Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Upon Further Consideration

Okay, John Roberts might not be Satan Incarnate. After some research time and time to consider, I (being the sucker I am) am willing to give him a chance....

HAH NO FUCKING WAY

In the area of freedom of speech, Roberts co-authored a brief arguing that the 1989 Flag Act did not violate the First Amendment.28 Two Americans had been prosecuted for burning the U.S. flag in violation of the Act, but both charges were dismissed on the grounds that the law violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The government’s brief argued for the Court to treat flag burning like “obscene words” and “defamatory statements” and allow the government to ban it for the common good,29 but the Supreme Court disagreed 5-4, holding the statute unconstitutional.

Roberts also served as the attorney for Fox Television, the network owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, in its challenge of governmental regulations. In Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fox won its challenge to the federal government’s ownership and cross-ownership rules.31 The D.C. Circuit held that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the use of the rule in this case, given the lack of proof of a potential for monopoly on Fox’s part and the federal government’s imprecise definition of the term “diversity” to justify its need for the rule.

When asked in 2000 for his opinion of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, which has been characterized by many legal scholars as the most right-wing and activist in decades,45 Roberts stated, “I don't know how you can call [the Rehnquist] court conservative . . . .”46 And when asked specifically about the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term, a term in which the Court rendered numerous highly controversial decisions,47 Roberts said that “[t]aking this term as a whole, the most important thing it did was make a compelling case that we do not have a very conservative Supreme Court . . .

Roberts co-authored two briefs arguing for an expanded role for religion in public schools. In one case, he co-authored a government amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court, in which he argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program, a position rejected by the Supreme Court.

From here.

I won't get fooled again...

Posted by crimnos @ 6:32 AM