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.

[TheBigB]

nothing too "weird" is not legally obscene.

Basically, no farm animals or power tools.

[hinterlander]

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

I agree. But is it not within the government's jurisdiction to keep the cable company pushing something into my house that I have asked them to stop doing?

Let me give you an imperfect, but apt, example. Most people, including conservatives, supported the creation of a "do not call" list, blocking telemarketers from calling whenever they wanted and punishing them if they did call someone on the list. The answer to someone in who is on the "do not call" list but receives calls anyhow is not to simply tell them: "if you don't like it, get rid of your phone service." Rather, it is to enforce the law.

The same thing applies to cable bleed. Cable companies are not supposed to allow it to happen. But Roberts' firm and Playboy argued differently.

As far as your point about people seeing a boob for a second or two, you're right, there is a bigger problem. Which is why the law was created in the first place. Cable bleed is a way for the porn companies to get their product into your home against your wishes, and to get your kids hooked.

I work with hundreds of teenagers a week, trust me, the cable bleed of porn is a major issue for teenage males.

[pankot]

This from people (left) who support abortion and same-sex marriage! What BS.

[matymac]

Cable is an optional service...if you don;t like whats on it...don't watch it.
The Federal government has no jurisdiction over what is shown on cable. Therefore they have no right to restrict the content...
Whether you like or hate porn, this was no issue for the federal government to get involved with. Cable is optional!

[rcocean]

OH really? Is Levin a close personal friend Roberts? Or is that just his opinion?

Ann's point, which is the correct one, is that we shouldn't have to run around "guessing" or "hoping" or depending on somebodies friend who knows the nanny who knows the maid who swears Roberts is "Really" a conservative.

There are plenty of qualified Scalia clones out there who who've made it perfectly clear they ARE Scalia clones. Edith Jones for example. The left never has this problem. Ginsburg was the Counsel for the F'n ACLU for gods sakes. Clinton didn't have to "guess" or "hope" she was a liberal and the same goes for Breyer.

Bush either chickened out of a fight, or has no intention of fulfilling his campaign promise.

[churchillbuff]

The Federal government has no jurisdiction over what is shown on cable. """

Yes it does. Cable TV is a product marketed and delivered across state lines -- throughout the country. So the feds have commerce clause authority. And porn is not constitutionally protected, so there's no First Amendment problem (or shouldn't be; unfortunately, our modern Supreme Court justices see the First Amendment covering lewdness - even though the Founders would have laughed at that proposition).

[George W. Bush]

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.

Personally, I don't think any grassroots campaign is going to change things much with GOP senators. They're all going to vote for him. Most of them also voted to confirm Ginsberg after all and survived their next elections. And the Dims aren't going to be much influenced by us either way.

So this seems to be something of a tempest in a teapot. I'm eager to see what Roberts' actual conservative credentials are. I keep thinking they must exist somewhere on paper beyond the recommendations of Luttig, Levin, and Olson.

Probably, we're all just bashing each other to no good purpose on this one. Even if he were another Souter as Coulter seemed to fear, we can't do much about it now.

Nevertheless, conservatives have good reason for concern. Roe was not possible without the two Nixon appointees who actually led the charge on it. And Eisenhower's mistake was in promising Earl Warren a seat and then actually honoring the promise, much to the detriment of the country. Ike's own assessment: "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made".

[Lekker 1]

People might call me immoral because I go to Wal-Mart on a Sunday, or I deviated from the verbatim KJV of the Lord's Prayer. I wouldn't call that type of "morality" absolute and timeless.

[SoothingDave]

Cable bleed is a way for the porn companies to get their product into your home against your wishes, and to get your kids hooked.

You can't be serious. Thanks for the reply.

SD

[matymac]

Bush would have lost the fight...Conservatives don;t have the numbers in the Senate to appoint a "clone"

[Lekker 1]

unless someone finds a Coke can with a hair clinging to it.

LOL...You are right. If they could come out with just ONE Roberts argument as eloquent and as spot-on as Thomas's latest one regarding Eminent Domain, I would feel a lot more convinced. Now that you mention it, I haven't actually SEEN any actual editorial writings from this Roberts guy. Georgie...you got som 'splainin' to do.

[George W. Bush]

Thanks for those links. I'm listening to one now. What I'm still confused about is how we're supposed to disregard all the clients he worked for for either pay or pro bono (U.S. government cases as a government lawyer, his testimony during his appointment to appellate court, Playboy, gay groups, or any other client) and yet think we have some substantial reason to consider him a constructionist or conservative jurist.

It seems people want us to throw out everything we might possibly know about him. Except the Luttig/Olson/Levin recommendations.

Well, if so, fine. I just keep thinking there must be some particular case or article or academic paper he wrote to indicate that he is the Scalia-type justice we were promised.

[nopardons]

Levin knows Roberts work and the man, from the time both worked for the same president. Mark is also far above Ann, in his knowledge of Constitutional law and the SCOTUS.

Luttig, who some here wanted to be the nominee, without knowing ANYTHING about his paper trail, is one of Roberts' oldest and best friends.One of them, I forget which now, but I think it was Luttig,was the BEST MAN at the other's wedding. So yes, I would say that they know each other quite well !

An is NOT correct on this. She was just being a bloody bomb thrower. She hadn't done any research at all and has now, reneged on some of her statements and tempered her positions.

The president has every intention of fulfilling his promise to put a Conservative originalist on the courts of this nation; including SCOTUS. Unlike Souter and yes, O'Connor, Roberts IS a well known commodity in D.C.! He's worked for Republican presidents, in private practice, and has done more cases in SCOTUS, than any other lawyer...39, of which he has won 25.

Rehnquist was his mentor.

You are one of the extremists here, for whom nobody is far right enough and nothing this president does, is ever good enough. The die is cast; just suck it up and when Roberts is proved to be a Conservative Constitutionalist/originalists, I'm going to beat you over the head with I TOLD YA SOs; if you're still here.

[George W. Bush]

Now that you mention it, I haven't actually SEEN any actual editorial writings from this Roberts guy.

Now you get it. I started off very enthused about Roberts. And it's not these two cases that really bother me that much. I just keep wondering why I'm supposed to think he is the next Scalia.

I know that predicting future rulings from any Supreme is prettty hit-and-miss. But why is it the Dims seem to hit so much and we seem to miss so often? That's the real source of conservative unease about Roberts. I just hope we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

Georgie...you got som 'splainin' to do.

I know. I feel just awful about it.

FRegards.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

And porn is not constitutionally protected

Which is a problem since no one can define it in words that have any meaning except to one's self.

[George W. Bush]

I'm going to beat you over the head with I TOLD YA SOs; if you're still here.

Put me on that bump list. I'll be honored to be bashed on the head by you when it happens.

Of course, I'm not sure what all the Roberts naysayers actually expect us to do about his nomination now anyway. I think the train has left the station.

[KevinDavis]

I thought us Freepers wanted a small limited Government??? We can't pick and choose folks..

[highball]

Let me give you an imperfect, but apt, example. Most people, including conservatives, supported the creation of a "do not call" list, blocking telemarketers from calling whenever they wanted and punishing them if they did call someone on the list. The answer to someone in who is on the "do not call" list but receives calls anyhow is not to simply tell them: "if you don't like it, get rid of your phone service." Rather, it is to enforce the law.

It's imperfect, all right.

First of all, phone is not an optional service in our society. It's a necessity of life, for safety if no other reason. Cable is a luxury, an additional entertainment alternative above and beyond the options available on commercial television. If you don't want it, don't order it.

Second of all, there's no telephone service one may buy that's not susceptible to spam. You can watch regular TV if you don't like what's on cable. One can't have a limited-service phone with no unsolicited calls.

Finally, spam calls tie up the line and prevent its functioning. I can't take calls that I want if the line's busy with unsolicited calls. If you don't like what might be viewed for a fraction of a second at a time on one channel, you can still watch other channels.

For those reasons, the comparison really doesn't hold.

[highball]

"I thought us Freepers wanted a small limited Government???"

So did I. But it's not necessarily true.

[VRWCmember]

So you think a Federal law that forces cable operators to scramble a premium (extra-charge) channel that subscribers have paid for except for during certain hours of the day that the government has determined is acceptable for the porn to be unscrambled is reasonable and a constitutional authority of congress?