How, then, do you see the Senate's proper role in 'advice and consent'? What *can* they ask? What *should* they ask?
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Michael McConnell wrote: > The problem with asking nominees to take positions at a confirmation > hearing, in my opinion, is not that they will reveal "predispositions" (who > does not have those?) but that the nominee faces a personal conflict of > interest: he or she generally knows which answer will best advance his or > her prospects for confirmation, and will be tempted to adjust positions > accordingly. This is not true (or at least, not *as* true) when the nominee > has expressed an opinion in the ordinary course of professional or academic > life, as in a law review article. The point is that a judge's (or potential > judge's) view on the issues should not be shaped by self-interest. > > -- Michael McConnell == http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's hot here.<--
