Today's New York Times op-ed page contains five separate sets of questions various thinkers would want to ask Judge Roberts for his confirmation hearings. For your convenience, I shall link them:

Jean Edward Smith's first question is odd. It's a classic "We could all get along if we were all liberals" sort of thing. Otherwise all is cool.

Glenn Reynolds is OK. He seems to be the only Normal-American of the bunch. [Correction below.] He's a bit fixated on his pet ideas, but that's what's expected here, I think.

Ron Klain can't spell his own name. He also seems never to have heard of the word "abortion" (note the euphemism repeated in question one); not to be able to imagine that others may have different starting principles on what should be law (question two); to too-cutely try to avoid labels, even for others (question three); and not to recognize the difference between private and government actions (question four). The last question is just stupid. Clearly a Kool-aid drinker.

Whoa, another Normal-American! Dick Thornburgh has normal questions, as we tend to. It's the others that go nuts.

However, it's Kathleen Sullivan's contribution that's the most troubling. This is a famous law professor, author of casebooks (I think I used one), maybe even a justice herself one day? Question one is cool; two is out of the box (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's sincere). Four is a bit of a Kool-aid question. Five tries for the ridiculous "The real activists are conservatives!" line. (See here.) But three is the worst:

3. Do you believe that the Constitution contains commitments to any rights or
structural principles that are not expressly set forth in the text? If there are
tacit structural principles, like federalism, must there also be unenumerated
rights, live privacy?

Tacit? The great professor thinks that federalism is "tacit" in the Constitution? Has she ever read the thing? That's the whole point of the document! The entire Article IV is about that! Has she ever seen or thought about the Tenth Amendment? Does it mean anything to her?

As to her cute close, ha ha ha. I'd agree privacy is "tacit," but like Mr. Klain, she obviously means abortion.

Oh, so only crazy racists and right-wingers are trying to exploit the tragedy. No mention that the left has done nothing but that since it happened.

Aren't people who speak out against Bush so brave? So very, very, brave and daring? It's the last piece that's the most disgusting, painting those who wish for apolitical rememberance as politically driven, snidely pointing out that the government didn't shut down an "art" exhibit (as if it ever does, much as these "artists" wish they did), and, in general, having such a condescending tone toward other newspapers, family members of victims, and any of us who can't grasp how one might use bacterial cultures and rank juvenile stupidity as "art" that it just might drive me to cancel my subscription, even if that does leave me without my favorite blog whipping boy.

You know, in their ignorance of the private/government difference, their pretended bafflement over how terror works, and their rank incompetence in their chosen fields, the "artists" here and the professors above have quite a bit in common.