Sen. Dianne Feinstein has declared a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices: they must be abortion advocates. She has promised to impose her personal view on Supreme Court Nominee Judge John Roberts during the upcoming U.S. Senate hearings.

Apparently Feinstein has developed a new set of rules for the judges who are nominated by Republicans President. I suggest she examine the precedent from the confirmation hearings of Justice Ruth Bader Gisburg for the conduct of judicial nominees [click here].

In contrast to what Feinstein has planned, Sen. Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Justice Ginsburg was nominated, instructed the committee that

"the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a Justice. But the latter are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog."

Gisburg declined to answer many questions involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert that were posed by Senators. Yet she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 because the Senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate.

Additionally, Feinstein has somehow managed to convince herself that she speaks[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-24-roberts-feinstein_x.htm
] for the women of the United States. “As the only woman on the committee, I have an additional role to play: representing the views and concerns of 145 million American women during this hearing process," Feinstein said. "It is my hope that Judge Roberts would play a role similar to Justice O'Connor's ... and bring with him a voice defined by temperance and open-mindedness."

The Family Research Council responded by sending a letter to Feinstein challenging her position.

"Yesterday, in a public statement, you claimed to represent 145 million women. Could you clarify how you arrived at this number?

"According to the 2003 American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 144,513,361 women and girls in the United States and, given our democratic environment and diverse society, we are confident in suggesting that the views of these women are not all represented by you. California, the state you represent, has about 17.5 million women and girls.

"If you are suggesting that you represent 145 million women because of your stance on Roe v. Wade, polls show that women are consistently becoming more pro-life. A 2003 survey by The Polling Company found that 54 percent of women identify their position on abortion as falling within one of three 'pro-life' positions. Additionally, the 2003 study by the Center for the Advancement of Women showed that among twelve top issues for women, abortion ranked number eleven; it was well out paced by issues such as 'improving women's health care' and 'child care.'

"We look forward to the explanation of your statement."

• Name a Pro-life US Supreme Court Justice - May 22, 2008
• Breyer undermining Roberts - Jul 26, 2007
• Supreme Court ruling hints at new abortion stance - Jul 20, 2007
• BAD FRUIT - Jun 25, 2007
• U. S. Supreme Court Protects Grassroots Lobbying From McCain/Feingold Broadcast Blackout Periods - Jun 25, 2007
• Will Free Speech Prevail? - Jun 11, 2007
• SCOTUS Okays Discrimination Against Christians? - Feb 21, 2007
• Justice Kennedy will vote with Us? - Nov 08, 2006