Curious?

AMEN, Todd! Loved your brilliant powerful questions and suggestions re: the confirmation process. Wouldn't it be grand to have them all lined up willing to be asked questions? A live forum of responsibility, honor and integrity. Unabashed tell-it-like-it-is. Personal responsibility. Wouldn't it be grand to have all of them WANT to take the VIA and other strength-based surveys?

Todd, I sincerely hope and pray that you will continue to thrust your ideas out there where we can play/work with your taking us all to task. Your courage is exactly what these guys/gals need, and I would HOPE, desire to emulate. We are on a slippery slope of bait and switch. Instead, we need to plant our feet, stand up for what we believe, and let the chips fall where they may. No lie, deny, and alibi!

The last nominee to actually answer the questions was Robert Bork. And we all know what happened to his nomination.

This is true: I could not disagree more profoundly with 90% of the points of view expressed by Bork. He's a conservative, I'm a liberal. But the guy was absolutely flipping qualified to be on the Supreme Court, with an astonishing record of public service and judicial wherewithal (with which I heartily diagreed, but that's not the issue).

Little wonder that nominees say as little as possible. Look what happens when you actually open your mouth.

Judy, thanks for your continual support and optimism. Here's hoping people in power can follow your lead...

Anonymous- yep, Bork was a turning point, a scary turning point. It hits a core issue- the problem cannot be solved by either the nominee or senate alone. Both need to change the way they do business. Bork should be a reminder of how biases get in the way of good problem solving and if we sit idle on the sidelines things will only get worse. Now everybody tries to game the system from the moment they enter law school with their ambitions in hand. A far cry from the Utopian ideals of Plato onward.....

Great article, Todd. But I'm wondering how seriously your concern that confirmation hearings are "designed to maintain conformity" will be taken by some people who fear the power of government, especially most Republicans, libertarians, and network news anchors. I anticipate they would counter, "Of course, the confirmation hearings are there to ensure that people entrusted with the interpretation of our law do not disagree with the common folk." Unfortunately, those who favor democracy in principle are often blind to the consequences of practice, as your article clearly illustrates. I think the frontline of this fight will be in convincing people that surrounding themselves with people who agree with them is not always a good idea, whether for justice or for the nation as a whole.