Set forth here is one of the most disgraceful arguments to be hurled at any potential Supreme Court Justice (HT: Hugh Hewitt) -- namely, that Judge Michael Luttig would be impermissibly biased in hearing death penalty cases because his own father was, in fact, a crime victim.

Are the liberals really wanting to go down this road? By the same reasoning, every potential female justice should be asked whether she's ever had an abortion -- because abortion cases would come up before the Court. Or minority candidates would have to discuss how/whether they ever felt discriminated against -- because if they had, it might impermissibly color their view of civil rights cases.

It is liberal jurisprudence -- complete with the belief in a "living Constitution" -- that is most influenced by one's own life experiences, because the actual text of the Constitution, natural law, or other non-personal factors are not dispositive. Personal views will have disproportionate influence when there's nothing more substantial to guide a Justice's decision. So if a judge's personal experience should govern whether someone who doesn't adjudicate based on them deserves confirmation, how much more important is it when personal views and history may be incredibly central to the decisions -- as in the case of a liberal Justice?

Judge Luttig is a fine person and a qualified Justice. Left wing garbage hunters may want to step carefully, lest they open a Pandora box that will be disproportionately harmful to their own interests.