1. Why did Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycott the question-and-answer session of President Obama's first judicial nominee - and what did they hope to accomplish with their boycott? Be specific.

2. How did conservative legal experts respond to Mr. Obama's statement during his campaign that he wanted to pick judges with the "heart" and "empathy" needed to walk in someone else's shoes?

3. Why are Republican Senators opposed to David Hamilton being chosen as President Obama's first judicial nominee?

4. a) What did all 42 Republican senators ask the President to do prior to Mr. Hamilton's nomination?
b) What action did President Bush take regarding judicial nominees when he first took office?

5. What do Senate Republicans hope to achieve by slowing down the nominating process during the judicial hearings?

6. The judicial branch usually has the final say on such issues as religious liberties, abortion, gay marriage, gun laws, pornography, and the fate of suspected terrorists in the ongoing war on terror. What decisions might judges appointed by President Obama make on these types of issues?

7. a) Define overreach.
b) What do conservatives hope will happen if President Obama overreaches in his judicial picks?

8. In order to form your own opinion on this issue, you must understand what the controversy over the nomination of Federal judges is all about.  Read the following three paragraphs that explain the difference in the opposing views on the role of a judge, as well as the "Background" below the questions:

Think about the role of a judge. Do you support the nomination of activist judges? Explain your answer.

• The term "judicial restraint" refers to the idea that the role of a judge is not to make policy or establish new legal rights, but to interpret the law as written in the United States Constitution or in statutes passed by the legislature. Because the will of the people is best expressed through legislative bodies, judges must strive to adhere to the law as written even if, at times, the law is insufficient to deal with certain circumstances or conflicts with the judge's personal political views.
• "Judicial activism," by contrast, refers to results-oriented judging, whereby a judge decides the outcome of a case based not on the law as written, but on his or her conception of what is just or fair. "Judicial activism" is often improperly confused with the power of "judicial review," which is the power of the judiciary to invalidate statutes that are in conflict with the United States Constitution.
• Although the term "judicial restraint" is often associated with political conservatism, and "judicial activism" often associated with political liberalism, they are not properly categorized as such. "Judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" refer to the process or method a judge uses to reach a particular decision, not to the political ramifications of that decision. Political liberals and political conservatives are, at least theoretically, equally capable of exercising restraint on the bench. By the same token, judicial activists may use their authority to achieve either conservative or liberal results. As such, the terms "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" are neither inherently "conservative" nor inherently "liberal."
  From "A Primer on Judicial Restraint..." found at JudicialNetwork.com (in PDF format - must have Adobe Acrobat Reader to open) (from judicialnetwork.com/contents/readingroom/braceras_100102.pdf)