UC Law Journal


This Article undertakes a systematic rebuttal to the arguments made by Supreme Court nominees and others that Court nominees are constrained, in their Senate hearings on possible confirmation, from expressing their specific views on legal issues and cases of the day. It argues that nominee articulation of such case-specific views is not only permissible, it is necessary for the Senate, and for the country, to learn anything meaningful about the Court, the nominees, the Constitution, and the relationship between them.

Included in

Law Commons