I find it rather offensive for any member of Congress, be they liberal or conservative, to set the idea that what qualifies a nominee for the SCOTUS is a predisposed expectation on how they would rule in cases that may come to them.
This is an interesting point, because I used to think that way, and I've actually argued in front of them.
But recently, I've been reconsidering. It is the responsibility of the President to support and defend the Constitution. So, wouldn't it seem consistent with that obligation for a President to appoint justices based on whether or not he believes they will do that? For example, is it
wrong for a President to say "I'm not going to nominate someone to the Court unless I think they will protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens? And to be honest, I don't even understand the logic of judicial nominees themselves hiding the ball regarding their
constitutional beliefs. is it really better to say that we should prefer it when we -- and by that I mean the people of the country as a whole, and our elected representatives -- don't know where a nominee stands on a key constitutional issue?
I understand the logic of not selecting justices based on their view of particular
statutory law. But if you step back, I think it is tough to think of the justification for not consider a potential nomines's views of
constitutional issues as perhaps the single most important selection criteria. Yet now, it's become a virtue to say (essentially) "I'm not going to consider candidates' views on core constitutional rights when deciding who to nominate."
I was trained/taught to think that way for my whole legal career, but now, I'm having a tough time justifying that position.
How can the people successfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected right under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances when the government, by way of the powers of the political parties controlling the nominations to the SCOTUS, require those justices to pass a litmus test of political viewpoints designed to make the people's halls of justice into a wall of protection for their enacted legislation?
So shouldn't the President and Senate specifically consider someone's views on the First Amendment when deciding whom to nominate/confirm? Shouldn't we
prefer Justices who will protect that First Amendment right to petition, the right to free speech, etc.? What's wrong with making specific inquiries in that regard?