Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, June 20, 1993                   TAG: 9306200241
SECTION: HORIZON                    PAGE: D-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: The Associated Press
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

HER VIEWS, ON AND OFF THE BENCH

"Roe v. Wade . . . halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of that issue. A less encompassing Roe, I believe . . . might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."

Ginsburg noted that state legislatures across the country were liberalizing their abortion statutes when the case was decided, but that none of the state laws fully conformed to the court's definition of abortion regulations that were still permissible.

"Roe v. Wade . . . invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators' court. . . . Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction."

Court of Appeals ruling July 29, 1988, in Action for Children's Television vs. Federal Communications Commission:

The ruling, written by Ginsburg, upheld the FCC's standard for deciding what kind of radio broadcasts are indecent, but not obscene. The court ordered the FCC to reconsider its decision to allow broadcasts only between midnight and 6 a.m.:

"Indecent but not obscene material, we reiterate, qualifies for First Amendment protection whether or not it has serious merit. Children's access to indecent material, however, may be regulated."

The ruling permitted FCC "channeling of indecent material, in order to shelter children from exposure to words and phrases their parents regard as inappropriate for them to hear.

"We agree that the FCC's midnight advice, indeed its entire position on channeling, was not adequately thought through."

Court of Appeals ruling on June 20, 1989, in Carl Eric Olsen vs. Drug Enforcement Administration:

Olsen, a priest of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, sought federal approval for church members to use marijuana as a religious sacrament. The Court of Appeals ruled against Olsen in an opinion written by Ginsburg.

"We hold that the First Amendment's free exercise of religion guarantee does not require the requested exception, and that petitioner [Olsen] was not denied equal protection-establishment clause rights by the government's refusal to accommodate his church's sacramental use of marijuana.

"We conclude that the DEA cannot accommodate Olsen's religious use of marijuana without unduly burdening or disrupting enforcement of the federal marijuana laws."

Court of Appeals decision on Jan. 8, 1993, in U.S. vs. Cornell Foster:

In an opinion written by Ginsburg, the court reversed Foster's conviction of possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell. The court said the trial judge erred in limiting defense questioning of a police officer.

"Suppose the defense had had the opportunity to probe [the police officer] further and to highlight the fact that . . . [the officer had given] no explanation why Foster, the alleged drug dealer caught moments after making sales, had very little cash in his possession. Whatever else was in the record, could a rational trier of fact be left with a reasonable doubt whether Foster was in truth one of the drug dealers [the officer] observed? We cannot answer that question, definitely `no.' "

Court of Appeals opinion on Aug. 21, 1992, in Critical Mass Energy Project vs. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

The court ruled that information on nuclear safety reports voluntarily given to the NRC by a nuclear industry group are confidential and thus exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Dissenting from the ruling, Ginsburg wrote:

"Henceforth, in this circuit, it will do for an agency official to agree with the submitter's ascription of confidential status to the information. There will be no objective check on, no judicial review alert to the temptation of government and business officials to follow the path of least resistance and say `confidential' whenever they seek to satisfy the government's vast information needs

"Disclosure is sought not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, but to advance public understanding of the nature and quality of the NRC's oversight operations or activities."