Roberts actually comes off perfectly reasonable here. Maybe he can be chided for not being in tune with the current state of pop culture, but that hardly makes him a "total jackass." Try again, man.

...but that's actually pretty reasonable.

I don't like Roberts at all, but imagine a letter of recommendation awarded to an "alleged" child molester? Yikes. Even he was only "alleged" and acquitted, he would've still tainted the recommendation if he was given one.

As Roberts notes, this was a big capitalistic undertaking that would make a lot of money. And isn't exactly what Republican administrations are in favor of?

I disagree with the other two posters here.

In his opinion in Morse v Fredrick, Roberts more or less admits that the notorious "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" cannot possibly be protected by the First Amendment because he did see the humor. This seems consistent with his dismissal of Michael Jackson, who, as someone by this time had already had a long and storied career and was then the most popular recording artist in the country, was already a significant figure on the American cultural landscape.

This is significant, not because it shows Roberts to be an un-hip fuddy-duddy, though he certainly is one, not that there is anything wrong with that, but because it reveals something about the culture of prudish conservatism. Namely, that folks like Roberts believe anything that exists outside their narrow tastes and experience, regardless of how broadly accepted, is somehow without merit, weird, or even subversive and dangerous. This is about the bubble they live in, and the extent they will fight to maintain it.

Anyone who has read any of my letters knows I'm to the Left of practically every elected politician. But I must agree with the first couple posters. I like Jackson's music & I believe the issue at hand was long before any alleged pedophile accusations. However Roberts is not only NOT a total jackass, but is right on this ONE issue. The White House does not need to pander to pop stars or their fanboys.

Congrats, you finally worked MJ legitemately into a War Room story.

Too bad the shot get penalized. This story really only works if you can show Roberts not being consistent, right?

Sounded reasonable to me. I hate fawning over celebs by government and would have had the same opinion as Roberts.

Never thought I'd see the day I thought Roberts came off sounding somewhat reasonable.

Roberts seems like quite a fuddy duddy for a guy who was barely 30 at the time.

I fail to see the problem with a WH aide who thinks through the issue beyond the crass voter pandering, protects his boss from embarrassing cliches and who would clearly prefer the president of the US focus on more significant matters. Maybe we can have Obama fawn all over Hanna Montana.

Forget about Reagan, Roberts, Jackson and the non-Marxists.

Really? What the fuck is wrong with some of the posters here? I really don't give a rat's ass about Michael Jackson and never did (even when I was a kid when MJ was at the height of his popularity).

However, all Koppelman noted was that Roberts objected to a letter of commendation. Why in the world would ANYONE object to a letter commending the undeniable achievements of an individual.

Personally, I like the music of Prince much more than the music of Michael Jackson--however, Prince simply has never had the cultural impact that Michael Jackson had. Roberts hypothetical was pure bullshit--a lame excuse to exercise his objection.

Similarly, the poster that brought up Hannah Montana--give me a fucking break, there is absolutely ZERO comparison.

So, yeah, Alex is right--Roberts was being a fucking asshole. The White House wanted to write a letter commending the amazing achievements of a once-in-a-life-time international superstar and, instead of giving the individual the dues he rightly earned, he hedged.

And you see the same bullshit in many of his decisions. Take Caperton v. Massey: sure a judge that was given large sums of money by a party in the case may be unduly influenced, but how do you determine how much money is too much? Should we consider on which court he sits? etc.

The guy is a fucking prick and, based on this "recommendation" seems to have always been a fucking prick. He insinuates bullshit, nearly impossible hypotheticals as a means to his objections. Sounds like an asshole to me.

Should have kept your focus not on Michael Jackson (RIP!) but on the "Heinously Corrupt" US Supreme Court! This is the same Pompous,Hypocritidcal Court that enabled "War-Monger" Dubya Bush and his subsequent Iraq Oil War that was based completely on "Lies"!

That over a million "innocent" Iraqis were murdered by the US Military in this "CorpoRat Contrived" Iraq War is obviously of no consequence to the US Supreme Court! For how could they have possibly permitted this genocide,or a virulent disease like Bush & Cheney,not to mention all their other evil skulduggery,thats actually legitimized the "Rape & Murder" of America? How could the US Supreme Court permit and condone this evil,if even a single one of their pompous members had any real morality,let alone any real conscience!

If you're looking for the "Bad Guys" in the demise of America then you need look no further than the US Supreme Court!!!

Geeze, what's with all the hating on Koppelman? Critisizing him for not holding a different view is one thing, but being mad that he isn't covering something more important like Supreme Court corruption? The guy is puting out 2-3 columns on a -slow- day while come columnists might manage 2 on their busier days.

It's a fluff piece to lighten the mood (and point out that Roberts pretty much thinks any accomplishment that doesn't appeal to him is no accomplishment at all).

Massive fail, Alex.

I agree with Roberts.

I can't believe it, but I do.

The only thing he missed was that the real purpose of the Reagan letter was not to commend Michael Jackson, but to bump the popularity of Reagan among young people (where he was not popular, despite what Karl Rove tells you, now) and minorities (where he was not popular, despite what Clarence Thomas tells you, now). Ronald Reagan was the most hated President until George W. Bush because the most radical and the most ready to offend those with whom he disagreed, and he had a reductive, anachronistic view of minorities and young people, alike.

Presidents don't need to award successful marketing machines for making vast sums and creating hype, as they're rewarding themselves handsomely. Michael Jackson at that time was a juggernaut of hype and Hollywood, not Motown, music business. If we want a killer for him, that was it. It was the time when the army of sycophants became a fixture and when the money made fantasies reality and reality someone else's problem. It's when Jackson became eligible for Howard Hughes Syndrome.

Then again, that party, and that president might indeed want to commend the triumph of marketing, image, and artificial demand. It might want to strike a medal for the creation of a permanent bubble that can poison all who dwell in it.