1) What isn’t interstate commerce?
2) How much reverence should be given to precedence? Sandra Day O’Connor was the Court’s swing vote; if he disagrees with her record, Roberts could change a lot of law.
3) Quick—Recite the Tenth Amendment. You never can be too sure.
4) Do you agree with United States v. Reynolds, and if so how do you square that agreement with the fact that the federal government, in successfully arguing for what was then a new right to keep secrets from the judicial branch, has been recently shown to have lied its ever-lovin’ ass off?
5) You’re on a lifeboat, but it can only hold 8 of the original 10 amendments without sinking, killing your whole family. Which ones go?
Read the whole thing. Also, some more information on Judge Roberts and judicalrestraint from Life News:
In a 1997 case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that no right to assisted suicide exists, but states could decide whether to allow assisted suicides to take place.
In the cases, Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, the court upheld laws against assisted suicide in Washington and New York.
In an interview that year with the PBS news program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” Roberts commented on the rulings.
“I think it’s important not to have too narrow a view of protecting personal rights,” he said.
“The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life, and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions,” Roberts explained. “That’s an important right.”
Observers say the remarks point to Roberts’ attitude of judicial restraint — of not allowing courts to overturn the will of the people as handed down through legislation approved by the state legislature.