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.