Back in January 2006, when the Senate was considering another nominee to the Supreme Court, I offered the Laquedem Plan To Interview Supreme Court Nominees, here. The gist of my plan was that the Senate Judiciary Committee should give the nominee the briefs and opinions in several Supreme Court cases that were decided on a 5-4 vote, and then question the nominee on how he or she would have decided those cases based on the briefs and opinions in the actual cases. The nominee could not duck the question by saying that the issue might come before the Supreme Court in the future, because these would be issues that the Supreme Court had already decided.
I wrote then, "A process has developed in which the members of the Judiciary Committee ask the nominee about his or her views, and the nominee solemnly explains that he or she has no views. The usual test is to ask the nominee what he or she thinks about the decision in Roe v. Wade, the Court's leading abortion case. Successful nominees are those who convincingly say that they have never really thought about Roe v. Wade, and they can't express any views on abortion rights in case the matter should come before the court in the future."
It continues to amuse me that nominees can't get confirmed to the Supreme Court without being able to persuade the Senate that they don't really think a lot about the court's opinions.