“As Judge Alito’s confirmation hearings approach, the contending forces are, predictably, focused on the issue of whether, as a Justice, he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The overwhelming evidence shows that Alito, as a matter of both personal and legal conviction, is profoundly opposed to Roe. Still, for political reasons, we will have to put up with weeks of discussion about how he is also so deeply respectful of judicial precedent that his vote for or against Roe, if confirmed, is simply unknowable.”

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20051209.html

So if this is the discussion, why does it go back and rediscuss a controversial case instead of looking at the candidate with the questions like: “will be do his job impartial”. This seems to be more importent than all the “What would he have done” discussion.

Greetings!
RvH