TY - JOUR
T1 - How Senate confirmation hearings should better educate senators and the American public
T2 - The instructional necessity of case-specific questioning
AU - Amar, Vikram David
PY - 2010/7
Y1 - 2010/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956719417&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956719417&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:77956719417
SN - 0017-8322
VL - 61
SP - 1407
EP - 1436
JO - Hastings Law Journal
JF - Hastings Law Journal
IS - 6
ER -