Roberts and the Ginsburg Precedent

As usual, Hugh has good insights and links. He links to this article by Jay T. Jorgensen, wherein, according to Hugh, Jorgensen "explains in detail the importance of the precedents established by the Ginsburg hearings." Then Hugh quotes Jorgensen:

Justice Ginsburg declined to answer questions about her views on both prospective and many historical Supreme Court cases. She also declined to answer questions (or gave non-responsive answers to questions) involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert.

This article has key quotations from the confirmation hearings, both from senators on the Judiciary Committee and from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself. As Hugh points out, many of these (Democrat) senators were rather non-belligerent (in fact, kind) with Ginsburg's refusals to answer questions about how she might rule or merely what she thinks about particular cases or controversial Constitutional issues [e. g., religion clause and Roe (abortion)]. That this disposition manifests itself again.

Here is Jorgensen's conclusion:

Justice Ginsburg’s hearings demonstrate that there are many valid reasons why a judicial nominee may decline to answer the questions posed by individual senators. Justice Ginsburg declined to answer, or gave only generalized answers, to a vast number of the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearings. Despite this, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, which suggests that the Senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate. In light of this precedent, the Senate and current judicial nominees should carefully apply those same reasons for caution (discussed above) to establish a common understanding of the rules for a confirmation hearing. This understanding will help in avoiding much of the delay and conflict that has become part of the confirmation process.