Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Questions for Sen. Schumer - (this is really FUNNY!We should send Chuckie a copy of it!)
HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE.COM ^ | JULY 19, 2005 | JAN LaRUE, ESQ.

Posted on 07/19/2005 5:21:44 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Sen. Chuck (I’m outraged again—get me a camera) Schumer (D.-N.Y.) is one busy little bee. Problem is, he’s not busy about the Senate’s business.

On a recent day, he was seen whipping up a mob to have Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, hanged from the Senate’s yardarm for disclosing “classified” information that was available on a Google search at the time of the alleged disclosure.

His next outrage was directed at Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. In a Senate floor diatribe, A.K.A., “speech,” Schumer told Chertoff he ought to consider resigning for having the unmitigated gall to say we need to have national security priorities in order because of limited funds.

In the midst of mugging for cameras, how in blazes did he find time to contact a fleet of liberal law professors and gather 100 questions to ask President Bush’s yet-to-be-named nominee to the Supreme Court? And by the way, let’s all send him a big thank you for exposing another one of his big, secret war plans.

Somebody’s got to de-busy this bumblebee.

I propose the following questions for Mr. Schumer to answer in writing, all by himself, before he can ever appear before another TV camera.

1. Are you aware that the First Amendment secures your right to refrain from incessant carping?

2. New York, probably more than any place on the planet, has more shrinks per square foot who treat obsessive-compulsive-media-attention-disorder. May I give you some names and numbers so that you can cease consulting with that mad doctor from Vermont?

3. Have you considered checking a thesaurus for synonyms for “extreme” and “outrageous”?

4. Do you realize that your “outrage” de jour is extremely irksome, as in, “We don’t care”?

5. And, on a serious note, if the federal law you’re accusing Rove of violating is so important to our national security, why did you vote against it when you were a member of the U.S. House of Representatives?

6. Would you refresh my recollection regarding your outrage when Democrat Sandy Berger was caught stuffing classified documents into his pants upon leaving the National Archives?

7. Would you consider introducing a bill that requires U.S. Senators to familiarize themselves with the U.S. Constitution?

8. When judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, shouldn’t it be in reference to the one housed at the National Archives?

9. In keeping with concerns for reducing green house gas emissions, would you contemplate taking a vow of silence?

10. Did you not know that when you speak on a cell phone in a public place, surrounded by members of the public, it’s a safe bet the public can hear you?

11. Please use your cell phone to call the White House and ask the receptionist: “Who won the last election?" Would you please enlighten your Democratic brethren and sistern with what must be a distressing and painful revelation?

12. If you have a pocket calculator, please enter 100, subtract 45 and tell us who gets to go to Disneyland?

13. If you have a copy of the actual Constitution, please read Article III, and tell us where “maintaining the balance of the Court” is located?

14. If you can’t find it, will you cease and desist from pretending it’s there and from demanding that the President maintain it?

15. Since your favorite “mainstream” justices shot down your 100 questions during their confirmation hearings, why not compress the questions into ammo for skeet shooters, rather than suffer the rest of us to endure another one of your demands?

16. Where did you get the idea that judge is synonymous with “closet legislator”?

17. Are you aware that the Supremes aren’t back-up singers for the left wing of the Senate?

18. Other than someone who thinks the Constitution is his or her personal Etch-a-Sketch, please explain what makes an acceptable “consensus” nominee?

19. Does your obsession with adhering to stare decisis include Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. U.S. and Bowers v. Hardwick, and if not, why should a nominee pledge unqualified allegiance to the doctrine?

20. Have you considered writing a children’s book: The Incredibly Shrinking Donkey Who Kicked Its Own Behind Too Much?

Please, Sen. Schumer, chill out – for your own sake and for the sake of “promoting the general welfare.”

Ms. LaRue is chief counsel at Concerned Women for America.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; chuckie; media; newyork; questions; schumer; senatorcharles; spotlight; zaq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

1 posted on 07/19/2005 5:21:48 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Excellent!


2 posted on 07/19/2005 5:25:14 PM PDT by citizencon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude; Beth528; SMARTY; CyberAnt; nothingnew; Cornpone; AmericanArchConservative; ...
I believe that Rush Limbaugh was speculating that Schumer has found himself to be the "junior senator from New York," and is simply trying to get back into his original ranking........ahead of Killery.

Char :)

3 posted on 07/19/2005 5:25:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
"Please, Sen. Schumer, chill out – for your own sake and for the sake of “promoting the general welfare.” "

Na, let him go, I have never actually seen one explode on TV. He just might be our first, lol.
4 posted on 07/19/2005 5:27:20 PM PDT by angelsonmyside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
That was a great and factual read. I am currently ROFLMAO! Chuckie gets the infamous Bozo award. No one even comes close to his psycho-babble. Image hosted by Photobucket.com
5 posted on 07/19/2005 5:29:05 PM PDT by tuvals (America First - Support Our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

** Have you considered writing a children’s book: The Incredibly Shrinking Donkey Who Kicked Its Own Behind Too Much?**

LOL!


6 posted on 07/19/2005 5:30:46 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

LOL! What's funnier is that with very few modifications you could pick any number of Dems and it would still read the same.


7 posted on 07/19/2005 5:31:12 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

fyi


8 posted on 07/19/2005 5:35:40 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Good one, Char! Needs to be sent to Chuckie with a special SLERT sticker, I say!

Hard to pick just one, but this is one of my favorites...
"6. Would you refresh my recollection regarding your outrage when Democrat Sandy Berger was caught stuffing classified documents into his pants upon leaving the National Archives?"


9 posted on 07/19/2005 5:36:14 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (As long as Dean's the head of the D-N-C, it just looks better for the G-O-P!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

..Schumer has found himself to be the "junior senator from New York..
----
Schumer is still struggling with the ownership of the Dem party by the Clinton mafia. Mao-ary is going to get her way no matter what Chuckie-the-Socialist says or does.


10 posted on 07/19/2005 5:37:53 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh
"Needs to be sent to Chuckie with a special SLERT sticker, I say!"

CALLING OUT THE SLERT BRIGADE!
:)

11 posted on 07/19/2005 5:42:14 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tuvals

What?


12 posted on 07/19/2005 6:02:21 PM PDT by Boazo (From the mind of BOAZO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE; fastattacksailor; swordfish71; broadsword; Nesher; Fred Nerks; jan in Colorado; ...
Excellent Charlite, thanks for the post!

Schumer would show up for the opening of an envelope if you told him there was a camera there...I am so sick of his "outraged citizen/concerned politician" shtick it's not even funny. This really puts him in the proper perspective!

13 posted on 07/19/2005 6:03:04 PM PDT by Former Dodger ( "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." --Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I'm embarrassed to live in the same State, natch City, that these two egomaniacs claim to 'represent'. But then again, there are crazies all over the streets of this city, always were and always will be, so its not surprising that two of 'em got to be elected to the US Senate ........


14 posted on 07/19/2005 6:07:28 PM PDT by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

bump


15 posted on 07/19/2005 6:20:54 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
it's spelled SCHWULER!!!

16 posted on 07/19/2005 6:29:01 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

This is offensive!! It suggets that Schmuckie is a reasonable person with a sense of humor instead of a flaming chunk of porcine animal waste. His objective is to weaken and destroy America and he will do anuthing to attain that end. He is not funny; he is filth!


17 posted on 07/19/2005 6:29:16 PM PDT by Tacis ("Democrats - The Party of Traitors, Treachery and Treason!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

What is that thing on his tie?


18 posted on 07/19/2005 6:39:30 PM PDT by sportutegrl (People who say, "All I know is . . ." really mean, "All I want you to focus on is . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Nevermind. (It's his bullhorn strap)


19 posted on 07/19/2005 6:40:20 PM PDT by sportutegrl (People who say, "All I know is . . ." really mean, "All I want you to focus on is . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
8. When judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, shouldn’t it be in reference to the one housed at the National Archives?

snort!

20 posted on 07/19/2005 6:42:38 PM PDT by bitt ('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper

Ping


21 posted on 07/19/2005 6:43:12 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode
BAAAAAARF!
I wonder if he will use this picture for his next rant for election.
22 posted on 07/19/2005 6:59:57 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

Thought you might enjoy this one....


23 posted on 07/19/2005 7:04:18 PM PDT by Born Conservative ("If not us, who? And if not now, when? - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

Enjoy it? I live it...LOL!


24 posted on 07/19/2005 7:10:05 PM PDT by b4its2late (GITMO is way too nice of a place to house low life terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
Image hosted by Photobucket.com if he doesn't look like a born catcher in that picture i don't know who does...
25 posted on 07/19/2005 7:24:36 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Chode

MOVE THAT BUS!!! Oh sorry. Different show.


26 posted on 07/19/2005 7:43:17 PM PDT by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

BUMP!


27 posted on 07/19/2005 7:51:00 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Democrats-the invent a scandal party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

LOL


28 posted on 07/19/2005 7:52:11 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

What a great piece of writing - on the night of a great SC nomination.

Thank you President Bush - from the bottom of our hearts, thank you.


29 posted on 07/19/2005 7:54:09 PM PDT by Ogie Oglethorpe (The people have spoken...the b*stards!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
12. If you have a pocket calculator, please enter 100, subtract 45 and tell us who gets to go to Disneyland?

And it isn't too much to expect that the fair-minded among the 45, few as they may be, will be conscience-bound to vote (again) for Roberts.

30 posted on 07/19/2005 7:54:17 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lysie; Neets; pollyshy

ping


31 posted on 07/19/2005 7:57:11 PM PDT by kayak (Have you prayed for your President today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
It suggets that Schmuckie is a reasonable person with a sense of humor instead of a flaming chunk of porcine animal waste

Try not to candy coat it, next time.

32 posted on 07/19/2005 7:58:09 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Chuckie Schumerde, aka the PUTZ, is a political WHORE!


33 posted on 07/19/2005 8:25:26 PM PDT by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuvals

I don't think a picture of Bozo the clown is appropriate for Chuckie Scumerde, aka the PUTZ. I believe it is actually insulting to Bozo.

However, a better depiction of the PUT would be something similar to the Bildo that was made in der Schlickmeister's image.


34 posted on 07/19/2005 8:40:20 PM PDT by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

SenSchoomer,

How can you object to a nominee from Buffalo?


35 posted on 07/19/2005 8:42:30 PM PDT by Peelod (Decentia est fragilis. Curatoribus validis indiget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

"What is that thing on his tie?"

It's a Lover Leash.


36 posted on 07/19/2005 8:47:28 PM PDT by Peelod (Decentia est fragilis. Curatoribus validis indiget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RedBeaconNY

BTTT... my favorite hometown senator... *hackhack*


37 posted on 07/19/2005 8:48:53 PM PDT by RedBeaconNY (My cat has a cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

How did he ever get elected....he is another disgrace that by NO means should be in a position of honor...he just keeps ranting and raving...like the fool he is!!! What'd several of our founders say just 'bout fools like him in a position of honor?


38 posted on 07/19/2005 8:49:16 PM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shield
"How did he ever get elected...."

He ran on a gun control / Brady Bill campaign with Jim Brady in a wheel chair on the campaign stage with him.

39 posted on 07/19/2005 9:17:45 PM PDT by gatex (NRA, JPFO and Gun Owners of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kayak
:-)

Thank you.

40 posted on 07/20/2005 2:57:21 AM PDT by lysie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Yeah, that picture puts my gaydar on red alert!


41 posted on 07/20/2005 3:01:02 AM PDT by GodBlessRonaldReagan (Count Petofi will not be denied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Former Dodger

Thanks for the ping, FD. ;oP


42 posted on 07/20/2005 4:12:48 AM PDT by USF (I see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade ™ © ®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

It seems Chuckie has some interesting questions of his own. I'm interested in his First-Amendment angle...


Schumer's Questions for Roberts
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON — The following is a list of questions Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wants a Supreme Court nominee to answer before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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?


43 posted on 07/20/2005 4:53:03 AM PDT by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

[[Please, Sen. Schumer, chill out – for your own sake and for the sake of “promoting the general welfare.”]]

Please continue Cheesy Chuckie. You and Howard Dean and the rest of the left wing kooks will permantently bury the democratic party. I like that.


44 posted on 07/20/2005 4:56:23 AM PDT by JarheadFromFlorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl

ping


45 posted on 07/20/2005 4:59:00 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I desperately want to punch "Schmuk" Schumer in the face.


46 posted on 07/20/2005 5:03:59 AM PDT by Riptides ("Schmuk" Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

"Sen. Chuck (I’m outraged again—get me a camera) Schumer (D.-N.Y.)" "In the midst of mugging for cameras..."

I believe it was Fred Barnes on Fox News Sunday last weekend that said everyone in DC knows that the most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a camera. LOL

Great article - thanks!


47 posted on 07/20/2005 5:18:15 AM PDT by Seattle Conservative (God Bless and protect our troops and their CIC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
I would love to hear Chuck The Schmuck answer even one of these great questions. Especially any of the ones about the Constitution as it's a slam-dunk he has never read it.

This vicious Liberal is an utter fool, albeit a dangerous one. He would make a wonderful Capo.

48 posted on 07/20/2005 5:30:21 AM PDT by Gritty ("The Supreme Court has reconstituted itself as a permanent constitutional convention" - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE; Mo1; Howlin; Peach; BeforeISleep; kimmie7; 4integrity; BigSkyFreeper; RandallFlagg; ...
13. If you have a copy of the actual Constitution, please read Article III, and tell us where “maintaining the balance of the Court” is located?

LOL!!

49 posted on 07/20/2005 6:09:26 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Oxen, I thought I read among my pings last night that you'd sent something about how Judge Roberts was liked by even many Democrats, including some former Clinton officials.

Do you have information on that?


50 posted on 07/20/2005 6:10:40 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson