|
Every nominee in the past has pretty much done what she is doing now. You can't be a person who has accumulated the kind of a career it takes to get to where she (or any nominee) is without having made some questionable decisions. So you spin your answers to make yourself look good.
A typical issue for this is abortion. If you are a conservative judge they may ask you, "If a challenge to Roe V Wade came before you would you overturn it." Of course you can't say, "Hell yeah!" so instead you say, "Without the details of a specific case in front of me I can't say. Right now Roe V Wade is the law of the land."
A liberal judge would answer that question in basically the same way saying, "Roe V Wade is the existing law. We would have to see the merits and details of the specific case before any overturning of the law could take place."
You stick and move, never actually commit to any one stance.
There are times when a judge needs to stand by the law and rule in favor of it and there are times when a judge needs to look at the existing law, realize it is probably either outdated, flawed or just plain wrong and rule against it. The hope is that you can find someone to sit on the court that has the wisdom to see which case is which.
|