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.

[Lekker 1]

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.

So in other words, if the SC Justice is true to the Constitution, then morality will prevail. I believe that is the point we have been trying to make all along. The immorality enters into the mix when the Constitution is deviated from (Roe. vs. Wade for example). The problem is, Morality changes with time. There was a time not long ago when makeup on a woman was a sign that she was a slut. Once upon a time, bathing wiht soap was considered a sin. The principles of conservatism on the other hand, are timeless.

[SoothingDave]

It's called cable bleed.

If someone (or their child) is so desperate to sit around and switch back and forth to the Playboy channel in hopes that the scrambling might unscramble and allow himself a sub-second glimpse of a boob, there are bigger problems here.

It is simply out of the federal gov't jurisdiction to dictate what cable providers may or may not provide.

SD

[George W. Bush]

Normally, the left would try to rile up their own powerbase against this guy by exposing the NRA (for example) cases he worked on.

If only we had some NRA cases he'd worked on! That's kind of my point. Give me a few of those, please. They are, if they exist, on the public record and are no secret from our Dim opponents with their legions of trial lawyers. So I'd like to hear something conservative he's actually done or wrote or the arguments he made on cases for which he was chief counsel.

Our responsibility as conservatives, is to not fall for the bait, but focus on the facts.

By all means. I'd just like some facts, his own cases or legal writings, that tell me something unambiguosly conservative and constructionist about him. What, precisely, warrants all this conservative confidence in him? Surely there's something more than a few vague comments from Mark Levin and Ted Olson?

Well, perhaps we'll have to wait until more info comes out. These kinds of lawyers have a vast paperwork trail.

[Modernman]

The constitution does not protect obscenity.

Of course it doesn't. The Supreme Court itself has ruled as much.

However, Playboy is not obscenity. No proesecutor in this country would try to make such a case in court with a straight face.

[KimmyJaye]

Excellent point. And very well said.

[Modernman]

No, they just allowed Cable companies to spew porn into homes before kids' bedtimes.

Cable is a completely voluntary pay service. Don't think Comcast is doing a good enough job of dealing with signal bleed and whatnot? Don't subscribe. It's a very easy and government-free solution.

Your idea of "freedom" is to have us free like ancient Romans, to numb our minds on modern equivalent of gladiator games.

Again, nobody is making you buy cable.

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.

In what way is your little list of complaints in any way relevant to the issue at hand? If you haven't noticed, Roberts is not currently on the Supreme Court, so you can't really blame him for the Court's failures.

[churchillbuff]

Oh, and I should have mentioned racial quotas.

[highball]

Better that a judge resign from the bench than try to press his own morality when it conflicts with the law.

[George W. Bush]

Ann is completely wrong in this. Roberts is not a Souter clone. Souter was not well known at all, but Roberts is.

Actually, this last week on Hannity's radio show, Coulter backed off on the Souter thing considerably, discussing how conservative his paper trail from NH actually was because she went back and researched since the Roberts controversy began. She was describing some of his rather fiercely conservative rhetoric from the time prior to his SCOTUS appointment.

Given how often her name is dragged into the Roberts debate, I thought it was worth mentioning. She still thinks that Roberts is too much an unknown and she believes there are ways to select justices to get more Scalias and Thomases. But she does admit, just as you assert, there is no absolute way to know in advance.

[Lekker 1]

No, they just allowed Cable companies to spew porn into homes before kids' bedtimes

I guarantee they are not allowed to spew porn into my home. If they are spewing porn into your home, it is YOUR fault, not the village's.

[tortoise]

It's called cable bleed.

Some people have all the luck.

[Lekker 1]

Read my post at #116. I am not sure we will ever get a fair and balanced look at his past. Hopefully, all the pertinent information will get out, and the right decision will be made. Not sure what else we can do.

[Lekker 1]

Sorry, I guess you already read it. It's been a long day!

[Kenny500c]

" However, Playboy is not obscenity. No proesecutor in this country would try to make such a case in court with a straight face."

I guess you don't watch the Spice channel :)

[Almondjoy]

Actually it's standing up for the rule of law. Which as we all know can be interperted in different ways. The bible does say to submit to the rule of law of legit Governments. So even though he may not agree with "porn" the arguement wasn't about porn. It was a question based on the rule of law.

Conservatives must understand that too. That just because we believe in something does not make it constitutional. We are a people who are sworn to the constitution. If you want the law changed fight to have it changed. Don't hold him accountable for not fighting for what you say Conservatives believe in.

The bible also says to turn the other cheek. However, I'd guess you are for the Iraq war.

Politics and Religion have no business being hand in hand(although personally I don't see a problem with prayer in schools).

Our leaders must lead this country as if there is no God to protect us. We must fight wars and do what is necessary to protect us.

As individuals we must hold ourselves to whatever we believe in. In the battle for souls you must do two things. Do your best to follow your own beliefs and try and convince others that your way is the way to be saved.

Once you meet those two requirements you've done your job(I know I'm way over simplfying this). However, our lives within a recognized system of Gov't is much much more complex.

[hinterlander]

Morality changes with time. . . . The principles of conservatism on the other hand, are timeless.

Think about what you're saying. Morality is not absolute, but conservatism is. So, conservatism is not moral. Is it, actually, above morality? If so, how can one define morality? The truth is, anything that is constantly changing cannot be defined.

Your examples are weak, only because what one calls "moral" is not so merely because it has been called that.

[nopardons]

Yes, I heard her too. She went off 1/2 cocked, without doing any real research on Roberts and lost a lot of credibility, in doing so.

One of Roberts' best, long time friends is Luttig, whom some here think would have been a better choice, without knowing all that much ( if anything !) about his paper trail.

Mark Levin, who is a much brighter light than Ann is, on Constitutional Law and SCOTUS, thinks that Roberts is okay.

Lots of staunch Conservatives are supporting Roberts.

Ann and a few here, aren't and there is NOTHING that any of them can do about about; Roberts IS the nominee. And those who aren't supporting him now, are just helping the Dems and have fallen for the propaganda put out to divide our side.

[Modernman]

I guess you don't watch the Spice channel :)

Can't say that I do.

I do play poker with a DOJ obscenity prosecutor, though. Even the DOJ admits that mainstream pornogaphy involving only consenting adults and nothing too "weird" is not legally obscene.

[George W. Bush]

Hopefully, all the pertinent information will get out, and the right decision will be made. Not sure what else we can do.

Yeah, I'm kind of resigned too. If he has even 1/10th the liberal tendencies some people think he has based on these few cases, then the Dims will fall all over themselves to vote for him while putting on a good show for the folks on their plantations.

I think it's all kind of a done deal already unless someone finds a Coke can with a hair clinging to it.

Admittedly, I'm still confused as to exactly what it is that makes so many people think he is a strict constructionist or a conservative jurist (whatever those terms actually mean in the modern era).

[AliVeritas]

FYI

CSPAN has 1997 (Roberts presentation), of how the supreme court works:

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=AC&ShowVidNum=7&Rot_Cat_CD=AC&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100

Project Oyez (has oral presentations), http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage

Or at: http://www.oyez.org/podcast/?p=9