From the article:
In a September 9, 1981, memo to O'Connor, Roberts argued that Supreme Court nominees should not answer questions on specific cases, citing the "appearance of impropriety":OK so far. Just a little common sense.
"The proposition that the only way senators can ascertain a nominee's views is through questions on specific cases should be rejected. If nominees will lie concerning their philosophy, they will lie in response to specific questions as well.
"The suggestion that a simple understanding that no promise is intended when a nominee answers a specific question will completely remove the disqualification problem is absurd. The appearance of impropriety remains."
Roberts drafted possible questions and suggested responses for O'Connor on issues such as judicial activism and immigration policy.OK, let me think...THAT WAS HIS JOB. He was tasked with preparing Sandra Day O'Connor for the very same confirmation hearings he's about to go through. On top of that, he's a lawyer and what he was doing can also be called "prepping a witness." I see all the time on "Law & Order." There's nothing insideous about it. Hell, Jack McCoy is as lefty as they get and he preps witnesses all the time! Is this another one of those double-standard things we keep hearing about?
Roberts indicated he briefed O'Connor on past confirmation hearing questions and testimony (including what he called "particularly good answers").
Roberts indicated he held mock confirmation hearings with O'Connor, posing questions to her from past confirmation hearings.
Roberts helped compile profiles of Senate Judiciary Committee members, including identifying their likely areas of questioning, "pet projects and concerns."Know thyne enemy?
I have to get back to work. I'll touch this post up a little bit later...