"[Roberts on the high court] will do more to determine how Americans are governed than any senator, or any five senators. Yet it would apparently be wrong for senators to ask him how he would exercise this vast power. In our current political order, elections for the Senate may turn on the candidates' positions on abortion even though senators do not set abortion policy. But the people who do set abortion policy are not to be asked how they will rule. It is permissible to interview a candidate for the job of Supreme Court justice. But the hirers are not to ask for the answers they most want to know. That position, however absurd it may sound, has been embraced by the Republican party. Even before Bush named a nominee, most Republicans in Washington were saying that questions about how the nominee would rule on specific issues are off limits." -Ramesh Ponnuru, courtesy Howard Kurtz
QUICK AFTERNOON LINKS: * Jeffrey Rosen, and The Way We Live Now: why the Supreme Court choice isn't as drastic as everyone's making it out to be. * 'Taking the pulse of Bush's America.' * Good read: Dan Froomkin asks, "what did the President know?" * Gene Weingarten has a couple new amendments to suggest. * Tom Shales trashes Fox's So You Think You Can Dance? * Michael Bay, on how his latest movie became a flop so quickly. * Good read: is the DVD bubble about to burst? * First Person Singular, with Lynda Carter.
