The idea seems to have crept into the intraconservative debates over judicial nominations–and not just the current one–that it is somehow wrong to want justices who will reach particular legal results. Here is Ronald Cass in the course of an argument for quitting “whining” about Miers (a rhetorical choice, incidentally, that forfeits any right not to be accused of “shilling” on the other side): “The fights over judicial nominees have become so bitter because people have lost sight of the fact that we don’t want judges to come to the bench with pre-commitments to particular outcomes. We want judges who are committed to the rule of law, not to political positions. Both left and right do a disservice to judicial nominees and to the courts in endeavoring to get assurances that nominees will make the decisions they want.”

This view goes a little further than, though it is related to, the view that it is wrong to ask a nominee about his views on constitutional questions. The latter view is compatible with the belief that while it might be right to want a justice who will rule in particular ways, strong procedural guarantees are necessary to keep confirmation hearings from degenerating into campaigns to extract policy commitments from nominees. On the former view, on the other hand, it would be wrong in principle to organize politically to elect presidents who will appoint justices inclined to overturning Roe. We should all just want good justices who will consider the law impartially. We should sit back, and be governed.

People have been using the tag “results oriented” to make the same point. But I think this confuses two kinds of results that one might want. It would be wrong to want a justice who would vote in ways that advanced conservative policy goals irrespective of the Constitution. If we had amended the Constitution to protect abortion or to prohibit the death penalty, for example, it would be wrong to want a justice who would read those amendments out of the Constitution. But it is not wrong to think that a big part of what makes a good justice a good justice is an ability to read the Constitution correctly, and that reading the Constitution correctly has implications in particular cases.