Let Litigators Grill Court Nominees, Litigator Says
The former legal director of the Alliance for Justice has a suggestion for senators considering the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court: Let litigators handle the questions.
Seth Rosenthal, now a litigator with Venable in Washington, D.C., argues in a paper (PDF) published by the American Constitution Society that experienced courtroom advocates will do a better job ferreting out information or will at least be able to demonstrate when nominees are stonewalling.
His paper contains examples of questions that could have been put to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. during his confirmation hearings. Many senators missed this follow-up, for example, when Alito answered questions by stating current legal precedents: “I understand that’s the law. Do you agree with it? Is that your view?”
Other possible questions:
“What things do you take into account when interpreting a provision of the Constitution?”
“Do you take into account the purpose the framers had in drafting a constitutional provision? Why/why not?”
“Do you take into account the consequences of a particular interpretation, and whether those consequences are consistent with the provision’s overriding purpose? Why/why not?”
“Do you take into account how a provision has been understood throughout history, and not just when it was ratified? Why/why not?”
