John Roberts - pornography vs free speech
 

A few minutes ago at his congressional hearing John Roberts was asked about Free Speech and Pornography. His tap dancing around that question would have made Buster Brown proud.

I paraphrase.

The courts have looked over how much pornography should be protected by free speech. It has decided child pornography can be removed from free speech protections, and other pornography can be placed in different categories. That is all I have to say about that.


Looks like we will not know what we are getting from this guy until he takes his seat on the bench.


We need a lobby!


Eric
TNV Entertainment

roe vs wade will be overturned.

no it won't.

There is a good chance it will be.

no there isn't.

You can try and claim that all day long....but we won't know until it's addressed now will we?

A lot more intelligent people than you, conservatives and liberals alike would disagree with you.

Yes, there is.

a lot of people put more weight on hype than reality.
reality: it won't be addressed (by the supreme court), and it ain't getting overturned.

Thank you anonymous pornographer for your words of wisdom. I have nothing to fear now.

right back at ya.

Could have been a lot worse. Many right-wing judges would have launched into a tirade about the subject, raining down fire and brimstone for the press.

Roberts is as good a pick as can be hoped under the circumstances. Roe v. Wade will not be touched, get a clue sheep.

he is too nice makes me nervous lol

lol I had that same thought earlier...hope we don't wake up one day and he pulls off the sheep mask to reveal a sharp-toothed wolf. :1orglaugh

I think we're fine though, trust me when I say it could have been a lot worse. This guy makes Bork look like Janis Joplin. Much more moderate choice than I thought Bush would have forced on us...

Stop being such a drama-fag. :thumbsup

If Roe v Wade is overturned, then it'll just go back to the states.
So ifyou want an abortion you'll have to go to a state where its legalized.

Its not going to mean the end of abortion all over America

That would be a slippery slope. The right wing christians would love to have abortion as a rallying point on the State level even more than they do at the national level. The wealthy conservative right will then have what they want too...the country divided over personal/social issues, enabling them to continue destroying the environment and making obscene profits while the public's attention is diverted.

John Roberts can be a very real danger to so many liberties that we take for granted. He has barely two years as a judge, and his whole career he has been under the patronage of the Republican party - hardly an independent person if you ask me. Yet he can duck and sidestep issues that are at the heart of what he will be focusing on if he is appointed for life to the Supreme Court.

On abortion Roberts wrote that Roe vs Wade was "wrongly decided and should be overturned". Roberts is portrayed as a protege of William Rehnquist, who was one of the two dissenting votes in that case. Other considerations that may be factors in his decisionmaking are that he is Catholic (although I know there are Catholic politicians that support abortion rights despite being personally/religiously opposed to it), and also Robert's wife was an executive in anti-abortion group.

The Bush administration has been stripping away at our rights in an insidious and methodical way, under the guise of national security (the Patriot Act suspends a wide range of civil liberties), and protecting children. The two appointments that Bush will be making to the Supreme Court are sure to give Bush and his cohorts even more confidence that they can roll back more liberties with the backing and blessing of the court.

This is so not good...

ADG Webmaster

:thumbsup

Historically the courts have rarely gone back to cases that were already decided upon. The issue may seem hot to the public though I am pretty sure its a mute point with the courts.
Of course this does not mean it could not happen, and then yes it would go back to the states themselves. Though most states would keep shit just as it is.

Nominate another one more to your liking, who won't wind up worse. Otherwise you're just another "Ross Perot": You're fast to criticize, slow to provide a solution.

Roberts is MUCH better than half a dozen other candidates on the list, who make Stalin look "soft". Hell lets just put Ashcroft and Gonzalez in the top seat, would that be better for you?

Provide solutions. Any monkey can criticize.

I love how everyone who has a differing opinion than anyone else is a "sheep."

LOL too fucking funny.

Even it does, it won't make much difference since it will

1) kick the right to choose abortion to the states
2) does nothing about the independent constitutional grounds doctrine which can sustain a right to choose abortion based on privacy rights rooted in STATE constitutional rights.

IMHO

Tell that to people who live in the bible belt.

Last time I checked the word "opinion" had a different definition than "fact"...

In public comments from each of the justices dating back over the past decade, not one said they feel Roe v. Wade should be looked at again by the court. Not the ones on the left side of the aisle, obviously, and not even those on the right.

They bitch about it, yes. Do they agree with it? Likely not. But they certainly won't touch it.

Fact. Not opinion.

No that is still just your opinion...unless you talk to KRL's dogs too and they have told you the future STFU.

One more thing.... the court has steadily approved "time and manner" restrictions on speech. It used to be okay to put up a 'dirty bookshop' right next to a school or next to a church. The Court held up local zoning restrictions to zone adult businesses very far from schools, churches, and main population centers. It's very possible they can extend this type of thinking to online pornography.... As for banning porn in general, that probably won't happen since the Miller standard is quite durable.

Are you saying it won't be overturned...


or


He will not even try to overturn it ...????

Yep. It's called political promises. Giving people stuff that they think will mean something (in exchange for votes, of course). When all the noise is over... the bag will be empty. Abortion will still be legal in California and Massachussetts and other states. Besides, finding an abortion specialist in the South is already hard. It's de facto suppressed. The overturning of Roe will just make it de jure suppression.

Plan on Rowe vs Wade being overturned. Thats what the extreme right was promised to get W in. Plan on it happening. The problem is most of America wants to work ,fuck, party on the weekend and watch TV. They dont follow the news or currents events until its usually too late.

I'm saying it won't even make it to the back supreme court.

Fact. As I already illustrated.

The extreme right doesn't need any "promises" to vote for Republican candidates. They do so because they have no other party that seems to harbor their nonsense beliefs.

Republicans pander to the religious demographic, they don't act on their wishes. Every now and then they'll throw up a prayer-in-school bullshit reforendum to pay lipservice to their Southern base, but that's the limit. They're the whores of the Right, giving their votes in exchange for empty promises.

No one, not Roberts, or any other supreme court justice, will challenge Roe v. Wade. Ever. The court has never been a lightning rod for IGNITING controversy, not even with extremely conservative Rhenquist chairing it the past 20 years.

People need to slow down and think. Too many knee-jerk "experts" voicing their opinions in this thread.

Roberts certainly had no problem with "porn" when he reprsented Playboy Inc

I didn't know he did that.

I like him better now.

Actually, dude seems very intelligent.

I was actually surprised by the mildness of his porn remarks and think he came off sounding very genuine about it.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, then it'll just go back to the states.

So if you want an abortion you'll have to go to a state where its legalized.

Its not going to mean the end of abortion all over America


hmmm wasnt medicinal marijuana voted for by the people of california and the GOVERMENT is shutting it down ect?

and some of you Bright posters use words such as sheep hype liberal ect ....

state rights?

:1orglaugh

you have no fucking rights ....

LOL and what the fuck are you?

Jesus...you express an opinion, saying something will NEVER happen...kinda hard to prove it at this point for either of us since we DON"T KNOW THE FUTURE!

But yet you claim it as fact and then call everyone else around here "knee jerk experts."

Listen up dipshit...You're just another GFYer posting, nothing more nothing less. When you get appointed to the supreme court maybe then I'll listen to you.

his job is to interpret the law and uphold the constitution. you can't just arbitrarily clamp down on anything without due process. if he is confirmed, it represents the system at work and the approval of both dem's and republicans... and at the end of the day, thats the deal we all signed up for.

:2 cents:

And for those who are calling this guy mild, and our pleased with his remarks so far when it comes to porn blah blah fucking blah.

You do realise these are senate confirmation hearings..othe wise known as "the big dance."

The attempt at nailing a guy on something like a hot button issue and his attempt at avoiding being nailed..right? You guys do know this don't you?

And whether republicans like it or not...porn does have some free rights protections..so yeah he's not gonna just come out and say he's gonna go after it hardcore..sorry for the pun.

i hate to break it to you but a state can't override federal law. that was the issue. the federal government enforced the existing drug related laws.

if pot smokers did not largely represent the idiots of the world (be it a perception or reality), it would be legalized as soon as they put down the doritos, took a shower, got a haircut and made a solid case for it that people could get behind.

sorry to be the one to point out to you that the system works really well.


:1orglaugh

Read this
 

my point exactly.

i was replying to someone who said if roe was overturned, it would/could be up to individual states to pass abortion laws, which wouldnt happen because like you said a state cant overturn a federal law. (unless it passed a provision that said states have the right to abide or not, which aint gonna happen)

I never said the system sucks and i hate to break it to you, but if you think the system works really well, your the type, like a lot of sheep in this country, beleive what your told and not what you see.

I agree with Bill Maher---if Roe vs Wade gets overturned it is well deserved. The asshats that reelected him, or the ones that couldn't kick their hippie ass kids off the couch to go vote should live in the christian taliban society which he seems to love and promote.

:/

you might see a civil war then. I think that is to touchy of an issue.

life hint number 251: "ignorant, paranoid and insecure does not equate to "enlightened"

who is the sheep? i am not the person who speaks and reacts without understanding and whose opinions are shaped by the resulting paranoia and fear.

no one with a competent understanding of the workings of our legal system and constitution is arguing that the constitution and federal law do not work "really well" - yet you, an uninformed porn webmaster are. i am sure you will send shockwaves through the corridors of the justice system. and rightfully so, you will be undoubtedly be consulted on any changes you might deem necessary for the constitution to correct the same ailing system that has been copied all over the world and remained unchanged since the founding of the country.

here is a wise and helpful suggestion:

learn how supreme court justices are nominated and THEN confirmed... then comment.

:1orglaugh

i love guys like you - always gotta digress when the panties get in a bunch by a slight ....

your comment about our ailing system being copied ect is too just much USA #1 rhetoric. talk about ignorance paranoia and insecurity. hell throw in zealot and how bout fanatic too.

stupid and unsubstantiated comments since i dont know you personally - so ill retract -

maybe one should think before one assumes? wait, i forgot, your the enlighted one.

posting on an adult webmaster board.

im sorry for calling you a sheep.

a parrot is more like it.

He definitely seemed at ease, explainined himself very deftly. He carefully used phrases like "I'm not an ideologue" and refusedto be painted in a corner.

I don't know if I agree if the abortion issue is volatile enough to trigger a civil war. I do agree with you that there was a case that the US Supreme Ct failed to resolve in a manner that prevented civil war--the Dred Scott decision (affirming property rights over slaves and negating the notion of citizenship by birth).