Lets use this thread to scour Ginsburg's testimony during her confirmation hearing to document why the Federalist Society is wrong and why the nominee for the highest court of the land should share with the American people his/her views about the constitution.
Here is the link to the Federalist Society whitepaper on the "Ginsburg Precident". http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/rbgjudnomconduct.pdf
They control the SC, the Pres and the Senate, if they are right on the issues, then Roberts would be well advised to answer all of the questions.
Questions that are posed to SC nominees are in 3 categories:
1-specific questions about possible future cases (the nominee is correct not to answer - prejudicial)
2-hypothetic what-if scenarios in the abstract (the nominee may answer if enough specifics are given)
3-past-tense cases (the nominee should give his/her opionion as to the ruling and rational for it; our legal system exists on precidents and to act as if our legal history doesnt exist is preposterous)
I have seen the Fed Soc paper on Ginsburg's hearing. It seems to me that she only refused to answer types 1 and some of type 2. We need to raise the distinction and push the issue. The Fed Soc already has whitepapers and talking points going around; we need to counter them.
Can anyone come up with the transcripts for Ginsburg's confirmation? If so, please post the link in the comments section. We can go through and give examples of the distinction to counter the talking points.
In the end, Roberts will most likely be confirmed. But we should not give in to the precident that a nominee for the highest court of the land not reveal anything about his ideology, judicial theories/approaches, or views of past cases.