Eight Questions for Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan
May 12, 2010
NEW YORK, (christiansunite.com) -- Yesterday, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court. Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media prepared the following eight questions about the First Amendment that could be asked during her confirmation hearing:
In your view, is the First Amendment a "living clause" to be interpreted in any way that five or more Justices can agree on, regardless of what that Amendment meant historically and of what legislative bodies and the public think?
In your view, is the Constitution's grant of life tenure to Supreme Court Justices intended to shield Justices who apply the First Amendment in accordance with its historical meaning, regardless of what legislative bodies and the public think, or to shield Justices who interpret that Amendment in any way that five or more Justices can agree on, regardless of what that Amendment meant historically and of what legislative bodies and the public think?
In your view, was former Chief Justice Warren correct when he said there is a "right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society" (378 U.S. 184, 199), or do you agree with the ACLU that there is a "right of the pornographers and of the entertainment media to maintain open moral sewers in our Nation's communities and homes?"
In your view, is the First Amendment intended to protect the right of citizens to discuss and debate the controversial issue of "pornography," or do you agree with the ACLU that the Amendment provides persons with a right to distribute pornography, including obscenity and child pornography?
In your view, is the First Amendment intended to protect the right of women to take off their clothes in public places for the purpose of sexually arousing patrons?
In your view, is the First Amendment intended to provide adults with a right to disseminate sexual and violent content that is harmful to minors without any legal obligation to restrict minors' access?
In your view, should the First Amendment be interpreted to "cripple the regular work of government" (412 U.S. 94, 102-03), which includes maintaining a decent society and protecting morality, public safety, family life, the home and children?
In your view, is there a "danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact" (337 U.S. 1, 37)?