For judicial candidness

I find it ironic that many conservatives want to know more about John Roberts' judicial philosophy, and yet their best hope for learning more in the near future is questioning by Senate Democrats. I believe Roberts should answer most of their questions, given how powerful the Supreme Court is. (Ramesh Ponnuru also makes a great argument for this position in the current issue NR, but it isn't free online.) Alas, I doubt Roberts will be very forthcoming.

Of course, as a matter of politics, Republicans and conservatives gain nothing by learning more about Roberts after Bush appointed him. Still, I oppose judicial nominee opaqueness as a matter of principle. Also, though this is pretty wishful thinking, a norm of candidness for nominees would be nice to have the next time a Democrat is President.