Go Ahead, Neil Gorsuch, Tell Us What You Think

What if we held a confirmation hearing and the Supreme Court nominee actually answered the questions? Conventional wisdom considers that impossible in today’s political climate, but conventional wisdom is wrong. Politically, senators are going to vote the way they want regardless of what the nominee says. And ethically, there’s nothing wrong with a nominee speaking about Supreme Court precedent or issues that might come before the court in the future, unless the nominee commented specifically on the facts of a particular case.

The political rationale that leads nominees to bob and weave, avoiding almost all meaningful questions, has been around for 30 years. Roughly, the idea is that Robert Bork’s nomination was blocked in 1987 because Democrats successfully depicted him as outside the mainstream. To avoid Bork’s fate, justices should avoid answering questions as he did.