Say what?

Senator Schumer told Judge Alito that he cannot decline to say what he thinks about issues that may come before the Supreme Court, as John Roberts did, because unlike Roberts, Alito has a long record as an appeals court judge. But Roberts was only following the Ginsburg rule, and Ginsburg too had a long track record as an appeals court judge. Indeed, when Roberts’ supporters invoked the Ginsburg rule, his opponents argued Roberts needed to say more than Ginsburg because he lacked a long track record that could provide insight into his judicial thinking.
The unwillingness of nominees to discuss issues that will come before the Court (which is sometimes carried too far) is based on ethical rules against prejudging cases. Those rules apply regardless of how long one has served on the appellate bench.
JOHN adds: Great points, but the reality is, the Democrats are just making it up as they go along. They recognize no duty of consistency. Their logic can’t withstand the most elementary scrutiny, and their leader is a dimwit who, after being thrown out of Harvard for cheating, graduated last in his law school class. While a law student, he endured the humiliation of being arrested by a highway patrolman while cowering in the back seat of his car, pretending not to be the driver. He subsequently drove off a bridge, thereby drowning a young woman whose only crime was assuming that he was a competent escort. She probably could have been saved if he had gone for help, but instead of trying to rescue her, he spent the night looking for someone who would pretend to have been the driver of the car, discussing legal strategies with his family’s advisers, and trying to establish an alibi. And now Ted Kennedy purports to sit in moral judgment over a brilliant, self-effacing public servant like Sam Alito. The American public isn’t paying much attention, but I think they’re smart enough to figure this one out.


Books to read from Power Line