WASHINGTON, DC – Clients and casework in Supreme Court nominee John Robert’s past have conservative groups concerned, and support for his nomination from the Christian right appears to be eroding.The latest disclosure concerns work Roberts performed while a partner at Hogan and Hartson, assisting representatives of Playboy in preparation for the 1996 Playboy Entertainment Group v. US case in which Playboy challenged the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Robert Corn-Revere, a former colleague of Roberts’ at Hogan and Hartson, characterized Roberts’ involvement in the case as minimal. Corn-Revere, it is interesting to note, lists among his current clients ICM Registry, the principal architects of the proposed .XXX sponsored TLD.

“In the 3-and-a-half to 4 years we worked on that case, John may have devoted about a dozen hours at most,” Corn-Revere said in an interview with the conservative weekly Human Events. “John, as he did with many clients at the firm, was available for advice from time to time. In this case, he helped with moot courts in preparing me for oral argument in the case at the Supreme Court.”

Despite the assurances that Roberts merely assisted in preparation for the case, and Corn-Revere’s statement that “I never had a sense that John’s work for any clients necessarily represented his own personal views,” many conservative leaders are now backing away from publicly supporting Bush’s nominee.

The Playboy case was just one of several recent revelations that have conservatives rethinking their support for Roberts.

Last Thursday it was revealed that Roberts, also while at Hogan and Hartson, did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights advocacy groups in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans. Although Roberts’ involvement in the case was limited – as in the Playboy case, he served as a “mock judge” during preparation for the case – some conservative leaders are withholding or withdrawing their support for his nomination.

Christian conservative organizers of last weekend’s “Justice Sunday” telecast had originally touted it as an opportunity to rally support behind Roberts, but Roberts’ nomination was not the center of attention at Sunday’s meeting. The influential assemblage of conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants and congressional Republicans instead focused their discussion on criticizing the power and recent decisions of the Supreme Court itself.

House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), questioned the Supreme Court’s power to strike down federal laws if it deemed them unconstitutional. The Constitution assigned Congress the power to make laws and limited the federal courts to applying and interpreting those laws, DeLay said, calling his position a “fact understood by every high school civics student… which has been forgotten in recent decades by too many members of the American judiciary, including, most notably, the United States Supreme Court itself.”

DeLay touched on Roberts’ nomination only briefly, saying his nomination “would appear to be as uncontroversial as one could imagine.”

The shift in focus for the Justice Sunday telecast reflects the broader pullback of support from conservatives for Roberts’ nomination. While some are heartened by Roberts’ apparent ability to set aside his personal beliefs and objectively perform tasks on behalf of a wide variety of clients, some on the right wing are questioning his “conservative credentials.”

Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus issued a statement last week stating “Roberts’ assistance to homosexual activists in key Supreme Court case should cause conservatives to withhold support pending further information.” In the statement, Phillips asserts that “Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda,” adding, “it is another example of how Judge Roberts seems to go out of his way to pander to those on the Left who might otherwise oppose him.”

“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 said in an interview with Human Events. “Would there be any cases Judge Roberts wouldn’t take? Would he defend the North American Man/Boy Love Association? 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?”

The conservative group Public Advocate pulled its support for Roberts after learning of his role in Romer v. Evans. 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?”