1.  Thomas Sowell explains why judges should decide cases based solely on what the Constitution means (the original intent).  Write his explanation in your own words.

2.  Define the following in regards to the judiciary:  nominate, nominee, confirmation process, Senate confirmation hearings, Senate confirmation committee, confirm, appoint

3.  Consider the following:

"The role of a judge is to be a neutral interpreter of already established law, not legislator of new law or social policy.  A judge can have his or her own opinions, even strong ones, and still read the law neutrally.  Fundamentally, judges are expected to not bring their personal politics and philosophies to the bench. Judges are expected to read the law in its clear intent and apply it without regard to result. Changing the law should be left to the people and their legislators."  Adapted and excerpted from the WashingtonPost.com.
For the transcript, click here.

--The purpose of the U.S. Constitution.

--Why were the Federalist Papers written? 

--What is federalism?

4.  How does Mr. Sowell defend the Constitution's authority? (para. 5, 8)

5.  How does Mr. Sowell respond to the argument that we're not sure about what the writers of the Constitution might possibly have meant in specific passages? (para. 9)

6.  How does Mr. Sowell respond to the argument that a judicial nominee's personal beliefs on issues like abortion must be known, (and therefore that the nominee not be confirmed if he doesn't have the "correct" view)? (para. 11)

7.  How does Mr. Sowell respond to the argument that change needs to be made, but it is too hard to amend the constitution?  (para. 12-18)

8.  Who does Mr. Sowell say authority rests with for changing the Constitution, based on the Constitution's own provisions?

9.  What do you conclude about who will make the best judges?