Jump to content

David Ogden


lockmat

Recommended Posts

The President wants to make David Ogden Deputy Attorney General.

This is what he has defended in the past...

Opposed Parental Notification by 14-year olds

In Hartigan v. Zbaraz, 484 U.S. 171 (1987), Ogden co-authored a brief for the American Psychological Association arguing that parental notification was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old adolescent girls seeking an abortion.

http://www.psy.jhu.edu/%7E200.326/pdf/Hart...APA%20brief.pdf

Opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000

"As a condition of receiving federal funds, Congress has - with the Children's Internet Protection Act ... - insisted that public libraries affirmatively censor constitutionally-protected material. By demanding that libraries be censors and devote resources - not to facilitating - but to interfering with patrons' pursuit of information and ideas, Congress has subverted the role of librarians and public libraries and violated the First Amendment rights of library patrons." (p. 3).

CIPA "impairs the ability of librarians to aid patrons seeking information." (p. 11).

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.ami.cpl.pdf

Challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act

Ogden represented several communications trade associations challenging provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. He convinced the court that requiring producers of pornographic materials to personally verify that models were over age 18 at the time the materials were made would "burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment protected material." American Library Association v. Thornburgh, 713 F.Supp. 469, 477 (D.D.C. 1989).

http://www.frcblog.com/2009/02/change_watc...under_davi.html

Representation of Pornographers

Ogden represented Playboy Enterprises, among others, seeking an order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer funds to print Playboy Magazine's articles in Braille against the express wishes of Congress. American Council for the Blind v. Boorstin, 644 F.Supp. 811 (1986).

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The President wants to make David Ogden Deputy Attorney General.

This is what he has defended in the past...

Opposed Parental Notification by 14-year olds

In Hartigan v. Zbaraz, 484 U.S. 171 (1987), Ogden co-authored a brief for the American Psychological Association arguing that parental notification was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old adolescent girls seeking an abortion.

http://www.psy.jhu.edu/%7E200.326/pdf/Hart...APA%20brief.pdf

Opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000

"As a condition of receiving federal funds, Congress has - with the Children's Internet Protection Act ... - insisted that public libraries affirmatively censor constitutionally-protected material. By demanding that libraries be censors and devote resources - not to facilitating - but to interfering with patrons' pursuit of information and ideas, Congress has subverted the role of librarians and public libraries and violated the First Amendment rights of library patrons." (p. 3).

CIPA "impairs the ability of librarians to aid patrons seeking information." (p. 11).

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.ami.cpl.pdf

Challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act

Ogden represented several communications trade associations challenging provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. He convinced the court that requiring producers of pornographic materials to personally verify that models were over age 18 at the time the materials were made would "burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment protected material." American Library Association v. Thornburgh, 713 F.Supp. 469, 477 (D.D.C. 1989).

http://www.frcblog.com/2009/02/change_watc...under_davi.html

Representation of Pornographers

Ogden represented Playboy Enterprises, among others, seeking an order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer funds to print Playboy Magazine's articles in Braille against the express wishes of Congress. American Council for the Blind v. Boorstin, 644 F.Supp. 811 (1986).

Really?

I see nothing wrong with pornography in libraries or in general. Saying that a requirement for parental notification of a medical procedure (whether an abortion or something else) performed on a minor is unconstitutional...that's a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does any of this have to do with tracking Obama's promises? Did Obama promise not to nominate a guy who made adult magazines accessible to blind people, or something?

I wasn't sure if I should create a new thread or not. Maybe a moderator can split it up. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that a requirement for parental notification of a medical procedure (whether an abortion or something else) performed on a minor is unconstitutional...that's a stretch.

Kids under 18 are not allowed to call commercial phone numbers to sign up or purchase things, drink alchohol or other privilages by those 19, 21 and older...yet they can have an abortion without consenting their parents? Something is wrong there.

If we can make a requirment for those things, I don't believe it's a stretch at all to make one for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids under 18 are not allowed to call commercial phone numbers to sign up or purchase things, drink alchohol or other privilages by those 19, 21 and older...yet they can have an abortion without consenting their parents? Something is wrong there.

If we can make a requirment for those things, I don't believe it's a stretch at all to make one for this.

To be clear, you've provided a couple of examples where companies choose not to serve minors on the grounds that there might be costly legal challenges resulting from one of many possible outcomes, whether those challenges are justified or not. And the issue is not the use of a substance or the performance of a procedure, but notification of a parent. It is a privacy issue.

This is where the courts and I disagree. The word privacy cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments. I do not believe that any kind of guarantee of privacy exists, implicit or otherwise. And if a state desires to pass a law requiring that parents/guardians be informed of any particular thing related to the minor they are responsible for, that does not seem unreasonable either on the face of it or in terms of constitutionality...whether it is report cards from school, a notification that their kid has been charged with a crime, or that their kid had a medical procedure done.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing a privacy amendment to make the law an explicit one. But as it stands, that's a pretty crazy kind of thing to try and argue to a court IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, you've provided a couple of examples where companies choose not to serve minors on the grounds that there might be costly legal challenges resulting from one of many possible outcomes, whether those challenges are justified or not. And the issue is not the use of a substance or the performance of a procedure, but notification of a parent. It is a privacy issue.

This is where the courts and I disagree. The word privacy cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments. I do not believe that any kind of guarantee of privacy exists, implicit or otherwise. And if a state desires to pass a law requiring that parents/guardians be informed of any particular thing related to the minor they are responsible for, that does not seem unreasonable either on the face of it or in terms of constitutionality...whether it is report cards from school, a notification that their kid has been charged with a crime, or that their kid had a medical procedure done.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing a privacy amendment to make the law an explicit one. But as it stands, that's a pretty crazy kind of thing to try and argue to a court IMO.

9th Amendment asserts that there can be other rights than the ones asserted in the Constitution, which is how the privacy right was derived by the Supreme Court. Certainly a debatable issue, but that's how they got there.

Anyway, I don't think the problem is so much that parents get notified that there was an abortion performed, but rather getting notified before the abortion that the minor has requested an abortion (at which point the parent can allow it or force the minor to bring the child to term). My views on this are somewhat ambivalent as I can see the interests of both the parents and the minor, but I have a really hard time siding with a parent who wants to force a minor to bring a child to term, and especially so if the pregnancy was a result of rape or molestation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9th Amendment asserts that there can be other rights than the ones asserted in the Constitution, which is how the privacy right was derived by the Supreme Court. Certainly a debatable issue, but that's how they got there.

That's not at all how I read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...