Posted on 08/04/2005 5:29:49 AM PDT by JohnnyLawrence4U
As I have previously put forth, there exists recent precedent militating against asking a Supreme Court nominee such as John Roberts close questions about how he might adjudicate certain cases. That precedent is entirely justifiable as well, given the need of judicial nominees to keep from prejudging cases that may come before them. A judge is expected by Canon 5A3(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility to refrain from making "statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court." (Emphasis added.)
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
I only have one question: Is the Constitution a "Living document"?
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.