wiredsafety.org Poster
David Ogden, President Obama’s latest pick for the Attorney General’s office, has a remarkable background.
But when we say “remarkable,” we mean he has a long, sordid history of defending pornography and pornographers. Even when it involves children.
In addition to representing pornographers and child pornographers, Ogden’s opposed smut filters in libraries, and opposed parental notification prior to abortions by minors. And that’s just skimming the surface of Ogden’s resume. For more information, check this article at current.com.
Oh, how we long for the good ol’ days. You know, back when the Obama administration was only nominating tax cheats for high office.
Subscribe, tweet, share, tell a friend!
Browse before and after this article
OLDER: AP sues over famous Obama poster. Pravda may sue over famous Lenin poster.
NEWER: Jane Fonda: new blog, same old nutty
NEWER: Jane Fonda: new blog, same old nutty
Related Posts
- Porn to be wild: Octuplet mom lands in middle of a bidding war
- No wonder Obama hates Las Vegas. He can’t pick a winner
- British forecasters pick heads, weather comes up tails
- Orthopaedic surgeons attack Obama for
blurring realityandwild misrepresentationslying - Sotomayor is Obama’s pick for the Court.
Who’s cynical now?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
DAG Nominee David Ogden and Knox v. United States—Part 1
National Review Online today by Ed Whelan
Among the many cases in which Deputy Attorney General nominee David Ogden has advocated the interests of the porn industry is a child-pornography case, Knox v. United States, that caused considerable embarrassment to the Clinton administration. In that case, the Department of Justice under President George H.W. Bush had successfully prosecuted Stephen A. Knox for violating a federal anti-pornography law. But when Knox sought Supreme Court review of the federal appellate decision upholding his conviction, Clinton’s Solicitor General Drew Days surprised the Court by reversing the government’s position and refusing to defend the conviction. After the Senate condemned Days’ action by a 100-0 vote and the House did so by a 425-3 vote, Clinton publicly chastised Days and Attorney General Reno eventually overturned his position.
On behalf of the ACLU and other clients, Ogden submitted a Supreme Court brief that advocated the same statutory and constitutional positions that Days has taken. So the Senate is now being asked to confirm as Deputy Attorney General someone who advocated the same extreme positions on a federal child-pornography statute that the Senate unanimously repudiated 16 years ago. Is that what President Obama means by change you can believe in?
Yes, yes, I can hear the objections that Ogden was merely representing his client. But that argument is unsatisfactory in two respects. First, Ogden has extensively represented the porn industry and its interests. It is an entirely sensible (though certainly not infallible) inference that he is sympathetic to their interests. Second, as I will discuss in Part 2, a previously undisclosed memo provides evidence that Ogden has long had an ideological agenda in favor of obscenity and pornography and that he has sought to use his position in government to twist the law to advance his agenda.