海角大神

Dear readers:

For decades Supreme Court nominees and their political supporters have often spoken in a code of obfuscation, particularly in Senate confirmation hearings. The point is to avoid as much as possible any indication about the nominee鈥檚 personal beliefs regarding sensitive issues likely to come before the high court, such as abortion or gun rights.

This reticence largely began following the bitter 1987 Senate hearings and subsequent defeat of President Ronald Reagan鈥檚 Supreme Court pick, Judge Robert Bork.

Judge Bork had a lengthy trail of public statements, and in hearings he discussed in detail his controversial opinions, including his belief that the legal underpinnings of Roe V. Wade abortion decision were shaky. Afterwards he blamed his defeat in part on tough speeches and advertising by opponents, which drew on 鈥� the GOP would say misused 鈥� his own words.

Thus the cloud of code, in which 鈥渓egislating from the bench鈥� means a judge pushing liberal positions, sidestepping a question about Roe v. Wade by referring to it as 鈥渟ettled law鈥� can be an attempt to avoid discussing abortion entirely, and specific pending cases are dismissed without comment because 鈥渢hey might come before me鈥� if confirmed.

But is this way of delicate discourse outmoded in the age of Trump, where the president himself often says the quiet part out loud, discussing motives others might keep hidden?

There鈥檚 some evidence that鈥檚 the case. Senate Republicans have already laid out the lines of the upcoming nomination fight in an unusually blunt manner.

Take abortion. Sen. Josh Hawley earlier this week tweeted that he would only support a nominee who says openly that Roe was 鈥渨rongly decided.鈥� He called on other Republicans to take the same stand.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, in a toss-up reelection fight, overtly divided the Supreme Court into teams, saying in a statement that he supports the 鈥渃onservative jurist President Trump will nominate鈥� as opposed to Joe Biden鈥檚 undoubted 鈥渓iberal activist鈥� choice.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has long insisted the high court is separate from partisan politics, may not like this trend. Will voters? It鈥檚 possible they鈥檒l find it a more realistic statement of the obvious divisions.

It 鈥渇eels like Trump-era rhetoric has ditched the old codes . . . for something that accurately describes the stakes . . .鈥� tweeted Washington Post campaign reporter Dave Weigel over the weekend.

Let us know what you鈥檙e thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.