Whatever happened to judging by the merits of the case?

Everybody wants to know exactly what Supreme Court nominee John Roberts thinks about this, that, and the other thing. They want to make sure that he has the approved views on their pet issues. Everybody is trying to predict how he would rule in this, that, or the other hypothetical situation. Some Senators are going to go so far as to demand that Roberts commit to voting one way or another on their pet issue. (Feinstein to ask Roberts about views on abortion.)

Any judge who would commit to voting a certain way on any issue before being presented with a case is unfit to serve as a judge anywhere let alone on the Supreme Court of the United States. Roberts' job, should he be confirmed, will be to make decisions based on the merits of the case brought before him.

On another note, it has been entertaining to watch the media and special interest groups spinning their wheels in desperate and painfully obvious attempts to paint John Roberts as the new anti-Christ set to take us back to the 1000s on every conceivable issue. Take this example:

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was delivering a speech on Wednesday in her native California. She said the court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist has used certain amendments to limit Congress' ability to address nationwide issues with federal legislation. She added that if Roberts is anti-abortion, she can't vote for him.

"It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I know would overturn Roe v. Wade and return our country to the days of the 1950s," she was saying, according to excerpts released before her speech.