An Important Distinction

Just finished an interview with "beloved Southern California radio icon" Mr. KABC. One question he asked was, in effect, this: "Conservatives applauded John Roberts when he declined to share his views on a variety of topics before the Judiciary Committee. Why are they now complaining that Harriet Miers' views are unknown?"

Here's the answer: There's a great difference between demanding, on the one hand, that a nominee discuss cases that might come before him/her and wishing, on the other, that there were some written indication about his/her judicial philosophy and approach to adjudicating. Presumably, all judges approach all cases with an open mind -- but that phenomenon might be compromised by their pledging in advance (or discussing in advance) how they would rule in specific circumstances.

On the other hand, it's perfectly fair to look at a nominee's former statements and writings for clues as to how he or she sees the judicial role . . . and having been told by every Republican presidential candidate that he will nominate people with a certain approach to judging -- and then being disappointed in Justices Stevens, Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy -- it's no wonder some conservatives are upset tonight.

Harriet Miers may end up being just fine. What's disappointing for many is the uncertainty -- which can seem all too reminiscent of the precursor to disappointments of the past.