Ask the Justices…
Aaron Harber of the Aaron Harber show (harbertv.com) has an interview with Justices Breyer and O’Connor tomorrow afternoon, and he has solicited SCOTUSblog readers to help him formulate some questions for the two Honorable interviewees.
So, if you have a query or two about the law or the Court that you think would be appropriate for either of the two Justices, post it as a comment on this post or e-mail jharrow [at] akingump.com by 1:00 PM Eastern Time tomorrow, Thursday, July 6. Hopefully, we can send Aaron a few good questions and he will report back to us with some fruitful responses.
Justices O’Connor and Breyer, if you had to guess, how long until the next SCOTUS vacancy?
Comment by Andrew — July 6, 2006 @ 1:53 am
Proposed Question: There has been significant discussion over the past 10 years of an increasingly polarized nation, one that is divided by hot-button issues that include, amongst others, abortion, affirmative action, the proper role of religion in the public-square, and gay rights. Many legal scholars have opined that this division has been created by the Court’s desire to adjudicate these issues at a national level rather than leaving it up to the states to resolve in a manner that suits their respective populations the best. In support of this theory, scholars have pointed to the fact that before Roe v. Wade was decided, New York was one of the only states that allowed for abortion on demand. Yet, people in South Dakota or Mississippi did not protest abortion clinics in N.Y. any more than New Yorkers protested state laws that proscribed abortions altogether. (While this many not be strictly true, any such protests were on a significantly smaller scale and of far fewer number than is common today). The point being that we are too large a country for one-size-fits-all solutions to problems that even the most erudite members of society can not find a consensus on and that a greater respect for state autonomy to decide these issues independently would lead to greater national harmony. The question then is whether you (Justice Breyer and Justice O’Connor) agree that greater respect for federalism would help to decrease the angst and division that has polarized our society?
To the extent that the Justices suggest that Court intervention is necessary to preserve our civil rights and that the states demonstrated an inadequately capacity to safeguard these liberties in the past (i.e. segregation), the follow up question would then be: How does the Court decide which civil rights are worth protecting (i.e. why gay rights but not polygamy) and why are nine lawyers better suited to play the role of philosopher king than an elected state legislature?
Comment by JPS3L — July 6, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Justice Breyer, you hail from a population-dense part of the country; and, former Associate Justice, O’Connor, you passed a portion of your very earliest years in a predominantly sparsely settled part of the United States:
What do each of the revered Justices believe is the most difficult stretch to make the constitution written two centuries ago, apply to modern conditions? This is a broad question; select your area of concern, and make a brief comment.
Sincerely yours,
John Lopresti
Comment by JohnL — July 6, 2006 @ 12:45 pm