Three hours into the confirmation process...

and we still haven't heard more than a muffled, "Thank you" from the nominee. Senators have an amazing tendency to speak until they can speak no longer. Every senator has hit on four things in their speeches.

1) The right to privacy
2) Abortion
3) Broad vs. Narrow Interpretation of the constitution
4) The scope of valid questions

It's interesting the ways in which senators express the important nuances (or, as some would say, how they equivocate). I know it's too much to expect, but I'd love to see blunt honesty in the answers to these questions. Here's what my answers would be...

1) What are your views on Roe vs. Wade? You previously wrote that you felt it was a bad decision, please expound.
Thank you, Mr. Senator. I believe Roe vs. Wade is a horrible decision because it hides behind the thin veneer of a right to privacy. Obviously, privacy rights do not stop us from prosecuting a man who beats his wife in the privacy of their home. Or, to choose a less obvious comparison, privacy rights do no stop us from prosecuting a woman who sells herself for sex or a person who does drugs in their own home. The question is, frankly, not relevant to privacy. We have agreed, as a nation, that there are certain crimes that are "victimless" and yet should still be illegal. Roe vs. Wade is a bad law because it establishes a biological time-line for a fetus that is not based in biological facts.

2) What is your opinion regarding privacy with regards to the collection and dissemination of medical, financial and other data that is generally considered "private"?
While I wish that Congress would enact such protections, I cannot find such privacy rights in the constitution. Certainly, an argument can be made with regards to privacy from government intrusion. This can and should be an area in which the government is limited. However, there is no "right to privacy" from invasion by individual persons or corporations with regards to data collection. If the data is collected and accumulated through legal channels then there is no, illegal, invasion of privacy as defined by the legislature or the constitution. However, I do believe that the statutes regarding libel are generally applicable to the information disseminated by credit reporting agencies and that grievances should be brought through those channels.

3) People have argued recently over whether or not the Constitution is a "living document", how do you feel about this question?
The Constititution is the manual by which we run our government. It, by it's own admission, is not meant to be all inclusive. The founders recognized that they could not foresee the future problems of the fledgling nation and so they provided a broad outline that could be reshaped by Amendment and filled in via Laws. Both amendments and laws are crafted by legislators not by justices. I believe that the constitution only changes through proper acts of Congress. But I also believe that circumstances change that are unforseeable. Was it judicial activism or judicial restraint that expanded wire-tapping laws to cover internet transmissions? The answer to that question, and many like it, are the kinds of heavily nuanced questions that a justice must answer.