[Maceman]

"Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it.."

Funny, my copy of the Constitution doesn't appear to say any such thing. I gotta get a more modern version, I guess.

[WV Mountain Mama]

So you are saying that constitutionally, a judicial nominee is supposed to lock him/herself into a ruling before being presented with a case on the court?

[blue-duncan]

It's called an "impartial judiciary".

[blau993]

Does your copy of the Constitution describe three separate and co-equal branches of government? Look at that and then go read an early Supreme Court decision called Marbury v. Madison. You might also try reading the discussions of the separation of powers doctrine in The Federalist Papers.

Being a strict constructionist of the Constitution does not mean you must ignore the essential concepts and philosophies that give rise to its words.

It would violate the separation of powers doctrine for a Supreme Court nominee to pledge that he or she would rule a certain way on a certain issue. The pro-abortionists are way out of line when they insist that a nominee state his or her position on "reproductive rights." It would be equally wrong for the President to exact any pledge on that point, although obviously he is free to appoint someone whom he knows to be anti-abortion if he wants to do that.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

It is in the same clause on the right to privacy for killing unborn children. You just did not know where to look. S\