'Grave concern' over Roberts nomination (Native land ruling)

[The Straight Story]

'Grave concern' over Roberts nomination

Posted: July 29, 2005
by: Jim Adams / Indian Country Today
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has as sparse a judicial record on Indian law as on other hot-button issues, but briefs he wrote as a private lawyer in several major Native cases show a radical, possibly alarming critique of what he called the ''decidedly mixed legal legacy'' of federal Indian policy.

The Gwich'in Steering Committee issued a statement of ''grave concern'' over Roberts' nomination, calling attention to a brief he wrote for the state of Alaska in the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case Venetie v. the State of Alaska. The court sided with Alaska, ruling that most Native lands there were not part of ''Indian country.''

As a private lawyer much sought-after in Supreme Court cases, Roberts also argued against Alaska Native subsistence fishing rights in the famous Katie John v. Alaska case. The 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suit brought by John, an 83-year-old Ahtna Athabascan, rejecting Roberts' brief on behalf of the state.

Although tribal law practitioners caution against reading too much into arguments made by a private lawyer on behalf of a client, a Gwich'in spokesman said that Roberts' track record as an attorney carried greater weight because of his short tenure as a U. S. Appellate judge. In a statement, the steering committee said his nomination ''signals potential for further erosion of tribal rights.''

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411331

[ibegurpard]

1. Righteous cause or not

I don't see a lot of people being very concerned where Roberts falls on this issue.
I live in a state with a large Native American population and large reservations. You'd be surprised at the racism and hostility (or maybe you wouldn't).
I'm not saying this isn't a good reason to oppose the guy. I'm just saying it's not going to get you much traction with the general public.