You know, you'd think these sorts of experiences would make conservatives more anxious to have their Supreme Court nominees answer direct questions, not less:
At the time, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) had written a letter demanding to know O'Connor's views on Roe v. Wade . According to a 1981 memo by Carolyn Kuhl, also a special assistant to the attorney general, O'Connor wanted help in formulating "reasons for declining to answer questions concerning Roe v. Wade , and several other topics."
"John Roberts and I worked on a response to that letter" from Helms, Kuhl wrote. O'Connor never did answer specific questions about her position on Roe v. Wade . Helms voted to confirm O'Connor anyway, and once on the court O'Connor voted in favor of abortion rights.
Here's a question though: why can't the prospective Justice just lie? Why can't s/he cook up the most compromise position imaginable and say what's necessary to calm the interrogation committee, then move to the Court and do whatever the hell they want? It is, after all, a lifetime appointment. Views do evolve. Compromises need to be made. New standards can be applied. And excuses for a judicial change of heart abound.
So in a very real way, what does all this matter? Roberts is well able to espouse views he doesn't believe and argue cases he may not agree with. His particular talent seems to have been taking liberal groups and telling them how to appeal to conservative justices. So even if Boxer does shut down the Senate over his recalcitrance, are we going to get anything of value out of him, or will he just say whatever needs to be said in order to get confirmed?
