The Fry Cook Rule for the Supreme Court

Points noted, but the fact that nobody wanted to do any digging into or questioning of Souter from Bush41 on down is precisely why we got him. Blank slates are not what we need on SCOTUS, especially now.

CB's two questions are a good backup to one's record; and if asked correctly, would help determine if someone with a conservative record has that record because he or she believes in the original meaning of the Constitution or because he or she believes ruling conservative to be the "popular" thing. The former will tend to give us a Justice that will resist the temptation to grow in office; the latter is far more likely to turn into an O'Connor-like Lawgiver in Black.

Your last paragraph echoes my thoughts, so I'll repeat it starting with the second sentence...

I voted for him and the GOP to get constitutionalists appointed, and I'm not about to let that vote go to waste again if it doesn't happen with this appointment, which may be the most important vote on the Court we can hope for during Dubya's term. Abortion and affirmative action are just two issues where things could swing the other way with O'Connor replaced by a constitutionalist. So there must be no compromise on politics, hoping to get their vote next time, because we might not, and then this chance would not come again. There must be no affirmative action appointees from whom the best we can hope for is the occasional conservative opinion like O'Connor. And no more gambling on unproven, unknown, Souters-to-be.

"Points noted, but the fact that nobody wanted to do any digging into or questioning of Souter from Bush41 on down is precisely why we got him. Blank slates are not what we need on SCOTUS, especially now."

---We agree on this 100%. My concern with questions prior to appointment is that they are grade-A useless. A proven judicial track record is falsifiable, but nowhere near to the same degree. So the potential nominee provides answers like, "Why, yes, I am a constitutionalist!" What difference does the question make, if they've no track record on the subject? It's just as much of a gamble that they're lying.

"CB's two questions are a good backup to one's record; and if asked correctly, would help determine if someone with a conservative record has that record because he or she believes in the original meaning of the Constitution or because he or she believes ruling conservative to be the "popular" thing. The former will tend to give us a Justice that will resist the temptation to grow in office; the latter is far more likely to turn into an O'Connor-like Lawgiver in Black."

---I don't trust the answer a judge up for appointment might give to such questions, and I think they can only be used against conservatives in twisted MSM soundbites. I agree that the questions will be asked, but I fail to see the point in doing so before the Senate Grand High Committee on Conservative Lynching, er, the Senate Judiciary Committee.

My concern with questions prior to appointment is that they are grade-A useless. A proven judicial track record is falsifiable, but nowhere near to the same degree. So the potential nominee provides answers like, "Why, yes, I am a constitutionalist!" What difference does the question make, if they've no track record on the subject? It's just as much of a gamble that they're lying.

If you noted the rest of my post, those questions provide a backup to the record, not a replacement for it. O'Connor had a relatively-conservative track record, but her philosophy behind it (not explored sufficiently in a rush to nominate a woman) was rather less substantial. IMHO, NOBODY without a substantial record should even be considered for SCOTUS (and those without a Constitutionalist background shouldn't get past the pre-screening at the White House).

I don't trust the answer a judge up for appointment might give to such questions, and I think they can only be used against conservatives in twisted MSM soundbites. I agree that the questions will be asked, but I fail to see the point in doing so before the Senate Grand High Committee on Conservative Lynching, er, the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As imperfect as the DemonRATs and the Prestitutes of the Left-Stream Media are, and as much as they pervert the idea of advice and consent, the process of advice and consent demands that basic questions (limited to competency and qualifications; e.g. the Fry Cook test) be asked. That the questioning will go far beyond that, and that the answers will be twisted beyond recognition is as reprehensible as it is inevitable.

However, this isn't 1986 when the LSM had a complete monopoly on the news cycle and successfully buried Bork, or even 1991 when the only conservative voice was Rush. That we are talking about this instead of hoping against hope that Rehnquist could live until we clean the RATs out of the Oval Office is proof. On the other hand, we are talking about Senators, who still are unduly influenced by the Presstitutes rather than by their constituents that see past them.

The more we trade posts, the more I am certain that we agree wholeheartedly here. I simply think that the Republicans should force written questions, at most, that those should be subject to approval from the entire committee, and then the Republicans should force an up-or-down committee vote on the basis of those, instead of continuing the travesty of a media circus that started with Bork and reached its worst when Thomas was nominated.

The whole thing is, as you describe, a perversion of the process. Republicans have the power to end it, and should.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.