Supreme Court nomination proceedings, from now on

Thre's an article out right now on The Huffington Post about Senator Arlen Specter telling Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan that her testimony was a bit of a waste of time and that it--the testimony--and Ms. Kagan hadn't been "substantive". Well, I've got news for you, Senator Specter--and the rest of the United States, for that matter--Supreme Court testimony for nominations will, from now on and for perpetuity, be exactly like this. Nothing will really be said and no commitments will be made, no matter the nominee, no matter the nominator. Sure, partly it's due to reaction of the whole Robert Bork debacle, years ago, but, at the same time, it's also due to the nature of courts and being a Supreme Court judge. All the nominee can do is say that they--whoever they are and whatever their politics or beliefs--won't bring their beliefs and prejudices into the court and then say it again and again. They will also have to repeat, ad infinitum, that they will weigh each case on its merits. Get used to it, folks. This is the shape of things to come, for ever and ever, amen. Link to original post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/specter-gets-frustrated-w_n_630952.html?igoogle=1