Conservatives Alarmed at Roberts’ Role in Playboy Case

Human Events ^ | August 12, 2005 | Robert B. Bluey

[IonInsights]

So what's got NARAL all so riled up?

[IonInsights]

Oh, I forgot. Bush appointed him.

[ErnBatavia]

You guys don't give up do you...until the Sunday Talk Shows give some new talking points.

[atomicpossum]

Ah, the smell of fine manure....

[airborne]

Signed up today to post this, huh?

So, newbie, what is your opinion on this?

[Keith in Iowa]

The media knows they can't beat this guy without splitting the Republicans - and the multitude of articles like this are proof of this left-wing conspiracy to make the right-wingers eat their own.

[Boundless]

Interesting that there's no mention of the actual
details of the Playboy case, only someone's spin on
what it was about.

Is Human Events running DNC faxes these days?

There might be case here, no pun intended, but this
reads like what passes for news in the NYT.

[Erik Latranyi]

John Roberts is a lawyer --- that makes him whore his clients.

Did he take unsavory cases? Yes.
Did he share the view of his clients? No.

Simple.

If everyone who works with the public would discriminate against those of the opposite political persuasion, it would be a chaotic world.

He took cases from liberals for money that he donated (hopefully) to conservative candidates.

[atomicpossum]

But it is his involvement in both--playing the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting--

So how do we know he didn't argue as Scalia...?

[SteveMcKing]

Welcome to FR.

[dead]

Playboy is a pay cable premium channel. The government has no business telling the people who decide to buy it what time they are allowed to watch it.

That sort of nanny crapola is for do-gooder liberal douchebags.

[DoraC]

I read on Lifesite that some conservatives were displeased that Roberts was not on the same side as Scalia. But Justice Thomas voted with the majority in the case, and Bush promised to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZC1.html

[isom35]

hey, better playboy that playgirl eh?

[FlingWingFlyer]

Let's just confirm him and MoveOn. Same old sh*t, different day. DemocRAT obstructionists need to get a life.

[DoraC]

Perhaps he did argue as Scalia. But what does it matter? It probably is because they expected the most trouble to come from Scalia, not from Ginsburg.

[Jeff Chandler]

Roberts is a lawyer and was acting as a professional in both cases.

If the left feels they have to split conservative support of Roberts, it means they know they're beaten. Again.

[David]

I oppose Roberts on essentially the grounds set forth by Ms. Coulter.

However on this narrow issue, you got to understand how large law firms work. You don't really have the practical ability to say no on lots of things--one of them is involvement in a Supreme Court case where your partner is counsel to a party (the Playboy action). I am less sympathetic to his position on the pro bono representation of the homosexuals but on the other hand, in the modern world, the pressure to get appropriate pro bono hours is high and he may not have had much choice there either.

[nwrep]

There is a zero chance Roberts will turn into a Souter. Zero. Roberts was, and remains, a partisan conservative Republican, who went to battle for Ronald Reagan and in Bush v Gore for the Republican side. These facts alone should discount speculations of him being a Souter. Plus, he has said things that a liberal would never say in a million years, such as "the Rehnquist court is not conservative", and so on.

The gay rights case was a REQUEST from one of his colleagues at H&H. The Playboy case was also another example where his involvement was peripheral. These are red herrings. Don't ignore the volumes of highly partisan, conservative commentary of the Reagan era.

[zbigreddogz]

:thumbs up: