Roberts to Reagan: Don’t laud Michael Jackson or you’ll have to praise Prince

By Chris Steller
Friday, June 26, 2009 at 3:58 pm

prince_purplerain_single-704679In 1984, President Ronald Reagan was warned by a young White House associate counsel named John Roberts against sending a letter of commendation to singer Michael Jackson, who died yesterday. One reason: Praising the King of Pop would set a precedent, requiring the president to also praise a “newcomer who goes by the name ‘Prince.’” But Roberts — now the nation’s Chief Justice — didn’t hold himself to that standard when he penned a high court dissent last year that quoted another Minnesota-born musician: Bob Dylan.

Roberts’ advice to Reagan included this:

It is also important to consider the precedent that would be set by such a letter. In today’s [Washington] Post there were already reports that some youngsters were turning away from Mr. Jackson in favor of a newcomer who goes by the name “Prince,” and is apparently planning a Washington concert. Will he receive a Presidential letter? How will we decide which performers do and which do not?

The whole thing’s a scream,” observes David Weigel at our sister site, The Washington Independent. It’s well worth reading the Post’s full account for other delicious tidbits. For example, while dissing Jackson, Roberts judged Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” tour to be commendably “patriotic” —  suggesting that Roberts completely missed the album’s undercurrent of cynicism and doubt about the country under Reagan.

Strange that he would miss that, considering that he’s apparently a close reader of Springsteen’s hero, Dylan. In what’s thought to be the first occasion on which pop music invaded the sacrosanct realm of high court opinions, Roberts cited a Dylan lyric in an opinion last June:

The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing. “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).

Roberts’ predecessor as chief justice, William Rehnquist, liked light-opera legends Gilbert and Sullivan so much so that he not only quoted them in opinions but added fussy accessories to his judicial robes that looked like knock-offs from Gilbert and Sullivan costumes.

No word on whether Roberts wears a mid-’80s-style Springsteen bandana tied around his head while crafting opinions in chambers. Actually, Prince has provided a more judicial look in some phases of his career.

And Prince also gets political from time to time, most recently working federal bailouts and North Minneapolis’ progress (or lack thereof) into a jam on his latest CD. Indeed, at the time Roberts began writing his Jackson briefs, “Purple Rain” was days away from being released (the release date was June 25, 1984 — 25 years to the day before Jackson’s death) so youngsters would still have been digging earlier songs off his previous record, “Controversy”, including one called “Annie Christian” that mentions Reagan:

Annie Christian was a whore always looking for some fun
being good was such a bore, so she bought a gun
she killed John Lennon, shot him down cold
she tried to kill Reagan, everybody say gun control (gun control!)

Here’s a video of Prince, hand in pocket, performing a punked-up version of “Annie Christian” at the Warner Theatre in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 21, 1981.


Comments

12 Comments

Bobb
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

This is why the USA sucks. You cant fart without some journalist sniffing it for the food you ate the night before and trying to make a conspiracy out of it. This article isnt even necessary. Robert made statements almost half a human lifetime ago and he is in a permanent government position. Effect=0


R.J. Lehmann
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

The album Prince fans of early ’84 would have been digging was 1999, his breakthrough record, released in late 82. Controversy, released in 81, was a commercial flop.


justin
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

I agree with Bobb.


Steve
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

@Bobb: This is why the USA sucks.

Then leave. (Just kidding)

Hardly any articles are “necessary” but this one does indeed give some insight into the legal thinking of a man who is going to affect all of our lives for decades to come. It’s a legitimate observation and a somewhat revealing one, at that.


Chris Steller
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Thanks for the correction, R.J. Lehmann. I adjusted the post.


John P. Jones
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

In reply to “Bobb”

Bobb, If you believe “the USA sucks”, then you should certainly include yourself as one of the reasons why. Everyone (including you) is entitled to voice their opinions … whether its seriously critical, critically serious … or anecdotal. John Roberts shouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice because, as the example cites, his bias permeates his being. I think this is a great article, and it raises interesting points that not many people would even consider.

Okay Bobb, you can fart now … stop your sniveling, nobody’s sniffing. And good luck with defending justice Roberts.


mike
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

John Roberts’ title is Chief Justice of the United States, not of the Supreme Court.


HXL
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Way to go Bobb


Rakesh Jayaram
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

Good observation. A journalist’s job is to report and record and that’s what this is all about. Readers can make whatever they want out of it. For me it tells what we knew all along – that prejudice exists at all levels and particularly in the upper echelons of power. It’s the same as my English and Irish colleagues hating the grunting and squealing of Maria Sharapova (and before her, Monica Seles) and wanting it banned, but loved it when John McEnroe did it. When English speaking tennis players are bratty and obnoxious in court they are labelled mercurial but when Djokovic of Serbia does it he is called all sorts of names by senior western journalists.

But I guess that is human nature. We are all prejudiced…to a lesser or greater degree.


Chris Steller
Comment posted June 26, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

Thanks for the correction, mike. I modified the post.


Dave
Comment posted June 28, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

What an example of the Left’s masturbatory glee in playing gotcha politics even if it’s a quarter century old. You got jack and it’s not even worth the minute it took to read and respond. I DEMAND A REFUND OF MY TIME


Siouxzy Poynt
Comment posted June 28, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

*
*
*
*

THE ARTIST WUNTSCE KNOWN AS THE KING
OF ROQK AND ROLE THAT IS

KEEPS POPPING UP
ALL OVER THE PLAICE

AS IF HE IS STILL IN THE BIZ


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.