Skip to comments.Conservatives Alarmed at Robertsí Role in Playboy Case
Posted on 08/12/2005 5:53:40 PM PDT by boryeulb
Prominent conservatives tell HUMAN EVENTS they are troubled by the revelation that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group--the second time in one week information has come to light that Roberts helped a liberal cause.
Last Thursday conservatives were hit with the news that Roberts, while a partner at Hogan & Hartson, did pro bono work for gay-rights advocates in the case Romer v. Evans, which challenged a Colorado voter-approved initiative on sexual orientation. Yesterday, HUMAN EVENTS documented Roberts similar involvement in a case involving Playboy and its challenge of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to restrict young children from viewing pornography.
Roberts firm came out on the winning side in each case before the Supreme Court. But it is his involvement in both--playing the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting--that has led to second-guessing among conservatives who wonder why he wouldnt politely decline such assignments.
John Roberts was a senior partner. John Roberts did not have to take these cases, said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. If John Roberts volunteered to take these cases, then this is very, very troubling.
It goes to a core value, Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS. Would there be any cases Judge Roberts wouldnt take? Would he defend the North American Man/Boy Love Association? Would he defend racist groups? Is there a line drawn where an attorney would not take cases? I would suppose if it isnt for stifling a voter-approved initiative and for pornography being made more available to minors, then what kind of cases wouldnt Judge Roberts take?
One conservative group--Public Advocate--pulled its support for Roberts this week after learning of his role in the Romer case. The fact that Roberts was involved in the Playboy case as well should outrage conservative activists who are supporting his confirmation, said the groups president, Eugene Delgaudio.
Weve got somebody who has worked for the political opposition for free and for pay. If he worked for pro-aborts, would that be enough? Delgaudio said. Do we really think, as conservatives, the stampede toward pornography and gay rights is the right thing? When do we starting mobilizing and reacting?
In the Playboy case, Roberts helped prepare Playboys lead counsel, Robert Corn-Revere, who worked with him at Hogan & Hartson, for his oral argument before the Supreme Court in 1999, Corn-Revere told HUMAN EVENTS yesterday. Roberts also attended a meeting that same year at the U.S. solicitor generals office on behalf of Playboy.
In the 3-and-a-half to 4 years we worked on that case, Corn-Revere said, John may have devoted about a dozen hours at most.
With some of the nations most well-known conservatives gathering in Nashville, Tenn., for Justice Sunday II this weekend, the issue of Roberts work at Hogan & Hartson could serve as a distraction to the event. The Family Research Center, the primary sponsor of Justice Sunday II, declined to comment about the Playboy revelations after issuing a supportive statement last week about his involvement in the Romer case.
Other groups, however, said Roberts should be questioned vigorously about his work on behalf of liberal interests when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September.
We dont feel compelled to either attack him or defend him at this point, said Peter Brandt, director of issues response for Focus on the Family. These are all issues that Im sure will come out at the hearings, and we dont want to speculate on them. Were like everyone else--anxious to watch the hearings and hear the questions that will be asked of him.
Added Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America: Its a troubling revelation, and it raises the question whether and when attorneys should excuse themselves from certain cases that violate their beliefs. Attorneys are hired guns. They dont necessarily believe in the cause they represent, but there must be some limitation somewhere when youre dealing with issues that have the potential to change the moral fabric of the country. We hope that there are some good questions at the September heading for Judge Roberts.
The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, said Roberts still has his backing, but he questioned whether Roberts could have avoided any anxiety by declining involvement in the cases. He said he is encouraging Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be quiet severe in their line of questioning.
In the Playboy case, ideally he would have said, I dont want any part of this. But whether that was even possible for him is an open question, Schenck told HUMAN EVENTS. I will temper my enthusiasm, though. I never thought we were going to get a perfect nominee. I dont think we can get a perfect nominee. But I continue to think that Judge Roberts was the best nominee that we were going to get out of the Bush Administration.
Mahoney, however, noted the pitfalls of following the administrations enthusiasm without first putting Roberts on the spot. If Judge Roberts turns out to be [Anthony] Kennedy-esque or [David] Souter-esque, Mahoney said, the people who backed Roberts and were not aggressive have some serious questions to answer, not only to their constituents but to the nation itself.
So what's got NARAL all so riled up?
Oh, I forgot. Bush appointed him.
You guys don't give up do you...until the Sunday Talk Shows give some new talking points.
Ah, the smell of fine manure....
So, newbie, what is your opinion on this?
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.
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.
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.
So how do we know he didn't argue as Scalia...?
Welcome to FR.
That sort of nanny crapola is for do-gooder liberal douchebags.
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.
hey, better playboy that playgirl eh?
Let's just confirm him and MoveOn. Same old sh*t, different day. DemocRAT obstructionists need to get a life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
as a conservative myself it does show me he will follow the rule of law. I dont agree with somethings however law is law and that is the way it is
Hello and goodbye.
What the libs need to know that many Conservatives understand that he is a lawyer and sometimes they may have to take cases that they may find repulsive. That is called work ethics as in doing his job.
You have a job so you can make money so the liberals have something to tax and give to some lazy slob who doesn't have work ethics.
Nobody has a right to speak for "Conservatives." Nobody. One size does not fill all. "Conservatives" come in many stripes, and disagree with each other frequently about many issues, and about tactics.
Even some lawyers have principles. I don't think it is asking a lot.
Hmmmm.... He spent 12 hours reviewing the evidence huh ?
Well at least he wasn't reading it for the articles.......
That's true. A top notch lawyer could take either side and do a strong job. And might take cases just to round out his understanding.
"Some Conservatives at Human Events Alarmed at Roberts Role in Playboy Case"
Just joined today. First post. You couldn't possibly have an agenda here could you ZOTBAIT?
Yep. Sometimes, defending your freedoms require defending Playboy. It's that simple.
I like naked women.
Folks often tend to dislike lawyers for merely doing their jobs in an adversarial legal system. That is their right. What is best is for judges to be exposed, particularly as to precedent making decisions, to the best possible arguments on both sides. That gives the judge the most information and tools to make the most wise decision. We in the guild are used to taking the heat, and are well compensated for it; this is not meant as a complaint.
Boy are you lib ?
How about, "I like good looking naked women."
It is said that to understand the law you have to get down into the law. If I need to hire an attorney, I would prefer one who has seen, worked and understood the matter at hand from all perspectives. This would be more important for a judge.
Sorry, I go ugly early.
what day is it??
Is Roberts a left winger or a right winger?
Indeed. I was wondering about those pesky little details myself.
Jimmy used to read Playboy in the toilet. (this is so freeken stooopid).
He's an effete, metrosexual.
I sense he's another Anthony Kennedy.
If he chooses to take them.
I would hope that Roberts is not just older but wiser now.
If I understand Roberts role in that case, he was asked to role-play Scalia for his colleagues and he spent a total of 6 hours helping them. The fact that he colleagues thought he would make a good Scalia says something about how they viewed him. I assume when Roberts went in front of the Supreme Court, he had some of his liberal lawyers role-play Ginsburg. Too me this episode is re-assuring. I find Ann Coulter and others to be way over-reacting and everything I see about Roberts indicates he will be an outstanding CONSERVATIVE justice. I have no reservations about him and am 100% certain he will join the Thomas and Scalia wing of the court.
Why would liberals give a hoot about someone to play Scalia? They know that the devil will ice-skate before Scalia votes for one of their cases.
I still have $850 that says Roberts will be a Rehnquist or better. I had to takers so far for a total of $150.
Yet another load of idiotic crap.