Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives Alarmed at Robertsí Role in Playboy Case
Human Events ^ | August 12, 2005 | Robert B. Bluey

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 wouldn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 isn’t for stifling a voter-approved initiative and for pornography being made more available to minors, then what kind of cases wouldn’t 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 group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio.

“We’ve 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 Playboy’s 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 general’s 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 nation’s 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 don’t 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 I’m sure will come out at the hearings, and we don’t want to speculate on them. We’re 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: “It’s 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 don’t necessarily believe in the cause they represent, but there must be some limitation somewhere when you’re 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 administration’s 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.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: eugenedelgaudio; frc; gopvictoryin06and08; johnroberts; justicesundayii; kittybait; liberalshateamerica; libsreadplaygirl; newbie; patrickmahoney; playboy; robschenck; romer; supremecourt; tonyperkins; troll; vikingkitty; zot; zotbait; zotme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2005 5:53:42 PM PDT by boryeulb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

So what's got NARAL all so riled up?


2 posted on 08/12/2005 5:54:42 PM PDT by IonInsights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IonInsights

Oh, I forgot. Bush appointed him.


3 posted on 08/12/2005 5:55:21 PM PDT by IonInsights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

You guys don't give up do you...until the Sunday Talk Shows give some new talking points.


4 posted on 08/12/2005 5:55:28 PM PDT by ErnBatavia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

Ah, the smell of fine manure....


5 posted on 08/12/2005 5:56:25 PM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb
Signed up today to post this, huh?

So, newbie, what is your opinion on this?

6 posted on 08/12/2005 5:56:37 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb
The media knows they can't beat this guy without splitting the Republicans - and the multitude of articles like this are proof of this left-wing conspiracy to make the right-wingers eat their own.
7 posted on 08/12/2005 5:57:23 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Liberals...they're so quixotic...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

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.


8 posted on 08/12/2005 5:59:03 PM PDT by Boundless (Imagine if Fox had a news channel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

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.

Simple.

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.


9 posted on 08/12/2005 5:59:10 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (9-11 is your Peace Dividend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb
But it is his involvement in both--playing the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting--

So how do we know he didn't argue as Scalia...?

10 posted on 08/12/2005 5:59:19 PM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

Welcome to FR.


11 posted on 08/12/2005 5:59:23 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb
Playboy is a pay cable premium channel. The government has no business telling the people who decide to buy it what time they are allowed to watch it.

That sort of nanny crapola is for do-gooder liberal douchebags.

12 posted on 08/12/2005 5:59:32 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

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.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZC1.html


13 posted on 08/12/2005 6:00:18 PM PDT by DoraC (Islam is no peaceful religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

hey, better playboy that playgirl eh?


14 posted on 08/12/2005 6:01:31 PM PDT by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

Let's just confirm him and MoveOn. Same old sh*t, different day. DemocRAT obstructionists need to get a life.


15 posted on 08/12/2005 6:02:04 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

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.


16 posted on 08/12/2005 6:02:06 PM PDT by DoraC (Islam is no peaceful religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb

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.


17 posted on 08/12/2005 6:03:26 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Peace Begins in the Womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb
I oppose Roberts on essentially the grounds set forth by Ms. Coulter.

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.

18 posted on 08/12/2005 6:03:34 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boryeulb
There is a zero chance Roberts will turn into a Souter. Zero. Roberts was, and remains, a partisan conservative Republican, who went to battle for Ronald Reagan and in Bush v Gore for the Republican side. These facts alone should discount speculations of him being a Souter. Plus, he has said things that a liberal would never say in a million years, such as "the Rehnquist court is not conservative", and so on.

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.

19 posted on 08/12/2005 6:03:53 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

:thumbs up:


20 posted on 08/12/2005 6:04:02 PM PDT by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson