U.S. Supreme Court nomination: Senators, ask these questions — and demand answers

'My job is to apply and enforce the law." "I will approach any case with an open mind." I will give "no hints, no forecasts, no previews." These nice-sounding bromides from nominees — those selected by both Republican and Democratic presidents — tell us next to nothing. Maxims and slogans leave senators entirely in the dark.

To make an informed decision, senators must understand the nominee's judicial philosophy and views on basic constitutional principles. Otherwise, they would be mere rubber stamps and violate their constitutional duty.

In their confirmation hearings, Robert H. Bork, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter each responded with much more specificity than more recent nominees. The questions asked and the answers given provide a workable model for the upcoming hearings, one on which senators should insist.

The Bork, Kennedy and Souter hearings tell us that questions such as the following can and should be asked — and answered:

• Do you believe the Constitution recognizes a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment? Is Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the court embraced this right, settled law?

• Do you agree with Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. — whose seat Kennedy took — who wrote in Moore vs. East Cleveland, "Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment"? Do you consider it a "fundamental" liberty such that the government may interfere only for extraordinary reasons?

• What factors would you weigh in determining whether a prior decision by the Supreme Court is settled law? Is Brown vs. Board of Education settled law? How would you determine whether Roe vs. Wade is settled law?

• What examples would you cite of proper limits on the assertion of executive power by the president?

In each instance that these and similar questions were posed, Bork, Kennedy and Souter gave substantive answers about their philosophy and judicial methodology. Yes, Bork was defeated — but the American people got then, as they deserve now, honesty and specificity that provided a real window into his thinking. Kennedy's responses, unlike Bork's, showed him to be in the mainstream of judicial philosophy, respectful of settled law and nondogmatic. He was responsive to the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the full Senate.

Importantly, none of the answers imperiled the nominee's impartiality in future cases, as evidenced by the fact that neither Kennedy nor Souter ever recused himself because of his testimony or was ever accused of deciding a case in a particular fashion because he had made a commitment to do so in his hearing.

Subsequent nominees and their political handlers have taken the wrong lessons from these hearings — focusing on Bork rather than Kennedy — in concluding that specific questions should not be answered. And subsequent Judiciary Committees have let nominees get away with nonanswers.

With the court's direction for decades at stake, this can't continue. Just as President Ronald Reagan's choice to replace the pragmatic centrist Powell determined the swing vote on the court for the past 30 years, so, too, will President Donald Trump's choice determine the swing vote on the court for the next 30.