I'm as pro-choice as they come, so I suppose I should despise Roberts. But I don't. His record prior to his SCOTUS nomination indicates to me that he places the law above his personal beliefs, something idiots like Scalia never seem able to do.

Sandra Day O'Connor made some interesting comments in a speech to a couple hundred Con Law students the other day. She, during her confirmation hearings, was grilled about abortion just as Roberts was. And she said she remembered thinking, "Oh MY! I can't comment on cases that are likely to come before the court! That would mean I'd already made up my mind."

Her point is well taken. If Roberts had made definitive position statements, that would suggest he is unqualified to render an impartial legal opinion.

And remember, Ms. O'Connor was often the swing vote in upholding Roe. :)

They had better be wrong about Owen...Jeebus.

Snug,

Would you consider it appropriate to ask a nominee questions about previous rulings of the court?

For example,

Sen. Somebody: Judge Please-god-don't-let-it-be-Owen, in its ruling on Griswold v Connecticut, the court has found that there is a right to privacy that is implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. Do you believe that this case was correctly decided? Why, or why not?

Should the nominee be expected to answer this question?

I guess I see two problems with that sort of question. One is that it asks the nominee to second-guess prior decisions of the court. That is appropriate once the nominee is confirmed and there is a case before him. I don't think it's appropriate during the process.

The second problem is, it's not awfully instructive as far as determining the nominee's qualifications to sit on the court. I'd much rather hear questions about the nominee's own experiences and history, in order to satisfy me that he is, indeed, a man of the law first and a conservative second.

That said, I suppose the nominee should be expected to answer all reasonable questions put before him.