Unintended Consequences, will result.
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?
They've never gotten over it.
Roberts: "When you open your mouth..."
Many States are putting gun bans in place. The US Code of Law has entire sections devoted to prohibitory firearms regulations. The Second Amendment states quite clearly "shall not be infringed" and the Constitution is the "Supreme law of the Land". How would you rule on such cases where simple possession of a proscribed firearm was the only "crime" committed? Or that is was born in such a way that some government hack did not like?
For some, the issue is Roe V Wade. Judge Roberts stance on that appears to be on the correct side in that he feels it was decided incorrectly and that abortion is a States issue.
For me, clue me in on his 2A stance. The Second Amendment protects all the rest.
- When can Government regulate public speech by individuals?
When the government is a State Government. Next question.
- When does speech cross the line between Constitutionally-protected free expression and slander?
Is slander a Federal crime? Did I miss something?
- In what ways does the First Amendment protect the spending and raising of money by individuals in politics?
It should keep people like you in Washington from passing laws that restrict such activity in any way shape or form. Clear enough for you a$$#01e?
- Can Government regulate hate speech? What about sexually explicit materials?
I guess you didn't understand the answer I gave to the first question you asked.
ML/NJ
Whenever Schumer askes Robert a question he should reply, "I take the Ginsberg and decline to answer."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85640,00.html
EXCERPT
In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr. (search), Chairman Orrin Hatch (search) praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer (search) of New York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."
A stunned Schumer asked if he heard the chairman correctly, to which Hatch said yes. Again, Schumer asked Hatch if he would like to "revise and extend his remark," congressional speak for change his mind.
A former trial attorney, Hatch replied: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."
Wasn't it the retiring Mrs. O'Connor that repeatedly replied at her hearings "it would not be appropriate for me to answer any question regarding an issue that may come before the court"???
Ginsburg refused to answer this question, Chuckie. So the precedent was set by a liberal nominee - will you respect that precedent or attack any refusal by Roberts to answer this question, thereby revealing yourself to be a rank partisan hypocrite?
Dem strategy in a nutshell:
- We don't know enough about Judge Roberts.
- We need to know where he stands on these important issues.
- He refused to answer our questions, so we can't vote to confirm him.
Roberts: I think that is a fair statement Senator, excuse me, Senior Senator Schumer.
Chuckie: Thank you Mr. Roberts. Mr Chairman I have no further questions nor do I see the need for this committee to extend the judicial hearing on Mr. Roberts any further. Mr. Roberts is obviously qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I move to end the Judicial Committee hearings now and call for a unanimous confirmation vote by the committee for Mr. Roberts. I will all so recommend to the full Senate that Mr. Roberts be unanimously confirmed.
I'm having trouble accepting these questions as genuine. They are actually formulated in a way which could lead to an intelligent, constructive debate on issues. Chuckie's real questions are more like this:
So, Judge Roberts, after you force women to have abortions in back alleys in Tijuana, and make blacks ride in the back of the bus, how long will it take you and your cronies to set up concentration camps for those who disagree with the Bush administration?
Q. You ever seen a grown man naked before?
Q. Do you like movies about gladiators?
Q. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
Two points. Roberts should refuse to answer any question that might, in any way, relate to any case he might hear in the future. Therefore, none of Schumer's questions. Two, Schumer's basic premise is wrong. Schumer said Roberts had to prove himself fit, not the senators proving he isn't. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Senator Schumer. It's the senates job to vote yes or no and there is nothing Robert has to do. Schumer's using the "have you quit beating your wife" questions to try trapping and opposing Roberts.