The New York Times published five sets of five questions for Judge Roberts in todayÂ’s edition, set forth by various legal professionals. Some are mundane, some are arcane, and some are actually pretty good. IÂ’d like to highlight some of them.

From Stanford Law professor Kathleen Sullivan:

2. As a student of history, you know that the past is not always prologue. What are three constitutional issues you think will be more important by 2020 than any on which we are focusing now?

From former attorney general Dick Thornburgh:

5. Do you believe that it would further citizens' understanding of our judicial process if arguments before the Supreme Court were to be broadcast or televised live?

From Ron Klain, a former Democrat Judiciary Committee staffer and Clinton judicial selection director:

4. In a memo you wrote in 1981, you criticized affirmative action "preferences" based on race, calling them "objectionable." If preferences given to those born into families that have suffered past discrimination are objectionable, what is your view of preferences given to those born into the families of privilege - namely, the preferences that many universities give to the families of their alumni?

5. Chief Justice William Rehnquist held an annual Christmas celebration in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, complete with avowedly religious carols, despite periodic objections from some of his colleagues and non-Christian law clerks. As chief justice, will you continue with this practice, and do you find it at odds with the spirit of the court's edicts regarding church and state?

From Marshall University Professor and John Marshall biographer Jean Edward Smith:

1. Chief Justices John Marshall, Charles Evan Hughes and Earl Warren were extraordinarily effective working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds and with differing political views. Can you think of any characteristics these men may have shared that facilitated this?

3. Is it important for a chief justice to have had judicial experience?

5. One of John Marshall's first actions upon becoming chief justice was to take his colleagues out of their multicolored robes and put them in simple black. Do you intend to revert to that tradition, and retire that Gilbert and Sullivan chief justice costume William Rehquist designed?

From the Instapundit himself, University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds:

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?

From a purely intellectual standpoint, I love many of the questions that appeared. I encourage readers to look at them all, if only for the fun of having fodder for discussion and rumination.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.