Justice Breyer on a question about Politics and the Court on Bloomberg, "How can you avoid

[JohnSJ]

politics when you have the rest of the country looking at the court in such a political way, and this is exemplified by the confirmation process"

His answer:

"You have about four questions in there. What I say about the confirmation process is I was the confirmed person, not the one doing the confirming, so asking me about this is like asking about the recipe for chicken ala king from the perspective of the chicken"

His conclusion was that the Senators would ask questions of SC nominees based on what their constituents wanted.

Nothing too profound, and essentially saying it is a political

So the talking point that republicans were fond of saying that Democrats went out of their way to "pack the court", was the pot calling the kettle black

[unblock]

1. Well,... it's not like the nominee is a completely passive party to the proceedings

Particularly the way republicans coach their nominees.

Both sides coach their nominees to try to avoid saying anything controversial.

But republicans coach their nominees to be highly evasive and to lie about how their political views would affect decisions.

For example, Republican nominees never admit they'll vote against abortion rights, when we all damn well know they will.

They are active participants in corrupting the process, though it's certainly true that the senate is ultimately responsible for the process.

[Polybius]

2. Bork admitted it in 1987

Scalia sorta did too, but he was articulate enough to make the answer sound confusing. But other than them, they have all dodged the question.

[unblock]

3. That's not to say that vetting doesn't happen

It's just that the official part, what gets seen in the media, that's all for show.

In the case of republicans, they just vet for right-wing reliability and to hell with anything else.