The Real Reason to Watch the Gorsuch Hearings

Once upon a time, Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice nominees had a straightforward purpose: For Senators to learn the views of the nominees. Since Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate after giving his views, however, we get less and less of that. Here's HuffPollster's Jennifer Bendery summarizing the early questioning of Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday:

Yup. Recent nominees, whether chosen by Democrats or Republicans, come thoroughly prepared with empty cliches about how they have no pre-conceived views on, well, anything. For example, Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley began the questioning by running through a series of famous court cases and soliciting the same answer about them from Gorsuch: That his personal opinion of the case isn't relevant, and that there are now precedents and should be respected, and otherwise it's inappropriate to comment whether they were correctly decided in the first place. Gorsuch did eventually admit to actually thinking that Marbury v. Madison (the foundational case of all Supreme Court jurisprudence) was not only precedent but also sort of a good idea). Then again, that one was decided in 1803.