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]

WRONG! The case was about digitally covering up the "naughty bits".

And you can delete any station you don't want coming into your house, via your own T.V.!

I have cable. There are plenty of stations I get, but never watch. There are also plenty of station that I don't get, because I don't pay for them. And I just looked at the sheet I have for stations and the Playboy station is PAY PER VIEW, so it isn't even piped into my set, if I had taken the highest paid for subscription; it above and beyond that!

So all of your harrumphing is beyond silly.

[dirtboy]

I don't believe Thomas is fully credible on the porn issue.

In what way? He's a constitutionist. He would leave it up to localities to deal with porn. And he'd overturn Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds.

Religious conservatives would win more of their battles if they looked for a strict constructionist instead of a conservative activist.

[Modernman]

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.

As a customer, if the cable company is not meeting your requirements, you are free to simply dicontinue the service. Playboy never had the ability to pipe porn into anyone's house against their will.

The solution here was not to demand an increase in governmental powers.

[George W. Bush]

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

I can't count the number of times I've heard that we must support Bush for the sake of judicial nominees. Always the terms of this were 'Scalia-type' nominees.

There is a good reason why Bush chose Roberts, and we shouldn't be harping on him.

Okay, I'll bite. What exactly are those reasons? We've heard people say that when he worked for the government, that he was just representing his client. When he probono'd for the gay rights case that eventually overturned every state sodomy law, he was just being a good law firm partner. And the same for this 12 hours of assistance for his firm's Playboy case. Okay, fine, we'll toss all those out as being anything that tells us about him as a conservative jurist.

Having disposed of those, what reason do we have to believe he is liberal or independent or conservative? Once we throw out everything we know, what is left to commend him as the first of the 'Scalia-type' justices Bush was supposed to appoint?

[dirtboy]

That is what Roberts' firm and Playboy where trying to protect -- the ability to continue piping porn into my home against my will.

Last I checked, Comcast doesn't send the Playboy Channel into your home unless you are willing to pay for it first.

[Modernman]

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

Sure. They rolled back the intrusive nanny state a little bit.

[hinterlander]

In what way?

I, personally, don't believe he's impartial on porn, itself.

[dirtboy]

THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION ARE BASED UPON MORALITY.

Uh, the Constitution is based upon the words from which it is written. A whole lot of really bad judicial activism has come from attempts to insert morality into those words - because a socialist liberal thinks he's moral and religious conservatives are evil hicks.

As I said before, religious conservatives would do well to want constructionists on the court who would turn more matters back to the states - allowing religious conservatives to have more say in their home states.

[dirtboy]

I, personally, don't believe he's impartial on porn, itself.

And the evidence for that is what? Anita Hill?

[hinterlander]

WRONG! The case was about digitally covering up the "naughty bits". And you can delete any station you don't want coming into your house, via your own T.V.!

Ever heard of cable bleed?

[Kenny500c]

The constitution does not protect obscenity.
It is a liberal, ACLU invention.

[nopardons]

Ann is completely wrong in this.

Roberts is not a Souter clone. Souter was not well known at all, but Roberts is. Roberts is the president's nominee and the president is NOT going to ditch him and pick someone else.

Just get over it.

And just remember, there is NO guarantee, no matter WHO is picked, that that person isn't going to change, once on the bench. Even Robert Bork has said things which some Conservatives have found fault with, lately.

[highball]

I don't want a judge imposing his personal morality, either.

A judge should rule based on the law and the Constitution. Not on his own personal morality. He may be guided by his own morality to a point, but when they conflict (and make no mistake, they will) his personal moral beliefs must take a back seat to the Constitution.

[hinterlander]

Last I checked, Comcast doesn't send the Playboy Channel into your home unless you are willing to pay for it first.

It's called cable bleed.

[Phantom Lord]

In other words, he helped another lawyer at his firm prepare for his case.

This man is worse than Hitler!

[nopardons]

Have you ever watched the Playboy channel? Have you ever looked at Playboy or anything else which contained pictures of naked women? Do you ever look at the T&A soft porn pictures that get posted to FR, which nobody can block out?

You must have a lousy cable system! I don't get "cable bleed".

[churchillbuff]

They rolled back the intrusive nanny state a little bit."""

No, they just allowed Cable companies to spew porn into homes before kids' bedtimes. Your idea of "freedom" is to have us free like ancient Romans, to numb our minds on modern equivalent of gladiator games.

If the Supreme Court were really interested in "rolling back" the state, they'd outlaw the progressive income tax, most eminent domain, all price controls and most federal economic regulations. That's the stuff that curtails our freedom -- But I guess you're ok with being a serf to the state as long as the porn keeps flowing.

[Modernman]

You don't want a moral judge, huh?

Honestly? I don't really care if he's cheating on his wife. I don't care if he reads porn in the privacy of his own home. I couldn't care less if he's a homosexual (I doubt Roberts does any of these things). I only care if he is properly interpreting the law and the Constitution.

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.

As it relates to the personal morality of a Supreme Court Justice, what point are you trying to make?

[hinterlander]

A judge should rule based on the law and the Constitution. Not on his own personal morality. He may be guided by his own morality to a point, but when they conflict (and make no mistake, they will) his personal moral beliefs must take a back seat to the Constitution.

Not according to Scalia. For example, he said that if he found the death penalty to be immoral, he would have to resign from the bench.

[dirtboy]

It's called cable bleed.

Which is still a bunch of rather wiggly lines.