Neomi Rao stipulates that Cha Cha Sotomayor, like those before her, will refuse to answer confirmation hearing questions that go directly to "hot button" topics like abortion, gay marriage, the rights of terrorist detainees. However, writes Rao, the nominee ought be made to answer questions that reveal her judicial philosophy. Like these.
|
“
|
- - Do you believe that judges should use "empathy" to decide cases? If so, what's the difference between empathy and judicial activism?
- - Do you believe that interpretations of the Constitution should evolve to keep up with the times? If so, how would you decide when the Constitution needs updating?
- - What is the court's role when interpreting ambiguous laws?
The confirmation process often focuses on constitutional questions that
never get directly answered, but a great deal of law is made (and
unmade) when the court interprets statutes. Statutes, not the
Constitution, regulate financial markets, the environment, our
workplaces, and many forms of private discrimination. So it matters how
they are interpreted.
- - Should Supreme Court justices be bound by precedent? All justices sometimes overrule previous decisions. So when is it appropriate to do so?
- - What matters most, the law or the result? Or put another way, when the law requires a result that you don't like, what do you do?
|
” |
I would add -
- -Do you believe foreign court decisions should be considered when reaching a decision on American law? If so, what would keep you from ceding our sovereignty to a World Court on which you had a seat?
This goes to question 2, but some justices, notably the ACLU's
representative on the court, Ginsburg, have championed just such a
position.
Disclosure:
I think these questions must be asked, and made to answer by a
responsible Senate Judiciary, but I have zero expectation of them acting responsibly, or that the system can at this juncture be fixed without certain unfortunate hostilities. But that's just me. I'm fair and balanced.
|
|