Ted Olson On FNS: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’

Run time: 06:39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE   Posted on YouTube: August 08, 2010 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 69   Posted on DU: August 08, 2010 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 3868

 
Ted Olson On FNS: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’
This morning, Ted Olson — the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore — appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his recent victory in overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Throughout the interview, host Chris Wallace attempted to trip up his guest with a series of familiar Republican talking points, all of which Olson repudiated.

Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”

When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

Watch a compilation:

At the end of the interview, Wallace conceded that his right-wing points failed to crack Olson’s arguments. “Mr. Olson, we want to thank you so much for joining us today. We’ll keep following your lawsuit. And I gotta say, after your appearance today, I don’t understand how you ever lost a case in the supreme court, sir,” he said.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/08/wallace-olson/

Although it would be fun to shut Faux down! I wouldn't want the moral hazard of getting to vote on that one, haha.

Simple, elegant, eloquent. Perfect.

I am so joyful to be an American, a Californian, a member of the Burbank Human Relations Council (an early opponent of Prop 8). I don't get tired of saying that.

vote to shut down Faux or not?

as tempting as it is, no

And thanks for the transcript. My dialup doesn't let me watch videos, so your taking the time to transcribe the conversation is very much appreciated!

-

He was born on September 11th, 1940. He represented Reagan during Iran-Contra, and then he represented Bush, successfully getting Bush made president instead of Gore.

These two things should make him a huge hero to the right wing and an arch-enemy of the left.

On September 11th, 2001 -- Olson's 61st birthday -- his wife Barbara was on Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon, killing everyone on board.

Recently he has emerged as a huge hero in the gay rights movement.

As I said, an interesting character.

I've always thought it was a sad irony that he played a part in his wifes death. Trust me, I really, really, really wish his wife was still alive!!! The world would be a much better place.

She didn't deserve to die, no one did but I can't think why anyone would think she contributed to making the world a better place with her constant spread of hatred.
I wonder if Ted's new wife is a liberal who has led him to question a bit? Or if he is just a great lawyer that can argue either side and the issues aren't personal?

His wife would still be alive.

It's not as good as it was in unedited live version, but you get the ides. Man I wish Ted lost "THAT" case!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpeN2yapEwU

:sarcasm:

Evidently, in his younger days he was liberal enough to be considered a

socialist -- and then swing completely to the right -- now swinging back

completely to the left again?

But created quite a bit of damage to the nation in his right wing years!

He's remarried -- oddly enough to someone who looks enough like Barbara to be her twin!

I saw him a while ago being interviewed and he was making it out to be a conservative pro-family position to allow gay marriage.

Not as familiar with this as you are, then....

but certainly, IMO, from putting W in White House based on lies of 2000 to

assisting in overturning the bigotry and exploitation against homosexuals

is quite a move to the left!!???

that was Olsen when asked how could a Republican be advocating for gay marriage. He first said that he was never against gay marriage, it had just never come up before in public, and then he went on to say how he thought conservatives/Republicans consider the idea of marriage and family to be the conservative one, and that they therefore should support gay marriage if they really thought about it.

is tradition for them!

somedoy, i hope a police investigation of 911 show that olsen knew it was coming, and was preparred to get the ball rolling for the bush 911 ' arabs didit!' extravaganza, which has killed more then a million people, and cost $ trillions...
i betcha olsen has nightmares that the truth about 911 ever get loose (which might explain his pro gay stance)
scott mclennan also joined critics of bush, as did several others in bush whouse. I expect, Condiliesalot Rice will make fortune writing book that 'exposes' bush ...hints he was prepared for an 'event that tuesday morning'...the book will fly off shelves! and Condiliesalot will be a hero

especially since FBI says no CALLS were made from the planes --

I think 9/11 is an even more obvious case that JFK coup -- so they both have to be

a question of "who has the power" to bring the truth forth right now. Evidently,

since the coup on JFK, the power has been on the right to keep the coverups going???



IMO, eventually, people who do these things do have "nightmares" and worse -- you really

can't do harm to someone and escape the consequences of that, IMO. Nixon, LBJ lost it --

and I think eventually Cheney/Bush will crack up. Along with the many others who aided

and abetted them!


I think those who do these things surround themselves with other thieves -- Condi Rice --

don't see her ever being concerned with anything more than a shoe purchase! Like Clarence

Thomas -- putting a pervert on the court -- or using Jack Ruby -- it's all self-protected.

These are all people who are in turn blackmail-able???

IMO --


PS: By the way, Olsen remarried --

and the woman he married looks like a double for Barbara Olsen --

"No plane hit the Pentagon" -- !!

Fox has the right to lie. If they hadn't, Wallace and his lying cronies would be pushing shopping carts filled with cans and bottles on metropolitan thoroughfares around the country.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html


Also read:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Does that mean Faux are only allowed to lie in Florida?

That was awesome!

...but he got there in the end, and good on him for saying so. "I wonder how you ever lost a case!"

Indeed. It was that good of an argument that Mr. Olson made, and well worth watching!

K&R

questioned. Why? Because as major "news" outlets (more like cheesy lies and infotainment these days but I digress) has the power to shape public opinion and to influence actual policy and justice in the entire nation- typically for the worse because sheeple base their opinions of other people and issues on everything they say (whether it's accurate or true or not).

People watch their shit and believe every freakin' word of it. The media cares about ONE thing: MONEY. Because they are corprat-owned and controlled. They don't care about truth, ethics, or public service, like they used to. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth or even the whole story and they usually don't. They say whatever gets them the most ratings and ca$h.

The MEDIA (corprat-owned) - ought to have limited rights to free speech because along with the POWER they possess, should come some RESPONSIBILITY and ETHICS in reporting - of which they currently have zero. Furthermore, the media (again, corprat-owned) is NOT a 'person' and therefore not entitled to those rights the same as an individual is.

They need to be LIMITED in what they can and cannot say about people or issues - meaning they cannot LIE or take stories out of context and they must only report verifiable and verified FACT and if they cannot verify what they say then they need to CLEARLY STATE that the information is NOT verified or fact.

The lack of any regulation of the lame$tream media is a MAJOR ISSUE in this country - as much as fair elections or anything else. They hide behind their "First Amendment" rights - which ought to - for those entities - be limited to what is ethical, verifiable, and TRUE - NOT what makes them the most MONEY.

Same issue exists with insurance companies, Wall Street, etc. ALL of them need regulations with CLAWS in them that HURT the hell out of them when they get too greedy and start lying and ripping people off and taking advantage of people - individually or collectively, when they are vulnerable (ie: sick, financially needy, or just too plain stupid to NOT believe everything they hear on TV or read in some stupid magazine or paper).

Wait till the effing bastards get control of the internet, if ya think we're screwed now. Olson is a pig. He foisted GeeDuhbya onto this country and that is largely why and how we're in the current messes we're in.

and at last we can get chris w to s t f u!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also don't see how Olson ever lost a case before the SC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkU9n5GxCDk

thanks for posting the compilation - and hopefully this enhances the message of the ruling as well

He and Boies were just what we needed to win, and change the course of the issue all across the country. Well-argued Mr. Olson!

Most of the commentators on FOX would be trying to "shout him down". (Fox's policy of whoever is Louder wins.)I am glad he smashed through their stupid talking points.

decipher what he said.


EQUALITY IS JUST!

When you have the ability to reason with clarity, the world is your oyster.

I'd also like to see that law about Media distorting the truth overturned. (It's like yelling fire in a theater when there isn't a fire.)

I gotta say he's definitely improving as a human being.

Fox News' right to "free speech", make them tell the facts instead of making stuff up and lying all the time.

in the same context as the rights of humans...

Fox incorporated, as in foux (fake) news exist because of media monopolies owned by capitalist who control what we hear, see and think. Should actual human beings ever unite and declare that corporations are not humans and are not entitled to the rights of humans, using freedom of speech on public airways to spread pernicious lies and propaganda for corporate profit should be seen as a malevolent act against humans, and dealt with accordingly. I will not be so stupid as to think the founding fathers intended the first amendment to be used as the means of replacing the truth with foux news...

very astute observation.

which is great, but where does it say that in the Constitution?

I laughed out loud at that line.

Just because this video is so great!

:kick: