John Roberts on the Most Insignificant Justice Ever
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 01. 2008
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2007/11/16/Supreme_Cou...
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.
As a law student/geek - this was HILARIOUS.
Thank you for posting this, ForaTv.
He has proven to be a very good Chief justice.
I may not agree with him in most things. But Chief Justice Roberts is brilliant and will likely go down as a non-insignificant justice
If you look at the portrait of Justice Duvall, he looks like an elderly Rod Stewart! LOL
Way to go, Chief Justice John Roberts. Thank you very much for that humorous presentation of a certain segment of American judicial history.
What particular decisions are you opposed to? What particular opinions are you clamming are terrible?
@urwhatthewho SO very clever...well done!
This may come as news to you but the court is not "for the people", "the government" or "the corporation". It is only to determine if something is constitutional....my nine year old knows this.
Don't agree with him and the rest of the Conservatives on the court, but he is quite intelligent and knows his law.
Chief Corporatist of the Supreme Court.
SEAN: Three weeks ago, you wrote that Roberts could administer more Presidential oaths than anyone else. Will he always get the oaths wrong in public and then have to give it again in private to fix his mistake? That's what he's done so far - maybe that's his strategy.
He's already given 1.5 oaths!!!!
So is your theory that Roberts decided to give up his $1 million/ year job to be a federal judge with a salary of $176,000? How devious...
Great history made cool :)
John G. Roberts JUNIOR: you flubbed a 35-word oath, man!
You know, on an open-book test, you get no extra points for faulty memorization.
Why do all you people think that corporations and the people are on different sides?
Demais
Have you ever read Article III before...?
lol!
Read it again. Ask an attorney to help you.
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.
So funny!
JR rocks
@Jujuman2003 Liberalism! The Beauty Of America!
@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.
He's a chief justice, who are you?
Yeah, that isn't relevant; an amendment wasn't required to create the Supreme Court. It's in the plain text of Article III.
Where did good old HENRY go? Read the second amendment...HENRY. Please tell us what you think it means HENRY.
@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.
I'm sure your time is so valuable; you're spending it arguing over an extremely minor point with another commenter on CZcams. Find a constitutional law textbook if you don't trust attorneys (lolconspiracy) to give you an accurate account as to whether Article III creates the Supreme Court by itself.
I was -1 on Roberts, knowing only that GWB liked him. Having seen this video I'm now +1.
This is actually quite witty.
@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.
That's your problem, then. You're still wrong.
ur umm nephew is in my class
two words! ha!
hew haw!
Neothomist1275,
Bullsit. The Supreme Court is the only court existing ex constitutio. It cannot neither be established by Congress, nor be abolished by Congress.
Read Art. III of the Constitution.
LOL, Roberts' dry wit at work.
Thank you, Mr. Bush, for giving us Alito and Roberts, Im afraid of what the democrats will do if they win, though.
LOL, Roberts' dry wit at work.