Ask Judge Roberts a question courtesy of Ted Kennedy


PDA






LAR-15
July 29, 2005, 10:27 AM
http://democrats.senate.gov/askroberts/

If you enjoyed reading about "Ask Judge Roberts a question courtesy of Ted Kennedy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
foghornl
July 29, 2005, 10:30 AM
From that list of 'co-sponsors', looks like quite a few faethers from the Looney Left Wing :evil:

buzz_knox
July 29, 2005, 10:42 AM
Think this question will make it through the screeners?

"Judge Roberts, I have a hypothetical. A man is driving a woman home when he drives off bridge into a river. Rather than helping her, he swims to his hotel and does not call the police. Is he guilty of murder or just negligent homicide?"

boofus
July 29, 2005, 10:47 AM
Conspiracy too. I think Teddy the Manatee first met with some of dad's lawyers and mob buddies to see if the incident could be 'cleaned up'.

rick_reno
July 29, 2005, 11:23 AM
Buzz - I had the same question. :o

rock jock
July 29, 2005, 11:29 AM
Don't forget drunk. Teddy-boy was liquored up pretty good that night.

The Real Hawkeye
July 29, 2005, 11:43 AM
Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to keep and bears arms?

Is the 10th Amendment meaningful, and if so, how?

Was the commerce clause designed to make the powers of the Federal Government unlimited, and if not, what are it's limits?

Does the Fourth Amendment guarantee the right of every individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government actors, and is probable cause the definition of "reasonable" that the Framers intended?

bakert
July 29, 2005, 11:46 PM
" Why don't you take your lists of questions and wipe your collective ------- on them?" :cuss:

GunGoBoom
July 29, 2005, 11:58 PM
"Judge Roberts, I'd like to know whether or not your car has a bumper sticker on it that says my car has killed more people than your gun?"

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 12:26 AM
"Judge Roberts, I have a hypothetical. A man is driving a woman home when he drives off bridge into a river. Rather than helping her, he swims to his hotel and does not call the police. Is he guilty of murder or just negligent homicide?"

*dead*

I threw in the usual questions. I doubt any of them will be asked.

What is not interstate commerce?

How is the 10th amendment meaningful today?

Does the 2nd amendment guarantee an indivdual right to keep and bear arms? Does the 14th amendment make this binding upon the states? What limits upon this right are acceptable at the federal level? At the state level and below?

How important is precedent compared to the intent of the Founders and the text of the Constitution? When they conflict, which wins?

What is the meaning of "public use" found in the 5th amendment?

Does the 14th amendment prohibit states from infringing upon unenumerated rights protected by the 9th amendment? Who determines what those unenumerated rights are?

Should the 9th amendment be interpreted as narrowly or as widely as possible?

Why did congress have to enact the 18th amendment to regulate alcohol, but was able to rely on interstate commerce to pass the controlled substances act?

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 12:44 AM
Also note that my questions are a trap for the democrats.

You cant support incorporating unenumerated rights without incorporating the ones expressly enumerated in the BOR. Which means you cant incorporate abortion/privacy/buttsex without incorporating the right to keep and bear arms.

</jedi mind trick>

joab
July 30, 2005, 01:12 AM
I know this ia a tired old subject, but I submitted this simplistic question on personal rights versus public safety.
With the strong anti DUI laws already in place, would you rule in favor of a law making passenger side personal flotation devices mandatory for all automobiles in Massachusetts

Kurush
July 30, 2005, 01:32 AM
I know it's juvenile, but I sent in some annoying questions too :) It's worth it, if it saves the life of one child or at least annoys a Kennedy congressional staffer.

The Real Hawkeye
July 30, 2005, 09:43 AM
What is not interstate commerce?BeerSlurpy, that is a priceless gem of a question. I think everybody on this board should seriously go to that site and simply cut and paste that question in there. Hopefully there well be enough of them that they will actually ask the question. I also loved the one about Prohibition requiring an amendment to the Constitution, but the War on Drugs not. Beautiful!

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 12:33 PM
I stole the IC question straight from Reason magazine. The 10th amendmendment and public use questions were inspired by questions of their as well. The rest are my creations.

The one thing that bothers me the most about Roberts is that he said in his DC Circuit confirmation hearings that "I don't have an overarching, uniform philosophy."

I am also worried about his attitude towards authority- does he defer to it in ruling or does he subject it to the harsh light of the constitution? Is he on our side or theirs?

I am also really getting tired of these results-oriented justices.

The Real Hawkeye
July 30, 2005, 12:44 PM
The one thing that bothers me the most about Roberts is that he said in his DC Circuit confirmation hearings that "I don't have an overarching, uniform philosophy."

I am also worried about his attitude towards authority- does he defer to it in ruling or does he subject it to the harsh light of the constitution? Is he on our side or theirs?

I am also really getting tired of these results-oriented justices.I share those very same concerns. :(

beerslurpy
July 30, 2005, 12:49 PM
Hey I just read your sig and I agree a lot. I remember that the shire was basically turned into a tyrannical government with armed thugs going around expropriating everyone's property. The guys back from Mordor organize resistance and overthrow them.

That would probably be a very "dangerous" message to have floating around these days when our government is certainly providing no shortage of good excuses to overthrow it.

svtruth
July 30, 2005, 03:08 PM
One thought that crossed my alleged mind is; will Bush's Supreme Court appointment(s) or his replacement of Greenspan have a larger impact?
Especially interested in Beerslurpy & Real Hawkeye's thoughts, but all are welcome.

CAPTAIN MIKE
July 30, 2005, 03:20 PM
I just had a lot of fun entering questions that I'm about 99% sure WON'T get asked. After all, it would embarrass the Democrats.

RealGun
July 30, 2005, 03:32 PM
I know the Judiciary Committee values the right of Senators to ask "any question they want to", but instead of going through this same tired, partisan charade for every judge, why doesn't the committee screen the questions using published guidelines? We already know there are questions considered "dumb ass questions" by Hatch, a veteran committee chairman. What is his standard?

Right now, they force the nominee to decide what is a permissible question. I would like to know what types of questions a nominee should be expected to answer.

The Real Hawkeye
July 30, 2005, 03:37 PM
Hey I just read your sig and I agree a lot. I remember that the shire was basically turned into a tyrannical government with armed thugs going around expropriating everyone's property. The guys back from Mordor organize resistance and overthrow them.Yes, it is a more fictionalized (less real-world-seeming) version of the more modern works such as Enemies Foreign and Domestic and Unintended Consequences.That would probably be a very "dangerous" message to have floating around these days when our government is certainly providing no shortage of good excuses to overthrow it.Yes, I suspect that's why they didn't include it in the movie version.

The Real Hawkeye
July 30, 2005, 03:45 PM
One thought that crossed my alleged mind is; will Bush's Supreme Court appointment(s) or his replacement of Greenspan have a larger impact?
Especially interested in Beerslurpy & Real Hawkeye's thoughts, but all are welcome.I don't know about BeerSlurpy, but I am now charging a small consultant's fee for my opinions. You can send your credit card number, the expiration date, and the four last numbers on the back to my mailbox here at THR. The charge is $75. :)

In all seriousness, though, that is very flattering, but I am so hungry that I can't think straight, so I am going to get something to eat before I attempt to answer your question.

Ok, now that I've eaten (twice) I am ready to consider your questions. Not really sure I know from what angle you are looking for an answer, and I'm not really sure I am qualified to give an intelligent answer, but I think that, considering the current de facto quasi-legal system that we have in place, Greenspan did a good job of manipulating the value of money. Don't know how well a juggler the next guy will be. I am having trouble with the question, I guess, because I am generally uncomfortable with the existence of the Federal Reserve. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson when he warned:If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.So I will defer to Thomas Jefferson on that question. There should not be a Federal Reserve.

As to the Supreme Court, I don't think the president is willing to, or even desirous to, appoint nominees who will actually read the Constitution as intended and as clearly written. That being the case, we can expect pretty much more of the same. As I see it, there is only one halfway decent Justice on the Supreme Court, and that's Thomas. If Bush was willing to pack the court with more Thomas's and others like Judge Janice Brown or Andrew Napalitano, I think there is some hope of actually reversing the engineered decline of our nation. Short of that, it would take a Constitutionalist Congress to hold the Justices accountable for their treasonous abuses of their positions of trust. Congress even has the power, under the Constitution, to entirely (or partially) remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, and even dissolve all the lower Federal Courts. Might not be a bad idea. Leave it all up to the State Supreme Courts. I don't hold out much hope, either way, though. Probably not what you wanted to hear, but there it is. Beerslurpy?

By the way, with a name like Beerslurpy, you know that his opinions deserve being taken seriously, so listen up. :)

mountainclmbr
July 30, 2005, 10:41 PM
Judge Roberts should ask kennedy "do you love Karl Marx?" Heads up...watch the length of his nose when he answers.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ask Judge Roberts a question courtesy of Ted Kennedy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!