Schumer submits hearing questions to Judge Roberts

[Bruce H]

I would feel a lot better if Judge Roberts would pull a .44mag and blow Shumer off the podium. Next question.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Gee Bruce -- FAT TEDDY is a bigger and better target

 

[AirForceShooter]

Senate head count
Dems:45
Repubs:55
No contest, all over, chuckie we don't care about your grandstanding

Bye bye

AFS

 

[RealGun]

Senate head count
Dems:45
Repubs:55
No contest, all over, chuckie we don't care about your grandstanding

Bye bye

The gang of 14, 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats, have established a block vote that can control any simple majority outcome as well as 60 vote cloture...do the math. All it really does is make any poor behavior futile (lack of decorum), while having a facade of bipartisanship.

 

[pittspilot]

Roberts should answer none of those questions.

It is the judges job to examine each case as it comes.

For instance.

1) What, if any, are the limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Who knows? That question has confounded the USSC for a century. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

2) ! When does speech cross the line between Constitutionally protected free expression and slander?

Tell you what Senator, you provide me a scenario with the factual and legal depth of analysis that a case would have when it reaches the USSC, and then let me discuss it with the other justices for a few weeks, and I will write you a 20 page decision letting you know what I have decided. Only a nimrod would answer a general question like that.

3)! 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?

Talk about a compound question. And what "actual malice" is hotly debated.

Look, these are highly complicated questions that no prospective justice should answer.

 

[Al Norris]

Carebear stated:
In so much as, of course, those amendments are consistent with the original intent as expressed in the Federalist papers (which directly address slavery and the resulting compromise IIRC) and with the theme of maximum freedom for all.

Wrong answer. The whole purpose of amending the Constitution was to account for changes in society. To be consistant, original intent goes out the window whenever an amendment is passed and approved... For that particular subject. If one reads the debates, one finds that this is actually original intent, as odd as it may sound.

That is precisely how the Constitution is a Living document. It should, by definition, be the only way.

Now, for Chucky's questions, they are similar enough in content with the questions asked of Roberts at his confirmation hearings when he was approved to the D.C. Circuit. He deftly answered with non-answers then... I suspect he will not be pinned down here, either.

 

[carebear]

I disagree to a degree.

I feel you can maintain a logical consistency in intent while adjusting the particulars (amendments) to cover advances in technology, societal changes etc. as long as those adjustments do not serve to contradict the founding principles of our inalienable rights.

In so much as an amendment (or judicial ruling) would infringe on individual liberty as originally stated, I believe it becomes unConstitutional in moral effect, if not legally. (by definition, if it follows the proper process it is "legally" Constitutional)

Which is where our duty as citizens to only elect and maintain those representatives who will protect liberty though given the power to destroy it comes in.

 

[Pointman]

Dem's general attitude on confirmations:

"Only if you'll do our bidding will I let you play for the other team"

 

[riverdog]

Orrin Hatch Blasts Chuck Schumer's 'Dumbass Questions'

Sen. Charles Schumer's questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was so hostile during Roberts' 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings that Sen. Orrin Hatch blasted his New York colleague for asking "dumbass questions."

In a audioclip of the exchange unearthed Wednesday by ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, the normally mild-mannered Utah Republican complained:

"Some [of Schumer’s questions] I totally disagree with. Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me." "I am not kidding you," Hatch continued. "I mean, as much as I love and respect [Schumer], I just think that’s true."

Taken aback, the New York Democrat asked if Hatch would like to "revise and extend his remark" - i.e., offer a retraction for the congressional record.

But Hatch refused to back down, telling Schumer:

"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."

 

[denfoote]

Gun free school zone.

There is a reason why Schumer and his ilk are interested in this.
They want schools on every corner so no one living in the neighborhood can own a gun!! It's a back door gun ban!!
I rather much suspect that he also would like that law to apply to home schooling as well.
I also think they would love to expand the zone to the entire neighborhood around a school!!
The fact that he is asking so many questions about this subject tells me that the Democrats are planning to attempt to expand it and he wants to make sure it will fly with SCOTUS!!!
Of course, they will do it for the children!!

 

[publius]

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 agree with the trend towards striking down laws on this basis?

Schumer didn't notice that the trend has already reversed.

 

[publius]

riverdog, did that come from The Onion?

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Al Norris:

Wrong answer. The whole purpose of amending the Constitution was to account for changes in society. To be consistant, original intent goes out the window whenever an amendment is passed and approved... For that particular subject. If one reads the debates, one finds that this is actually original intent, as odd as it may sound.

Got no problem with what you said Al, but to AMEND the Constitution you have to go to the STATES.

You shouldn't be able to do it sitting on your butt in a black robe.

 

[RealGun]

I feel you can maintain a logical consistency in intent while adjusting the particulars (amendments) to cover advances in technology, societal changes etc. as long as those adjustments do not serve to contradict the founding principles of our inalienable rights.

In so much as an amendment (or judicial ruling) would infringe on individual liberty as originally stated, I believe it becomes unConstitutional in moral effect, if not legally. (by definition, if it follows the proper process it is "legally" Constitutional)

Raising a technical question, something that offends the Declaration of Independence may not be "unconstitutional" per se. I am not sure we can count on the two documents being treated as one and the same. If a court really wanted to deny a fundamental principle of US citizenship, I think they could do it in a heartbeat, looking only to the Constitution for any citation.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Lookit, Schumer the schmuck is no dummy. Just the mere fact the he actually pre-warned him on the questions tells me the Dems plan to confirm this establishment 'conservative' candidate. It's quite simple - if you want to keep him from being confirmed, you ambush him with questions he is (hopefully) not expecting, so that he stutters and stammers around and looks bad, or worse, in the moment 'admits' a position which he'd rather not reveal, however subtly - you don't give him the exact questions that are going to be on the test unless you want him to pass. The fact that Chuckie is afraid of who would be sent up next if Roberts is shot down makes me think that this candidate is far from the best choice (among many other reasons).

 

[riverdog]

riverdog, did that come from The Onion?

I got it in an email, but HERE is a link.

and here is an even better link.

 

[carebear]

Realgun,

Good point, I look at the Constitution as the sort of "consistent" practical extension of the basics laid out in the DofI that should provide the model for what any (moral) amendment to it (the C) to account for societal change should look like.

For example, the C as ratified modified the status of minorities, women and nonlandowners to account for the then prevalent societal belief about their political viability from the very clear "all men created and endowed" principles of the DofI.

Universal Sufferage and the end of slavery were thus amendments that modified the C back into line with both new societal norms AND adhered more closely to the founding principles.

If an amendment can't do both, there's a good chance the societal norms are morally wrong.

 

[rhubarb]

"Some [of Schumer’s questions] I totally disagree with. Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me."

riverdog, did that come from The Onion?

Such straight talk just doesn't seem real does it? When I read that on the front page of the local paper this morning, I almost choked on my Cheerios.

See FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85640,00.html

Really, I don't get it. Seriously. How can a person so demonstrably stupid that a respected senior fellow Senator publicly calls him a dumbass be elected to the Senate of the United States of America? I ain't got CSPAN so I can't watch proceedings on the floor of Congress, but I imagine that if some of the blatantly partisan grandstanding questions are the norm for what is asked of judicial nominees, I would probably be physically ill. This goes for both sides of the Republicrat coin.

I'm just a simpleton that thinks the Constitution and its Amendments are swell. I think that a lot of the legal hawgwash that has been enacted into law through Congress and judicial legislation - er precedent - is nothing more than a way to keep lawyers employed. I want 9 judges on the Supreme Court that have no other legal documents nor opinions than the Constitution and Amendments. "Ah, let me see, regulating interstate commerce is charged to the Federal Gummint. Hmm, does growing marijuana in one's own backyard for one's own use fall under interstate commerce? Nope. Butt out, Feds. Next case. Got a Montgomery Wards shotgun with a 15" barrel? You got a right to keep and bear arms. Next case." If it was me asking questions of potential supreme jurists, questions like these would be irrelevant:

-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 how widely criticized or accepted the precedent is?
-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?

I don't care about precedent. If a previous Court decision was wrong it was wrong every time it was used for precedence and for as long as it has been treated as law. If one reads the Founders' Words in the Founding Documents of our Country, their intent is clear. My line of questioning would more closely follow Chucky's quote below, albeit with a different intent:

What is your view of the notion of “original intent”? “Original meaning”?

These great legal minds have spent over two centuries trying to get their heads around a few Rights and trying to figure out what was written in the Bill of Rights and how to get around it. <Wringing hands>What did they really mean? Are Citizens really free?</wringing hands> I like what the Founders had to say about that from the git-go. You want "Original Intent?" I'll give you original intent:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[RevDisk]

The NEXT one will change the court back to where it should be.

Or will change the court into an even more statist monster. Only time will tell.

I would feel a lot better if Judge Roberts would pull a .44mag and blow Shumer off the podium. Next question

Murder would not exactly help Mr Roberts get nominated, nor do I believe the murder/assassination of a US senator, no matter how vile of one, by a political opponent would reflect well on said opponent's party.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

rhubarb --

I think that a lot of the legal hawgwash that has been enacted into law through Congress and judicial legislation - er precedent - is nothing more than a way to keep lawyers employed.

X 732960 (the number of minutes since I was in court last with my ex wife getting bent over by a liberal female judge).

 

[only1asterisk]

Murder would not exactly help Mr Roberts get nominated, nor do I believe the murder/assassination of a US senator, no matter how vile of one, by a political opponent would reflect well on said opponent's party.

I wouldn't cry, but I would prefer he didn't use a gun. A spoon maybe...

David

(edited to add: I would prefer Roberts NEVER sit on the Supreme Court! So should the above unfortunate event occur, double bonus for me )

 

[Al Norris]

Mongo wrote:
Got no problem with what you said Al, but to AMEND the Constitution you have to go to the STATES.

Yup. I shoulda been more specific, but I thought when I wrote, "passed," that it was understood as the proper procedure. I sometimes forget that even here, some people don't have a clue as to how the Constitution operates.

You shouldn't be able to do it sitting on your butt in a black robe.

100% agreement. All laws should be read in the light of the Constitution. Not reading the Constitution as regards the law.

 

[Waitone]

Am I the only one struck you the Good Senator's apparent lack of interest in Judge Roberts' position on issues Second Amendment?

Just make book on the fact the courts will seek to do unto the Second Amendment as it did to private property rights. Now why would one of the senate's bulbs (dim, as it were) submit a series of questions about his views on major issues of the day, yet lightly pass over what has been a raging battle ground in years past?

<Dons tinfoil hat after spraying with PAM (helps with the positioning)>

 

[grampster]

Schumer voted against Judge Roberts for the position he now holds. Why would he do otherwise this time? Judge Roberts should suffer him only to the extent he is able to make him (Schumer) look the fool that he is.
Opposition is OK when there is a point to opposition. Otherwise it's nothing but opera.

 

[RealGun]

Schumer: blah-blah-blah dumbass questions.

Roberts: Sir, if I have to respond suitably to all of your questions in order to enjoy your vote of confirmation, I respectfully decline to answer any of them.