First, let me show you an advertisement. As always, I have received no consideration.
Click image to enlarge.
This was a paid advertisement that was displayed in the D.C. Metro during the month of September 2004. What you may not know is that it required a lawsuit to get the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to accept the ad. The Republican Congress had included budget language that would have cut off federal funding to local transit authorities that accept advertisements critical of current marijuana laws. The ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project, and Change the Climate, Inc. filed suit in federal court and
In June 2004, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the ‘Istook Amendment’ unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, stating “there is a clear public interest in preventing the chilling of speech on the basis of viewpoint,” and that, “the government articulated no legitimate state interest in the suppression of this particular speech other than the fact that it disapproves of the message, an illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible reason.”
As solicitor general, Paul Clement‘s responsibility would ultimately have been to argue this case on behalf of the government before the Supreme Court. He declined, stating that “the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute’s defense and will not appeal the district court’s decision.”
I think he will be a much better acting attorney general than the outgoing Alberto Gonzales.
In any event the senate should not recess for the duration of this term to prevent the administration from appointing another crony attorney general without their advice and consent.