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.