"Now, when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution, I agree that precedent should not bind the Supreme Court. The written Constitution remains fixed, regardless of whether past decisions have gotten its meaning wrong. I am grateful that the Supreme Court reversed Plessy v. Ferguson -- the 1896 case that gave us "separate but equal" and an unconstitutional system of racial apartheid. Unfortunately, neither Democratic nor Republican senators will decry the post-New Deal rulings that transformed our constitutional order from what Princeton professor Stephen Macedo has called 'islands of [government] powers in a sea of rights' to 'islands of rights in a sea of [government] powers.' Unless they can explain how we know which precedents to follow and which to reverse -- apart from liking the results -- all pontificating about "stare decisis" is really about nothing."

My friend David comments:

"Best thing I've read about how Supreme Court confirmation hearings should be conducted. Of course, it would work only if the Judiciary Committee's members knew something about constitutional law and wanted to get at the truth. Two big ifs."

Aside:  Best suggested question (and follow-up) I have heard so far:  "Judge Sotomayor, do you own a gun?  How should people protect themselves and their property?"