Posted on 07/20/2005 8:43:09 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
1. First Amendment and Freedom of Expression:
What, if any, are the limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
- When can Government regulate public speech by individuals?
- When does speech cross the line between Constitutionally-protected free expression and slander?
- In what ways does the First Amendment protect the spending and raising of money by individuals in politics?
- Can Government regulate hate speech? What about sexually explicit materials?
Specifically:
- Do you agree with the landmark decision in NYT 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?
- Do you believe the Supreme Court was correct to strike down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU (1997) on the grounds that pornography on the Internet is protected by the First Amendment?
- What is your view on the distinction the Supreme Court drew in Republican Party v. White and McConnell v. FEC... between contributions and expenditures in the course of political campaigns? Do you believe that it is legitimate to construe campaign expenditures as protected speech but not donations by individuals?
2. First Amendment and the Establishment Clause:
- Under the Establishment Clause, what... is the appropriate role of religion in Government?
- Must the Government avoid involvement with religion as a whole, or is the prohibition just on Government involvement with a specific religion?
- Is there a difference between religious expression in Government buildings/documents/and institutions and Government spending on private, faith-based initiatives?
- What do you see as the Constitutionally protected or limited role of faith-based groups in Government-funded activity? In Government institutions?
Specifically:
- In the two cases the Supreme Court decided on the Ten Commandments recently.....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
All my questions came from the movie AIRPLANE.
Two points. Roberts should refuse to answer any question that might, in any way, relate to any case he might hear in the future. Therefore, none of Schumer's questions. Two, Schumer's basic premise is wrong. Schumer said Roberts had to prove himself fit, not the senators proving he isn't. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Senator Schumer. It's the senates job to vote yes or no and there is nothing Robert has to do. Schumer's using the "have you quit beating your wife" questions to try trapping and opposing Roberts.
If he were capable of anything like that, he wouldn't be a senator
You are right, I should have highlighted the date.
Failing that, he would say that to confirm an individual right now would "overturn decades of judicial precedent", yada yada blah blah.
Whenever I hear a politician say that something is "settled law", that means either abortion or guns and it also means they are desperately hoping not to examine either issue in the light of day.
;^)
I know. And believe it or not I do hate to be that gross, but people need to know how low these bolsheviks will go. But is it really an attack on bo-bo values, or just a desperate cry for attention?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.