I apologize if you have already answered these questions. I can’t stand to watch a hearing in which you spend so much time refusing to answer questions. Could you tell me where in the Constitution it provides that it is to be interpreted according to its original understanding? Does it matter that the Framers kept their proceedings confidential because they did not want their intent to be taken into account? Is it an attractive theory of interpretation that binds us to the views of nineteenth century agrarian white male slave holders? Where in the Constitution is there a developed theory of precedent? Where do you get your theory of precedent? Does it matter that in modern times the overwhelming majority of justices have not been originalists? Were all of these justices not acting like judges? Are you just one of the few with the requisite piety, integrity, and rectitude?
Given that the understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its passage was that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution, would you have voted with the majority in Brown v. Board of Education?
Given that the understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its passage was that the place of women was in the home and that males were superior to women in intellect, would you have dissented in the line of constitutional cases condemning discrimination against women.
Given that the understanding of freedom of speech from the eighteenth century through the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century was far less expansive than it is today, would you have dissented in those cases creating the modern doctrine of freedom of speech and press including our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” or would you have adhered to the concept of seditious libel?
Finally, just out of curiosity. You remarked that there was much about the process you did not like. Perhaps there was something missing from the clip I saw, but you then said Justice White’s hearing took only two hours. Do you really think that hearings on an appointment of this magnitude should be limited to a short period of time? Perhaps your view is that the hearing should be short because you do not plan to answer questions. You then observed that Justice White smoked cigarettes during the hearing. Was there a point to that? Really? Maybe you were tired.