Ted Olson definitely used to be a judicial conservative. So why is he in court now arguing the First Amendment requires the release of videotapes that the judge promised would never be used, and that the Supreme Court ruled could not be broadcast?
Here's the argument:
"The Olson team’s brief countered, saying a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Globe v. Superior Court) held that "public access to trials 'protect[s] the free discussion of governmental affairs' that is essential to the ability of 'the individual citizen...[to] effectively participate in and contribute to our republican system of self-government.'" (In Globe, the Supreme Court ruled against a Massachusetts court order that had closed to the public and the press the trial of a man accused of raping three minor children.)"
But of course the public and the press were present at the Prop 8 trial, and the trial record is public.
The First Amendment requires courts to televise trials?
Wow Ted, that's a stretch. So much for judicial restraint.
9 Comments
Sadly the man who once fought for Bush in 2000 has now turned his back and works against the conservative cause,
Goes to show you that you cannot trust lawyers, They will do anything for a win. The will of the people, the courts, the constitution does not matter. As long as he wins.
I have long suspected that Olson brought this Prop 8 case and fights for it, not because he is so into gay marriage but because he wants to known in history as someone involved in a famous case.
He's a tool; a hired gun making a buck, selling out his principles for fame and fortune.
People show their true colors eventually. I never really liked this guy, in spite of his work for President Bush in 2000. He's a 5-star loser.
Ted does not mention that the Supreme Court had stayed the broadcast order.
The real issue, is the harm that will be caused to proponents by showing the video's now. Will either party be subject to unbearable intimidation, now after all the transcripts and reenactments are already in the public square?
Some of the harm has been done already in trying to intimidate witnesses from testifying. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, you have to agree that Judge Walker's actions here have already had a cost. If he were interested in a fair hearing, he would have allowed all to testify, without threats or intimidation.
Ted Olson is a conservatives conservative. Has been all his life and will continue to be. If he is not conservative enough for you, do you think it is possible that says more about you than him Only a far right christo-fascist wingnut would consider Ted Olson not sufficiently conservative.
Got something to hide?
Ted Olsen lost his conservative lawyer wife, Barbara Olsen, on 9/11. His conversion to what conservatives view as the dark side since then suggests that she was a moderating influence on him, or that some other psychological dynamic related to her loss is at work. I pity him but despise what he's become.