John Roberts on the Most Insignificant Justice Ever

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2007/11/16/Supreme_Court_Justice_John_G__Roberts

Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts discusses Gabriel Duval, the man considered by many to be the most historically insignificant Supreme Court Justice of all time.

-----

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts delivers the Seventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture to The Federalist Society.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. - The Federalist Society

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Buffalo, New York, January 27, 1955. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979.

He served as a law clerk for Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979-1980 and as a law clerk for then Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 Term.

He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1981-1982, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Counsel's Office from 1982-1986, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1989-1993.

From 1986-1989 and 1993-2003, he practiced law in Washington, D.C. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003.

President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat on September 29, 2005.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• supremes
• scotus
• law
• legal
• humor
• supreme
• court
• chief
• justice
• history
• judges
• judging
• constitutional
• judicial
• funny
• foratv
• fora.tv
• fora
• tv

[sklanger]

@haldonrichardson1 Money isn't abortion, we need to make it a felony to spend more than $1 on abortions. Money isn't free exercise of religion, we need to make it a felony to spend more than $1 on building churches. Money isn't contraception, we need to make it a felony to spend more than $1 on contraceptives. Money isn't due process, we need to make it a felony to spend more than $1 on death penalty litigation. Money isn't speech, we need to make it a felony to spend more than $1 on books.

[Snoopz0087]

@haldonrichardson1 Certainly you would agree that a celebrity has more of a voice than an unknown American such as you or I. The words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have lived over two centuries while the writings of other, less-prominent, Americans from that time period have not.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Equality of Speech.

[haldonrichardson1]

Think about this: Each citizen in our republic now has one vote. Each person has one voice. Each person is guaranteed freedom of speech. Where in the US Constitution does it say that money = speech?? It does not. This right wing activist court, in an effort to afford their political cronies more power, equates money with speech: someone with more money to have more speech. We need to amend the constitution to make it a felony to contribute more than $1 to a candidate for any office.

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, ForaTv.

[RationaIAthiest]

@stephenabm unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about it as we never know about it,

[stephenabm]

@RationaIAthiest They have and it is very wrong - it should be based on the rule of law, as we are a country of laws and not of men. We are a Republic to which it stands.

[RationaIAthiest]

@stephenabm but do you really think that the justices (past and present) never made their personal opinion a factor in their decision making?

[stephenabm]

@RationaIAthiest Flag burning is part of free speech, but many people (conservatives and liberals) are bothered by this act. I am a veteran and understand their anger over it. I am opposed to a amendment to ban this act, but many want it. A judge has taken an oath to make decisions based on the rule of law (constitution), so that should answer your question. There should never be personal opinions in these decisions.

[RationaIAthiest]

@stephenabm Yeah, you're right. I didn't see the part in the constitution where it read "We the people (corporations) Also, conservatives are confusing. First they're all for the constitution, but they are against flag burning? I thought flag burning was freedom of speech?  Funny how you should mention personal opinions. Do you think the conservative bloc of the court bases their decisions solely on the constitution? Its delusional to think justices do not use personal opinions.

[stephenabm]

@RationaIAthiest The Campaign Finance Law was unconstitutional, as it violate the "First Amendment" (free speach) and was correctly decided upon. We are a country of laws and not men. The US Constitution is the law of the land. When the liberals start paying attention to the rule of law (US Constitution), they will start voting with the majority of the court. Judicial activism is severely damaging our legal system - personal opinions or political correctness have no place on any US court!