Conservatives Alarmed at Roberts’ Role in Playboy Case

Uhhh, what's there to be alarmed about? Because he spent a few hours in a mock trial? Woo flippin' hoo.

 

Well, I guess I'm just an old codger - but - it bothers me.

Apparently he wasn't required to take the Playboy Case - it was purely profit.

It was not about "total censorshp", so it can't really be explained away as, "defending freedom of speech."

It was a case about protecting children from viewing pornography, and he helped the pornographers build their Supreme Court Case. And apparently his lawfirm won.

This means:
1) He took pornographer's money to support his firm.
2) He helped his firm prepare for successfully defending child-access to pornography.

Of course, I am even MORE alarmed at reading the 1986 Telecommunication's Act clause to prevent children from viewing pornography was shot down.

This is definately not the kind of man I hope makes the court.

 

Attorneys are trained and educated to advocate a clients position no matter what their personal feelings are.

Otherwise some accused criminals would never have representation.

This is hardly an indication of how he will administer the Constitution.

 

Carpro,

Yes, attornies are trained and educated to advocate a client's position no matter what.
Yes, some attornies don't have a choice regarding what kinds of cases they will or will not take.

However - He had a choice.
No one required his firm to accept Playboy's money.

 

Exactly. So why should he not take the case? From an attorney's standpoint, if he thought he could win for his client? Why not do what you were educated to do and create the income that your obligations require you to for the firm you work for?

It still doesn't indicate how he will interpret the Constitution.

 

"Attorneys are trained and educated to advocate a clients position no matter what their personal feelings are."

So, are you saying that lawyers are trained that winning and money takes precedent over principle, or is it that principle is a type of pliable thing to be shaped to fit the case at hand and the money involved in winning that case?

 

Lawyers are trained that winning and money ARE the principle.

Come to think of it, Americans are trained to think that winning and money are the principle good.

I heard that Roberts is smart, decent and fair - that is pretty much what I want from a judge.

 

YES.

 

Amendment VI of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights guarantees an accused party "the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Imagine that you're a salaried public defender assigned to represent a destitute accused murderer. In examining the charges and the evidence against the accused, you privately reach the conclusion that your client is guilty. (This is a frequent occurance under such circumstances.) What do you do? Under the law, the accused is entitled to the best possible defense you can muster.

In such a case, the law is the principle; and money is not a consideration.

 

Imagine that you're a salaried public defender assigned to represent a destitute accused murderer. In examining the charges and the evidence against the accused, you privately reach the conclusion that your client is guilty.

Totally different circumstances.

Playboy was not on trial.

There was no "public defender".

There was no "right to an attorney" granted by the constitution in order to defend the plantiff. This was Playboy bringing a suit against the US Government.

This was a civil suit, meant to overturn a law and meant to set a legal prescendence.

Playboy was paying Robert's firm to make it legal to show pornography to children.

Roberts HAD a choice, and this was NOT standing up on principles of defending the weak. This was about making money for his law firm.

I'm sorry, but the public-defender laws just do not apply to this situation.

 

Of course. I wasn't saying they are not totally different circumstances.

I was just pointing out the flaws of the tangential argument that was claiming that lawyers are simply motivated by money and/or winning, regardless of principle.

My example was not intended to be linked to the OP or John Roberts in any way.

 

Okay, maybe he was a Senior Partner, but maybe it was his turn on rotation to take the case. Being a Senior Partner in no way makes one the sole decision maker in deciding whether or not to take a case. You have other senior partners to answer to and, depending on how many senior partners are in a given law firm, perhaps he was a junior senior partner, the newest senior partner.

Same with the pro bono cases. What people don't seem to understand is that law firms agree to provide pro bono services and I believe it all works on a rotating basis. So when it's your firm's turn, you take the case.

Can we all step back and take a breath now?

 

How far do we take the, "that is how it is done in my profession," excuse for certain behaviors?

Hollywood used to be well known for the "casting coach". When I studied journalism I was once told that I was "too polite" to be a really good reporter because "reporters have to be willing to get down and dirty to do their job."

Where is that line? Is it okay for the Hollywood starlett or the supermodel to do the nude sex scenes because "that's just the way the business works?" Is it okay for the accountant to lie on the tax return in hopes the IRS doesn't catch his client because "that's how the job is done?"

Are the Medical Students who say they do not want to do the abortion rotations more wrong than right?

Where is the line?

 

The line has moved. When you are a far right conservative, you learn to settle for crumbs. The last election taught me that.

 

You know, I served as Chief Justice in a mock trial while at a conference in Washington several years ago. The issue before us was the assisted-suicide battle.

You might find it odd that I chose to participate in this and I also sided with the pro-suicide group in my majority opinion.

This decision was based solely on the evidence presented to me during the trial, and taking nothing from my own personal feelings. Of course, had it been real life, there is no way I could separate my personal feelings on the matter because judges are elected based on how they believe the Constitution is to be interpreted. Personal feelings must play a role in that.

Lawyers have only one job, and that is to win for their clients by using the law to their advantage. Frankly, if Roberts found loopholes in the law that would allow gays and Playboy to get their agenda "legalized", then Congress should work to fill that loophole.

Do you blame undercover agents for sneaking through airport security in order to test for holes? Or, rather, should we fix those holes once investigators have pointed them out to us?

BTW, since Roberts has worked with these groups in the past, would that not make him more in tune with what tactics they might use when presenting a case before the SC? Isn't it better for someone to teach a class on a certain subject if they have actively participated in/closely studied that subject???

To be honest, it is absolutely impossible to know with all certainty how anyone will rule before they are actually on the court and making decisions. Anything prior to that is only speculation.

My feeling is, President Bush was elected by the majority of Americans, so he has the right to appoint whoever he feels best represents what his base wants in a judge. He may misinterpret what we want, but he still has the right to choose with the consent of Congress.

 

We're going down the tubes because we are a "nation of laws", instead of principles. The USSR was also a nation of laws, along with a lengthy list of other despotic states. When are we going to abide by the spirit of our founding documents, instead of the insane letter of the law?