economic class may get the temptation to oppress other people of low caliber. Such might have been in the minds of the judges as they ruled the case.
The dollar was not a pauper neither was he a person of middle class. His business engagements had borne his fortunes, which one could easily judge that he could have used to oppress the Indians even in their land. Such precincts make one ask themselves what could have happened if the judges had let Dollar scot-free and assert that there was no superiority in tribal perspectives. Most probably, there could have many engagements touching on the tribes whereby; individuals would subject a whole tribe into turmoil following the realization that the law would not do much to bring their sanity. The subjection of tribes to pressure and unnecessary oppression would not have been halted, (Walsh, 16). The tribal land would have been misused by everyone who had power, be it political or economic. If the ruling had been that the Indians were on the wrong side for defending their land by the common law, the prevalence of such engagements would have escalated to the astonishment of the judiciary.
The judgment was guided well because; it did set up the ground for tribes to feel free in engaging with their property. The air of contentment was not just for the Indians. Every other tribe came to the realization that; there was protection for them and their property and that no one would tamper with their rights and go scot free. Such positions gave to the tribes; the confidence to engage in protecting their property and everything that they ha. There is no truth in saying that the judgment was only in the protection of land. Land here represented any other property belonging to tribe; such property may include other aspects such as culture.
Conclusion
In the realization of the confidence that the judgment restored on the protection of property for the tribe by tribe, there is much hailing of the jurisdiction. There have been quotations of the judgments in many cases involving tribal issues in the world over. The aim has not been to render any tribe better than any other; rather, there has been a good will to outline the superiority of tribal law when it comes to engagements that have anything to do with tribal relationships which could have been set earlier. It would be long before there is an erosion of the Scotus judgment from the jurisdiction in the world over.
Works Cited
Amy Howe, Solicitor General recommends double denials in invitation briefs, SCOTUSBLOG
(May. 20, 2015, 12:16 PM),http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/05/solicitor-general-recommendsdouble-
denials-in-invitation-briefs/
Brewer, Suzette. “The Trouble With Dollar General: SCOTUS Takes on Tribal Jurisdiction in
Sexual Assault Case.” Indian Country. N.p., 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 24 July
2016.<http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/10/26/trouble-dollar-general-scotustakes-
tribal-jurisdiction-sexual-assault-case-162209>.
Ed Gehres, Opinion analysis: Dollar General, the Court’s longest pending case of the 2015Term
is a four- four per curiam opinion, SCOTUSBLOG (Jun. 25, 2016, 9:28
AM),http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-dollar-general-the-courts-longestpending-
case-of-the-2015-term-is-a-four-four-per-curiam-opinion/”Oliphant v. Suquamish
Indian Tribe.”
Stephen Wermiel, SCOTUS for law students: Indian cases at the Court, SCOTUSBLOG (Jan.
4,2016, 9:48 AM),http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/scotus-for-law-students-indian-cases-atthe-
court/
Walsh, Mark. “Juror Strikes In Capital Murder Case Were Based On Race, SCOTUS Rules.” ABA Journal (2016): 16. Business Source Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.