Damned by faint correction..

pettyfog · Sep 29, 2005

NYTimes article on Roberts (9/27)

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, asked Judge Roberts for his views on New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that revolutionized American libel law. Judge Roberts's response was terse and cautious, but it contained a faint echo of a blistering 30-page critique of the case that he wrote as a White House lawyer in the Reagan administration in the early 1980's.

The critique was vigorous, brilliantly written and informed by a deep hostility toward the press, said Anthony Lewis, the author of "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" and a former columnist for The New York Times.

"It's quite an astonishing document," Mr. Lewis said of the critique. "He's not a fan of the press. He speaks of 'the zeal and insouciance with which the mass media assails public officials.' "
Click to expand...

Not mention certain appointees....

As evidenced by:
September 28, 2005
{Correction:}Libel Memorandum Attributed Falsely to Court Nominee

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., nominated to be chief justice of the United States, was not the author of an unsigned memorandum on libel law that was the focus of an article published in The New York Times yesterday. The Times erroneously attributed it to him.
....
Three people quoted in the article discussed the Fein memorandum, provided to them by a reporter, on the assumption that it had been written by Judge Roberts.
Click to expand...

Uh... well.... HE MIGHT have been! That's what's important! Aint that so, Dan? ...Mary?

Damned by faint correction..

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page

About Us

League Standings

Useful Searches

Damned by faint correction..

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page