[Prudence]

Also, as O'Connor and other swing votes have proven, it is possible to share a general ideology and yet differ in one's application to a particular set of facts. That's my problem with these hearings. They don't ask what a general ideology is, they ask "what would you do with these facts?" It's difficult to address that sort of hypothetical, stripped of all context. Also, judicial rulings aren't quiz shows; once presented with a detailed set of facts, complete with context, clerks scurry around reviewing past case law and justices negotiate amongst themselves, and eventually an opinion (or several) is produced.

And the opinion is really the important part anyhow. No because. Yes because. What makes A different from B?

Nonetheless, the hearings were a quiz show. The next ones will likely be worse. Feh.