is to have a dignified hearing which will give insights into Judge Roberts' jurisprudence, and to get an idea of his thinking on questions like respect for precedent ... and his views on congressional authority.
resist, if not refuse to confirm, Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues.
I think he ought to have to answer questions and be subject to examination, because the answers that he gave were evasive,
very thorough and piercing confirmation process with very, very detailed questions on what Judge Roberts has said in the past.
We all have a responsibility to ask probing questions to determine qualification beyond academic and professional standing.
In the context where the Supreme Court decides, really, the cutting-edge questions of our day
Nominees answer about as many questions as they think they have to to be confirmed,
I really can't explain it, ... I think, in fairness to her, she's facing a lot of questions at the same time. She's making the rounds, seeing a lot of senators.
It has been my experience that the hearings are a subtle minuet with nominees answering as many questions as they think they have to in order to be confirmed.
I believe he went somewhat beyond the usual practice of answering just as many questions as he had to in order to be confirmed.