![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There's an aspect of this whole Roberts confirmation hearing that's got me scratching my head: the "questions I won't answer" part. I can kind of see both sides, there, but it leaves a certain quandry.
So, apparently Supreme Court candidates, during their confirmation hearings, don't like to comment on hypothetical "how would you rule on Issue X?" sorts of questions. On the side of self-interest, they're going to annoy someone no matter how they answer. On the side of jurisprudence, though, they know that cases are often made in the details and particulars, and they don't want to give the impression that they would ignore those particulars if a case involving Issue X came before them. Because, you hope, they would judge each case on its own merits.
On the other hand, what is the purpose of the confirmation hearing except to sound out the proclivities of the potential Justice? At the top level, I suppose you want to make sure the candidate is well-qualified - trained in Constitutional law, bright and articulate, et cetera. But cases come before the Supreme Court because there's a question as to how a law should be read, or if a law is applicable, or if a law is Constitutional. The judges make judge-ment calls on these matters, and the senators want to know what kind of judgements the candidate is likely to make, because they don't want to confirm someone who's sense of judgement is, in their opinion, severely flawed.
In Roberts's particular case, he hasn't been a judge that long. If he had, I guess the thing to do would be to revisit the cases he ruled on and ask him the hows and whys of his decisions. But he was a lawyer, mostly, arguing positions that he was paid to argue. (Now I'm sure you don't go to work for the Reagan Administration without some sympathy for Reagan's policies - maybe a lot of sympathy - but that's not the same as him sincerely and deeply believing every argument he put forth. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. I guess they could ask him about it.)
Like I said, a head-scratcher.
So, apparently Supreme Court candidates, during their confirmation hearings, don't like to comment on hypothetical "how would you rule on Issue X?" sorts of questions. On the side of self-interest, they're going to annoy someone no matter how they answer. On the side of jurisprudence, though, they know that cases are often made in the details and particulars, and they don't want to give the impression that they would ignore those particulars if a case involving Issue X came before them. Because, you hope, they would judge each case on its own merits.
On the other hand, what is the purpose of the confirmation hearing except to sound out the proclivities of the potential Justice? At the top level, I suppose you want to make sure the candidate is well-qualified - trained in Constitutional law, bright and articulate, et cetera. But cases come before the Supreme Court because there's a question as to how a law should be read, or if a law is applicable, or if a law is Constitutional. The judges make judge-ment calls on these matters, and the senators want to know what kind of judgements the candidate is likely to make, because they don't want to confirm someone who's sense of judgement is, in their opinion, severely flawed.
In Roberts's particular case, he hasn't been a judge that long. If he had, I guess the thing to do would be to revisit the cases he ruled on and ask him the hows and whys of his decisions. But he was a lawyer, mostly, arguing positions that he was paid to argue. (Now I'm sure you don't go to work for the Reagan Administration without some sympathy for Reagan's policies - maybe a lot of sympathy - but that's not the same as him sincerely and deeply believing every argument he put forth. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. I guess they could ask him about it.)
Like I said, a head-scratcher.
