Replies

voicing that opinion would most likely lead to his non-confirmation?

That seems to be the spineless strategy used today. Think about that. A Supreme Court Judge nominee of the United States, afraid to voice his opinion. We have the votes anyway, how could he not be confirmed? If we didn't have the votes this strategy would have a little merit, not much, but from a political point of view. But we control the House, the Senate, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Yet our nominee has to have his mouth duck taped on the issue of 2000 babies being murdered every single day?

You can be articulate as Socrates but if you have no courage to speak out... well don't be surprised if this strategy continues - after he is nominated and we see no courage to speak out then either.

I simply think that it's wrong for judges to announce in advance their political opinions and what would be their legal opinions, on cases that will come before them in the future. For example, if a judge said "I will always think that it's unconstitutional for a public display of religion to occur on any public grounds" I would think that judge should be disqualified, not because their legal analysis is wrong (which it would be) but because they would have shown that they were not willing to view each case on its merits, that they didn't have what it takes to be a "judge."

You obviously disagree. I guess we'll see what the future holds.