snip:
In 2002, the Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, declared that it is not only proper for a judicial candidate to express his views on disputed legal issues -- the First Amendment guarantees him the right to do so. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, the Court concluded that a Minnesota canon of judicial conduct which prohibited a candidate for judicial office from announcing his position on abortion rights and other controversial issues violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
snip:
in the absence of specific answers to senators’ questions about a nominee’s views, his confirmation would be a violation of the Constitution’s Article II requirement that the Senate exercise its "Advice and Consent" function in an informed manner. This implication from the Court’s Minnesota decision, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in her dissent, is clear: "by the court’s reasoning, the reticence of prospective and current federal judicial nominees dishonors Article II, for it deprives the President and the Senate of information that might aid or advance the decision to nominate or confirm."
snip:
The people’s "right to know" is therefore central to the confirmation process. snip:
The "Advice and Consent" function of the Senate mandated by Article II of the Constitution means informed consent. For too long, trying to understand how a nominee would shape the fate of millions of Americans has been like reading tea leaves. Today, in light of the Minnesota decision,
senators would be violating their constitutional duty under Article II if the Senate were to vote on Judge Alito’s nomination without more information about how he is likely to decide some of the most momentous issues of our time. (emphasis mine)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0128-21.htm"violating their constitutional duty under Article II if the Senate were to vote" on Alito.
does this mean they are breaking the law? committing a crime? can we sue them? should i call a lawyer? (i've been calling the senators for a week now--a lawyer might be a nice change.)