Judging is a difficult job. It demands keen intellectual acumen and an unswerving commitment to justice, fairness, and human dignity. Judging is also an extremely important job. We rely on judges to solve our disputes and to protect our hard-won liberties. Our judicial selection procedures should therefore be designed to identify candidates of the very highest caliber and to safeguard their independence of judgment.
Litmus tests do precisely the opposite.
The Constitution allows the President and Senate to ask probing questions regarding the nominee's overall legal acumen, judicial philosophy, temperament, and commitment to fairness and impartiality. For example, when a nominee is seeking to advance to a higher court, it is entirely appropriate to examine the nominee's legal reasoning in prior cases for evidence of open-mindedness and willingness to consider each case on its own merits. In short, questioning should be designed to test whether nominees will conduct themselves as judges in a manner that commands respect and trust. Litmus tests should be rejected by the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans alike. The president recognized the independence of the judiciary.