Discussing eminent domain and Kelo v. New London with Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Judge Sotomayor says, “I can’t engage in a disquisition that includes hypotheses.”

I’m a non-lawyer covering a judicial confirmation hearing, so I come to these proceedings with less grounding in legal theory than most. But if any other non-lawyer Americans are watching, I suspect they’re wondering what I’m wondering – is there any way that a nominee can just come out and say what they actually think? Is there any way senators can word their questions so that the nominee can reveal how they measure competing arguments about controversial topics?

Yes, this goes back well before Sotomayor. But it seems that the rest of the week is going to be variations of the following exchange:

Senator: What do you think of issue X?
Nominee: The Court ruled Y, so Y is settled law.
Senator: Yes, that’s precedent, but what about if the issue comes before you in another case?
Nominee: Well, Senator, I can’t prejudge a future case involving issue X.

We’re left with that initial, pretty reasonable question unanswered. “So, what do you think?”

Having said that, Sen. Chuck Grassley is hitting gentlemanly notes in his questions to Sotomayor: “I interrupted you, I shouldn’t have.”