Yeah, we're all about the justice.

Indian Country Today has an article about a brief written by John Roberts for the State of Alaska, which was engaged in litigation with Indian tribes, detailing how Roberts blatantly misrepresented a passage in United States v. Kagama in order to portray Indians in a negative light. Reversing the meaning of a passage in a decision which you're invoking as precedent? Makes you wonder exactly how far this casual approach to intellectual honesty goes.

The confirmation hearings have been interesting in that they've so far only demonstrated that Roberts is smarter (or at least better prepared) than the Senators questioning him, but now it seems that an additional level of meaninglessness has been achieved in that he seems to be as ethically challenged as the man who appointed him.

I also enjoyed the cheap thrill of validation I obtained in seeing Roberts characterized as an assimilationist (see the Kanye West post below).