Supreme Court hearings: “Vapid and hollow” or substantive and illuminating?
Jonathan Adler writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “In today’s NYT, Adam Liptak reports on a new study by political scientists Lori Ringhand and Paul Collins Jr. analyzing the questions asked at Supreme Court confirmation hearings over the past 70 years [which] … ‘shows that the hearings often address real substance, illuminate the spirit of their times and change with shifts in partisan alignments and the demographic characteristics of nominees.’ … This is quite a different view than Elena Kagan espoused in 1995 . . . “