Porn, COPA and the like being discussed at roberts nomination

[TheEnforcer]

They are discussing the views of judge Roberts views on the 1st amendment and pornography. The Senator who is leading the questioning is a staunch anti-porner. Roberts really didn't give a whole lot to them but the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com should have video on it if you are interested. I do believe it is Senator DeWine's questioning. They have a live feed there and also have options for more videos at the lower right of the viewer. They will likely have his questioning up there as a seperate video for viewing shortly after his questioning is done.

[TheEnforcer]

What pissed me off is that he was trying to convey that he felt that porn doesn't deserve 1st amendment protections and was hoping Roberts would back him up.

[Bhelliom]

Thanks for the update TE I was watching the opening comments yesterday on CNN but have been in class all day today so havne't been able to catch any of it

[TheEnforcer]

Not a problem. Got the feed going on here as I do some work. That really caught my attention.

[Bhelliom]

Unfortunately I'm in class and can't stream audio... and senate hearings are really boring with no sound.

I wonder what the administrators of the school would think if they knew I was wasting class time on an Adult Board?

[TheEnforcer]

Some it would bother, some it wouldn't. When I was in my college town I didn't much worry that I worked in adult. Now that I live in a more conservative area of the state I don't tell anyone at all.

[Carrie]

Roberts is also a stickler on "right to privacy" - since it's not implicitly stated in the Constitution, he doesn't believe in it. (It is implied, but not implicitly stated.)
That one could be a huge can o' worms.

Although I do want a strict Constitutionalist on the Court - I might end up smacking my head on the wall and reminding myself to be careful what I wish for. :)

[Carrie]

Ooh, cancel that - my yahoo homepage is telling me Roberts said today in the hearings that, in his opinion, the Constitution *does* cover privacy rights.

Hrmm. Interesting flip-flop.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aogyzpznsUW8&refer=us

[PornoDoggy]

Actually, the limited admission of a privacy right that I heard out of his mouth extended only so far as between a husband and wife.

I just don't know about this guy. Nobody disputes the fact that he has a brilliant legal mind - and you don't play in his league without one, regardless of whatever opinions you may have about lawyers. He does not appear to be as blatantly political as Thomas or Scalia.

On the surface he appears to be a traditional Republican who would be capable of making almost as many decisions to enrage the Republicangelicals and neocona as Democrats and other lefties. Business will trump the environment and the private individual every time.

[PornoDoggy]

Thanks for the link, Carrie ... I missed that part, I guess.

FYI ... the feed of the audio only is available from c-span.org on the radio link.

[Carrie]

The question though is - is this "revalation" the truth or is it just bullshit to get confirmed? *sigh*
Anything else he's changed position on?