No one is a completely objective conduit of a judicial philosophy and the law.
Not least because judicial philosophies are subjective positions.
Declaring a judicial philosophy, “originalism” for example, is declaring a subjective position.
And there’s no value to espousing a philosophy without being willing (and able) to discuss hypothetical applications of that philosophy.
Refusing doesn’t make you look impartial; it makes you look like an idiot.
And there’s so much more than philosophy that goes into judicial interpretation.
Even assuming a judge approaches the task in the best faith possible, their social and educational backgrounds have a huge effect on how they view legal issues. Hell, how and where you grew up will affect what common words mean to you so of course it will affect how you interpret laws written with those words.
And the decisions that judges make affect the lives of their fellow citizens in innumerable ways, and not just the citizens who end up in their courts.
Especially so, for judges sitting on the Supreme Court.
So just answer the damn questions.
Do you think Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly? Obergfell?
Citizens United?
These are famous (and controversial) cases, that every candidate for a seat on a court should be familiar with.
We all know you have an opinion.
The citizens have a right to know what it is.
(To be fair we already know what it is; it’s not like it’s not obvious. We also deserve to hear you say it, rather than figuring it out from context.)
You’re up for a lifetime appointment (that’s an issue all its own) to a very powerful position.
So the Senate should refuse to confirm any judge who won’t discuss how, you know, they would actually approach the job they’re being evaluated for.
Discuss it like a grownup or go home.
This farce of objectivity doesn’t benefit anyone, and certainly doesn’t reflect well on either the Senate or the Court.
