Why Cornyn's Wrong

In a WaPo op-ed piece today, Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) states that

I will not be asking for commitments as to how he or she will rule on cases involving such contentious issues as abortion, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, the war on terrorism or any other specific issue on which the nominee might eventually rule. To ask a judicial nominee how he or she will rule on future cases is to force the nominee to prejudge these cases.

Now just a second. If during an interview a senator were to ask a nominee how he would decide a case based on some facts, then we're dealing entirely with a hypothetical. The point is not only to see what the end result is (although that does matter because if a judge decides against something that has been previously ruled and upheld as constitutional, like the commerce clause, a senator would be making a reckless decision in confirming a judge who is so far off from practiced legal philosophy) but also to see how the judge thinks out a position and comes to a conclusion. It is an exercise in thought, something that I am sure Senator Cornyn is loathe to think of, much less actually do.

If a judge comes to a conclusion with a faulty thought process or no train of thought whatsoever, that is a judge governed by his bias and not by the law. However, if a judge comes to a decision that, although a senator might disagree with its politics, has a solid thought process and is grounded in the law, then he is governed by the Constitution and deserves to be confirmed. To further explicate this point, one need only look at the differences between Justices Thomas and Scalia. While most progressives disagree with most of their decisions, we tend to begrudgingly respect Scalia while we spit on Thomas. This is because Scalia's reasoning is very well thought out and logical. Thomas, on the other hand, legislates from the bench without solid reasoning.

In conclusion, seeing a judge's thought process is a decent, if not necessary, litmus test to stand by. If Senator Cornyn does not think this is appropriate and that President Bush is entitled to his man just because, (great reasoning there) then he is ignoring the advise and consent clause as well as not doing his job of examining the nominee's thought process, to which I say if I am paying your salary with my taxes you had damn well better do your job. Justice for your country is more important than justice for a justice.