Supreme Court Nominee - Question

[Ripon83]

It seems, that since Bork, the idea of asking a proposed justice how they'd vote on certain decisions is off limit to some if not all in the senate? The timid questioning of Kagan and Sotomayor illustrated that since neither faced the kind of "onslaught" Bork or Thomas got, but politics aside what stops a US Senator from asking:

"Is the Second Amendment a personal right / individual right or a right of the well armed and regulated militia / state?"

If they answer personal as I think they'd all have too then ask what limits on personal rights do you support with regards to the second amendment? It would seem with all the power of the NRA and other pro gun groups these questions would be asked? Why not?

[sholling]

It's one of those double standards that tradition imposes. Progressive Senators demand that nominees pledge their commitment to stare decisis, which when translated from Progressive to English means a commitment to uphold and base their decisions on past unconstitutional rulings (rather than the Constitution itself) that have gutted much of the constitution. In other words they have to agree to uphold and build on blatantly unconstitutional rulings like wickard v. filburn that allow the federal government to control pretty much anything and everything if they don't want to be "Borked". On the other hand it's pretty much out of bounds to ask for a commitment to enforce the Constitution as written and the plain text meaning at the time of ratification. It's a key part of the Progressive strategy of "progressing" one ruling at a time beyond any Constitutional limitations on government power.

[Uxi]

Could ask... just can't trust the answer. Hell, Barry says he supports the 2nd Amendment and his fans will ape his response. Yet he gave us Holder, Sotomayor, and Kagan...

[berto]

The odds of any nominee saying "personal right to machine guns" is extremely low. They're trying to get confirmed which means playing nice and dealing in generalities. Expect a fluff answer. The truth is revealed in their decisions and then it's too late.

[Alan Block]

What a nominee says in front of congress is meaningless. You have to look at their record of judicial action. Anyone without such a record should not be nominated.

[pointedstick]

The odds of any nominee saying "personal right to machine guns" is extremely low. They're trying to get confirmed which means playing nice and dealing in generalities. Expect a fluff answer. The truth is revealed in their decisions and then it's too late.

Right, it's all a big game and they know the rules. All supreme court nominees are going to sound a lot alike under congressional questioning. You'll need to discover their true nature from their past.

[PatriotnMore]

What a nominee says in front of congress is meaningless. You have to look at their record of judicial action. Anyone without such a record should not be nominated.

Correct! and......candidates for any office, and yet here we are. Surreal huh?

[Ripon83]

I still can't imagine no one would put a nominees feet to the fire with these basic question.

[mdimeo]

The main lessons learned from the Bork thing were:

1. Nominees shouldn't say anything controversial. Tough questions are usually handled by saying "I can't comment with specificity about matters that could come before the court during my tenure", or, alternately, "It would really depend on the specific facts of the case at hand."

2. Presidents should nominate people who can get away with #1, preferably without a lot of paper trail.