| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
22 Jul 2005 08:22:11 PM |
| Object: |
Chuckie's Questions |
I found a list of the questions that Schumer submitted to Roberts, that he
would like to have answered prior to confirmation. Most seem to me to be
very legitimate, and I would love to hear his answers. Some of them strike
me as being either purely political or intended to solicit responses which
would in effect tie Robert's hands should he be less than artful in replying
to them.
For example, his series of questions regarding, "judicial activism" are
clearly a political statement. The term "activist," is much like the term
"beauty," in that it is in the eye of the beholder. Unless one clearly
defines what one means by "activism" it is nothing more than a political
buzzword. Asking Roberts to answer what is the proper role of government in
enacting laws to regulate XYZ (education, commerce, etc) are in my opinion
beyond the scope of what a SCOTUS appointee should answer. I say this
because it is not a justice's job to decide what is proper for the
government to do. It is only their job to decide if government has exceeded
it's powers. While we may have become used to justices mandating policy,
they are at fault for, and *have exceeded their own authority* when they
have done so!
In general, I look forward to hearing what Roberts has to say in response to
these.
<quote>
1. First Amendment and Freedom of Expression:
What, if any, are the limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the Constitution?
- When can Government regulate public speech by individuals?
- When does speech cross the line between Constitutionally-protected free
expression and slander?
- In what ways does the First Amendment protect the spending and raising of
money by individuals in politics?
- Can Government regulate hate speech? What about sexually explicit
materials?
Specifically:
- Do you agree with the landmark decision in NY Times v. Sullivan (1964),
which held that public criticism of public figures is acceptable unless
motivated by actual malice? Who do you believe constitutes a public figure
under this standard?
- Do you believe the Supreme Court was correct to strike down the
Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU (1997) on the grounds that
pornography on the Internet is protected by the First Amendment?
- What is your view on the distinction the Supreme Court drew in Republican
Party v. White and McConnell v. FEC (2003) between contributions and
expenditures in the course of political campaigns? Do you believe that it is
legitimate to construe campaign expenditures as protected speech but not
donations by individuals?
2. First Amendment and the Establishment Clause:
- Under the Establishment Clause, what, if any, is the appropriate role of
religion in Government?
- Must the Government avoid involvement with religion as a whole, or is the
prohibition just on Government involvement with a specific religion?
- Is there a difference between religious expression in Government
buildings, documents, and institutions and Government spending on private,
faith-based initiatives?
- What do you see as the Constitutionally protected or limited role of
faith-based groups in Government-funded activity? In Government
institutions?
Specifically:
- In the two cases the Supreme Court decided on the Ten Commandments
recently, a display of the Commandments inside a Courthouse was found
unconstitutional, while a statue of the Commandments on the grounds of a
state capitol was deemed acceptable. Do you agree with the distinction the
Court drew between Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary Country v. ACLU (2005)?
In your view, are these decisions consistent with each other?
- What is your view of the Supreme Court's opinion in Santa Fe Independent
School District v. Doe (2000), which held that prayer in public schools is
prohibited even where it is student-organized, non-denominational, and at a
football game?
- Do you agree that states can regulate activities at religious ceremonies,
as the Supreme Court held in allowing Oregon to prohibit the use of peyote
for Native American tribal ceremonies in Employment Division v. Smith
(1990)?
3. Commerce Clause:
Beginning in 1937, when it upheld the National Labor Relations Act, the
Supreme Court has granted Congress great latitude in passing laws under the
Commerce Clause. The Court has upheld a wide range of federal laws,
including those that regulate labor standards, personal consumption of
produce, racial discrimination in public accommodations, and crime. In the
last ten years, however, the Supreme Court has shifted course, doing
something it had not done in sixty years: striking down acts of Congress on
Commerce Clause grounds.
- Do you think the trend towards striking down laws on this basis is
desirable?
- What do you believe is the extent of Congress's authority to legislate
under the Commerce Clause?
- Can Congress regulate local trade in a product that is used nationally?
- Can Congress regulate labor standards for states and cities under its
Commerce Clause power?
- How closely connected must the regulated action be to interstate commerce
for Congress to have the authority to legislate?
- Where would you look for evidence that Congress is properly legislating
under its Commerce Clause authority? Do you rely exclusively on the text of
the legislation? Do you look at the legislative history? Do you consider the
nature of the regulated activity?
- What is the extent of the limitations imposed on state regulation by the
Commerce Clause?
Specifically:
- Do you agree that it is the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to
prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations, as the Court held
in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States (1964)?
- Do you agree with the Court's decision in United States v. Lopez (1995),
which struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act because education is
traditionally local? Is there any circumstance under which Congress could
regulate activities in schools using its Commerce Clause authority?
4. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to
overturn a well-settled precedent, upon which Americans have come to rely?
- Does your answer depend at all on the length of time that the precedent
has been on the books?
- Does your answer depend at all on how widely criticized or accepted the
precedent is?
- What if you agree with the result but believe the legal reasoning was
seriously flawed? Does that make a difference?
- Does it matter if the precedent was 5-4 in deciding whether to overturn
it? Does it matter if was a unanimous decision?
Specifically:
- Do you agree with the 1976 decision in which the Supreme Court held that
Congress could not extend the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and city
employees (National League of Cities v. Usery), or do you agree with the
later 1985 decision, which held that Congress could (Garcia v. San Antonio
Metropolitan Transit, overruling Nat'l League of Cities). Was the Court
right to overturn its precedent nine years later? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the 1989 decision in which the Supreme Court held that
it was constitutional to execute minors (Stanford v. Kentucky), or do you
agree with the later 2005 decision, which held that it was unconstitutional
(Roper v. Simmons). Was the Court right to overturn its precedent 16 years
later? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the 1986 decision in which the Supreme Court held that
states could criminalize private sex acts between consenting adults (Bowers
v. Hardwick), or do you agree with the later 2003 decision, which held that
the states could not (Lawrence v. Texas)? Was the Court right to overturn
its precedent 17 years later? Why or why not?
5. Under what circumstances should the Supreme Court invalidate a law duly
passed by the Congress?
- What amount of deference should the court give to Congressional action?
- Should the Court err on the side of upholding a law?
- Do certain types of laws deserve greater deference than others? Regulatory
laws? Criminal laws?
- How closely tied must a law be to an enumerated right of Congress under
Article I for it to be upheld?
Let me ask you about a few cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down
federal laws:
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Gun-Free
School Zones Act at issue in United States v. Lopez (1995)? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down provisions
of the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison (2000)? Why
or why not?
6. Is there a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and if so, under
what circumstances does it apply?
- The word "privacy" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In your
view, does that mean it is wrong for the Supreme Court to interpret the
Constitution as conferring such a right?
- Do you believe that either the United States Congress or the states can
regulate the sexual behavior of individuals within the privacy of their
home?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which
held that the Constitution protects the right to privacy in the bedroom?
- Do you believe that Roe v. Wade (1973) was correctly decided? What is your
view of the quality of the legal reasoning in that case? Do you believe that
it reached the right result?
- Once the right to privacy has been found - as in Griswold and Roe - under
what circumstances should the Supreme Court revisit that right?
7. What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to
protect the environment?
- Under the Constitution, how far can Congress go in imposing restrictions
on people and businesses to protect the air and water?
- How should Congress balance the interests of industry against
environmental interests?
- How far can the states go in enacting laws to protect the environment, and
does it matter whether there is federal legislation on the same subject?
- Let me put this in the context of a specific case: Do you believe that the
Supreme Court correctly decided that the EPA has the authority to pursue
industrial polluters in a state where the local authority has declined to do
so, as in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004)?
- Can the Clean Air Act preempt local emissions regulations, as the Court
held in Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality
Management (2004)?
8. What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to
protect the rights of the disabled?
- How should Congress balance the costs to business against the government's
interest in creating equal access to facilities for disabled persons?
- Should federal laws mandating access to buildings for disabled people
apply to both public and private buildings?
- For example, do you believe that the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires state buildings to be accessible to the disabled, as the Supreme
Court held in Tennessee v. Lane, or do you think that sovereign immunity
exempts the states?
9. What is the proper relationship between Congress and the states in
enacting laws to protect the rights of patients?
- For example, do you believe federal legislation can preempt state court
laws that allow people to sue negligent insurers, as the Supreme Court held
in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (2004)?
10. What is the proper Constitutional role of Government in enacting laws to
regulate education?
- How far can the Government go under the Constitution to ensure equal
treatment for all students?
- How far can the Court go to protect speech and/or prohibit violations of
the establishment clause in the schools? For example, do you believe that
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) was decided correctly?
- Does the Constitution guarantee parents the right to choose their children's
education, as established in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society
of Sisters (1925)?
11. How do you define judicial activism? Give us three examples of Supreme
Court cases that you consider the product of judicial activism.
- Is the "activist" label limited to more liberal-leaning judges, or can
there be conservative activist judges? Can you cite any examples of
conservative judicial activism?
- In cases where federal law and state law may be in conflict, who is the
activist - the judge who voted to strike down the federal law or the judge
who invalidated the state law?
- Do you believe that the Supreme Court was engaging in judicial activism
when it struck down provisions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (United
States v. Lopez) or the Violence Against Women Act (United States v.
Morrison), both of which had been passed by Congress?
- Was the Supreme Court engaging in judicial activism in:
Brown v. Board of Education?
Miranda v. Arizona?
Dred Scott v. Sandford?
The Civil Rights Cases of 1883?
Lochner v. New York?
Furman v. Georgia?
Bush v. Gore?
- What distinguishes one case from the other?
12. Do you describe yourself as falling into any particular school of
judicial philosophy?
- What is your view of "strict constructionism"?
- What is your view of the notion of "original intent"? "Original meaning"?
- How do you square the notion of respecting "original intent" with the
acceptance of the institution of slavery at the time the Constitution was
adopted?
13. What in your view are the limits on the scope of Congress' power under
the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment?
- Does a law violate the Equal Protection Clause if it affects different
groups differently, or must there be a discriminatory intent?
- Do parents have a Due Process right to make decisions concerning the care,
custody, and control of their children, as the Supreme Court held in Troxel
v. Granville (2000)?
14. Where is the line between civil rights questions that are political and
questions that are appropriate for a court to decide?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Powell v. McCormack? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Baker v. Carr? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with the reasoning in Bush v. Gore? Why or why not?
What power does the Supreme Court have to intervene in state election laws
(as in Bush v. Gore)?
- What role should the Supreme Court be playing in disputed elections?
15. Which Supreme Court Justice do you believe your jurisprudence most
closely resembles and why?
16. When the Supreme Court issues non-unanimous opinions, Justice Scalia and
Justice Ginsburg frequently find themselves in disagreement with each other.
Do you more frequently agree with Justice Scalia's opinions, or Justice
Ginsburg's?
17. Can you identify three Supreme Court cases that have not been reversed
where you are critical of the Court's holding or reasoning and discuss the
reasons for your criticism?
</quote>
--
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and
he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
Edmund Burke
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
