Can any American be a successful Supreme Court justice who shows so little worshipful idolatry for Hollywood’s anointed ones? Read on:
Last week I wrote about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ distaste for the antics of Michael Jackson as far back as the Reagan administration, in “Roberts Dissed the King“. As that was more than twenty years ago, when Jackson was still white, I postulated that his “dissing” attitude may be a reason that the Democrats are opposed to Roberts now.
Things are now getting worse as newly released documents are revealing that John Roberts exhibited a very low regard for some of the most famous icons of Hollywood. In fact, it appears that Ronald Reagan was probably the only screen actor that John Roberts could abide. Now Judge John Roberts is really in knee-high, deep doo-doo with the Democrats, as where would they be without the love and support from their Hollywood cronies. The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank is at it again with “Roberts’s Rules of Decorum – No Hobnobbing With Celebs, and Absolutely No Michael Jackson”. According to the columnist, after advising President Reagan even further about Michael Jackson, John Roberts went on to “diss” even Bing Crosby and John Wayne, writing that the American president should not offer words of remembrance about them.
On April 30, 1984, Roberts wrote to oppose a presidential award that was to have been given to Jackson for his efforts against drunk driving. Roberts particularly objected to award wording that described Jackson as an “outstanding example” for American youth. Roberts wrote: “If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose ‘Michael,’ as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson’s androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President.”