Well, the waiting game is over, and Shrub has nominated John Roberts to take over O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. While I wouldn't call Roberts an exact match to the want ad I posted below, at least he doesn't appear to be a religious loony intent on proving that Republicratic Christo-Fascists can legislate from the bench just like Demopublican Socialists. Of course, this evaluation is sure to evolve over the next several years.
Speaking of Demopublican Socialists, Chuck Schumer (a.k.a. the gun-grabbing, race-pandering, whiney, collectivist, oath-of-office violating Senator from New York) has come up with
a list of questions for Roberts to answer. To be fair, it's not a bad collections of questions. I suspect Roberts will dance around it, but in the true spirit of the blogosphere, I'd like to suggest the following answers to Red Charlie's list:
Q: What, if any, are the limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution?A: None. Next question.
Q: Under the Establishment Clause, what, if any, is the appropriate role of religion in Government?A: None. Next question.
Q: Must the Government avoid involvement with religion as a whole, or is the prohibition just on Government involvement with a specific religion? A: Government must remain neutral on any and all religions questions. The text of the First Amendment is pretty clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- i.e. individuals have religions, government is secular.
Q: Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn a well-settled precedent, upon which Americans have come to rely? A: When it's clearly in violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution as defined in the founding documents.
(Since Red Charlie probably can't distinguish the Federalist Papers from rolling papers, this answer would probably really confuse him)Q: Under what circumstances should the Supreme Court invalidate a law duly passed by the Congress?A: See above answer.
Q: Is there a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and if so, under what circumstances does it apply?A: Yes. See Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and Amendment X
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" Property rights begin with self-ownership.
Q: What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to protect the environment? A: See above -- especially the part about the federal government having "enumerated" powers, whereas the people have the rest. The key to environmental protection is simple: private ownership and holding people legally responsible for the messes they make.
Q: What is the proper role of the federal government in enacting laws to protect the rights of the disabled? A: None. Rights apply to everyone equally at the expense of no one. Everything else is a privilege.
Q: What is the proper relationship between Congress and the states in enacting laws to protect the rights of patients? A: None. Health care is a service, not a right.
Q: What is the proper Constitutional role of Government in enacting laws to regulate education? A: None. I challenge anyone to show me any governmental mandate to provide education in the Constitution.
Look it up.Q: How do you define judicial activism?A: "Interpreting" the Constitution to mean something that clearly was not the philosophical intent of the authors.
Q: Where is the line between civil rights questions that are political and questions that are appropriate for a court to decide?A: Individuals have rights, groups do not. If an individual's legitimate Constitutional rights have been violated, it's a court issue. Everything else is a political issue.
(Note to Red Charlie: equality of outcome is not a "right", and redistributing the wealth by force is still theft, no matter how many euphemistic terms you coin for it)Now I'm sure someone out there will argue that the Constitution is a "living document" that is to be interpreted in the spirit of the times. I disagree. If it's a "living" document, it's really a dead one -- because if we don't follow it in letter and spirit, then
none of it is beyond changing when the mob gets a wild hair. If it's outdated, then let's come up with a new one. But if we're going to continue playing the game that it's the law of land, let's follow it as such.
