Roberts 'Played' for Playboy in SCOTUS Case

Human Events Online ^ | August 11, 2005 | Robert Bluey

[hinterlander]

Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, while serving as the head of Hogan & Hartson’s appellate division, spent about a dozen hours working on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group in a case before the Supreme Court in 1999, his former colleague told HUMAN EVENTS.

[nopardons]

She sure did!

Great post! :-)

[Modernman]

I'd like to know more about the clientele of that law firm, given the two clients we've already heard about.

Pretty standard clientele list. Some sample clients in their annual report:

Hogan & Hartson

[Lekker 1]

Aren't you guys trying to move the goal posts?...

The "goal post" is
1)smaller, less intrusive Government,
2)more responsibility upon the parent, less on the village,
3)more personal choice of how to distribute one's wealth, less Govt choice.

No, the goal posts aren't moving one bit, they are set in absolute stone. I certainly don't expect my Government to legislate my morality. I have more confidence in myself than that.

[jimfree]

Pictures?

[nopardons]

Great cartoon! LOL

Susan Estridge was just on Hannity's radio show and even she was putting down the stupid Dems digging for dirt on Roberts.

[George W. Bush]

A lawyer should represent his client to the best of his ability whether they represent the liberal or conservative end of the spectrum. Are you suggesting that Mr. Roberts actually went out and solicited Playboy for their business?

No. What I'm saying is I'd like to know more about Roberts' actual work. These two cases, while disturbing for many, were not his own cases. We don't know how much he really did for them since by their nature they were not recorded. Or if they were, no one would be allowed to ever hear the contents.

I'm just curious about what Roberts has actually done as a lawyer, working as chief counsel, what kind of cases, what kind of clients.

There must be some factual basis out there for considering him to be a brilliant conservative jurist. I'd like to know what that is other than he was appointed by Bush. There must be something definingly conservative in his record if he does actually warrant the confidence so many of you are showing in him. If so, then what exactly is it that he's written or said that warrants such conservative enthusiasm?

[dirtboy]

I think that that is a sign that Roberts might not be "in the mold of Scalia.",

Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority. Given that Scalia often is tempted to allow federal usurpation of power if it enforces his views, I'll take Thomas over Scalia any day of the week.

Whatever your views are regarding the underlying morality, was the law an appropriate use of federal power? Clarence Thomas disagreed. Too many conservatives are in favor of limited government only as long as it doesn't limit what they want government to do.

[Lekker 1]

As long as he correctly interprets the Constitution and does his job as specified therein, I will withhold judgement about him being an unclean whore. There is no mention of "whore" in the Constitution.

[hinterlander]

But let me ask you this...do you have a T.V.? If so, do you have cable? If so, then is it the government's responsibility to determine what programs you are allowed to watch or not watch?

Of course I don't believe the government should tell me what to watch or not watch. I also believe that if I tell the cable company that I do not want Playboy piped into my house, they should not continue piping it in. That is what Roberts' firm and Playboy where trying to protect -- the ability to continue piping porn into my home against my will.

[Modernman]

Ann Coulter is right guys, admit and move on to a new candidate who is a true conservative, not one who is a Souter clone.

What do you consider to be unconservative about his representing Playboy?

[churchillbuff]

"""Playboy’s case [which Roberts' firm represented] challenged the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required cable TV operators to scramble sexually explicit content or restrict the pornography to hours when children would be unlikely to view it. Playboy won the case, 5-4, much to the consternation of conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a biting dissent."""

Mr. Roberts' firm has done the public a wonderful service, haven't they?

[podkane]

Just more evidence that there is actually NOTHING that indicates this man will be another Scalia when on the court.

He doesn't have to be another "Scalia". He was acting in the capacity of a lawyer, following the law. The rule of law means that things are ruled by LAW, not your preferences, and even viewpoints you don't agree with, are entitled to a fair hearing.

I have no problem with an independent legal mind being on the Supreme Court. There as a good reason why Bush chose Roberts, and we shouldn't be harping on him.

[Modernman]

How about morality? A whore is a whore is a whore.

I don't want SCOTUS justices ruling based on their personal sense of morality.

I want them ruling based on the law and the Constitution.

[churchillbuff]

was the law an appropriate use of federal power?""""

Yes. Cable TV is in interstate commerce if anything is.

[hinterlander]

Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority. Given that Scalia often is tempted to allow federal usurpation of power if it enforces his views, I'll take Thomas over Scalia any day of the week.

Hate to sound like a weasel, but I don't believe Thomas is fully credible on the porn issue.

[Lekker 1]

I agree, with you. Normally, the left would try to rile up their own powerbase against this guy by exposing the NRA (for example) cases he worked on. But the left has discovered that they can do more damage by breaking up the guy's support from the right. So I wouldn't expect to see a fair expose on all his cases. They will hammer on his "liberal" tendencies and get way more mileage than bringing up his "conservative" tendencies. Our responsibility as conservatives, is to not fall for the bait, but focus on the facts.

[hinterlander]

He doesn't have to be another "Scalia".

WHAT?!?!? Yes he does. Bush promised us another Scalia/Thomas.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Just calm yourself. You will get exactly what you deserve.

[Lekker 1]

Too many conservatives are in favor of limited government only as long as it doesn't limit what they want government to do.

Damn...why didn't I say that? Bingo! And threads like this expose the fact a little too much for comfort.

[hinterlander]

I don't want SCOTUS justices ruling based on their personal sense of morality.

I want them ruling based on the law and the Constitution.

You don't want a moral judge, huh?

Allow me to shout the following, in case you're hard of hearing: THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION ARE BASED UPON MORALITY. "MORALITY," AS DEFINED, IS ABSOLUTE -- AS ARE THE LAW AND OUR CONSTITUTION.