In the confirmation hearings today, Republicans criticized Democrats before any questions have been asked. But what they're really criticizing is the notion of asking about a judge's personal views.
They go on and on about "judicial activism." They look back to other confirmations where they disagreed with a Democratic nominee's views, but voted to confirm them anyway. And they pretend justices' views don't influence their legal decisions on the bench.
It's the evil liberal "Judicial Activists" who let that happen. Jeff Sessions went on at length about this problem, saying how awful it is that judges aren't interpreting the laws strictly, but bend them to achieve a desired outcome. Supposedly, it's Democrats who are guilty of "legislating from the bench," and Democrats who shouldn't question Roberts on his personal views, and Democrats who should trust that a qualified justice won't let their personal views influence their decisions the way "activist" liberal ones do.
So how did it happen that Democrats don't TRUST that a conservative judge won't be "activist" and bend the rule of law to achieve a desired outcome?
I give you this, from Justice Stevens' dissent in Bush v. Gore, 2000:
Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#The_decisionTHAT is why we can never, ever again trust that conservatives aren't "activist judges," don't "legislate from the bench," and won't "bend the rule of law to achieve a desired outcome." THAT is why Democrats should push and push hard to make Roberts answer questions on his personal views.
That is the cost of what the USSC did in 2000.