ContraJonathan Adler, I have always maintained that presidents deserve no particular deference from the Senate when it comes to judicial nominations. They are always like to get that deference from their own party’s senators, or most of them anyway. But institutionally and constitutionally, there is no persuasive rationale for such deference. Presidents already have an edge, thanks to the Constitution, in the fact that the Senate has no one to consider for a vacancy until a president names someone. From that point on, the independent, de novo judgment of the Senate is called for.

This is why, once again, I renew my call for hearings in which the views of the nominee are closely scrutinized–including her views on cases the Court has decided in the past, whether they are likely to be reconsidered as precedents or not. Where’s that list of Chuck Schumer’s questions again?