Skip to main content

View Diary: 12 Questions for a potential SCOTUS nominee (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can't go with # 5. Any and all (8+ / 0-)

    potential nominees should answer "I cannot and will not discuss a pending case".  Any other answer should exclude them.

    Otherwise, a very good selection of questions.

    They waterboarded in order to "prove" the link between 9/11 and Saddam. That is the Unified Field Theory of Evil

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri May 01, 2009 at 12:48:39 PM PDT

    •  Agreed... (2+ / 0-)

      And while the rest could elicit interesting answers, I'd really like to hear the answer for number three. Whoever is nominated, it will be fun deconstructing the hearing.

      Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears' poncho? - Frank Zappa

      by JoesGarage on Fri May 01, 2009 at 12:59:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  4&6 won't be answered. (4+ / 0-)

      7&8 will be answered by laying out current law, but without the nominee's own opinion.  And SCOTUS has (almost) nothing to do with amending the Constitution.

      Here's the question I suggested in July 2005, before John Roberts' nomination:

      During the 1990-1991 term in Payne v Tennessee, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter all voted to overturn direct Supreme Court precedents to allow victim impact testimony to come into trial.  The next term, all three refused to do the same with regard to reproductive freedom rights in the Casey decision because, in part, 'for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.'  They further wrote that about their nervousness in overturning precedent, stating that 'only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance' and therefore 'subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question'.

      In a sense, the same occurred in Dickerson v United States, in which the Court, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the Miranda decision had become such a part of our legal culture that it ought not be overturned.

      Without getting into your personal beliefs on these issues, do you believe that certain precedents are less amenable to be overturned than others because of the public's reliance upon their rules, or do you believe that any case which this Court has decided wrongly ought to be reversed?

      •  Assuming the noninee is a judge (0+ / 0-)

        Please name three cases you have ruled upon where your interpretation of the law resulted in an outcome that was very different from what you would have preferred to see as the outcome.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri May 01, 2009 at 03:21:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site