MORE ROBERTS: Howard Kurtz with a succinct overview of positive MSM news coverage with the theme: Roberts will be hard to beat. Columnist Paul Campos thinks senators should demand that Roberts ask their questions:

Imagine if during last fall's presidential debates the candidates had refused to answer specific questions about what they would do about various controversial issues, but instead insisted on giving only general answers regarding their "political philosophies." It goes without saying that the public wouldn't tolerate such behavior, nor would anyone in the political establishment or the media defend it.

Campos's analogy is useful because it's so wrong-headed. It's entirely appropriate to expect detailed issue-oriented answers from political candidates. And it's to be expected that Democrats want Roberts to be specific. How many times must it be said: Supreme Court justices aren't legislators. Because the Left is so committed to (ahem) "fairness," they should be willing to adopt what Hugh Hewitt correctly calls the Ginsburg Precedent:

"I prefer not to answer questions like that; again, to talk in grand terms about principles that have to be applied in concrete cases. I like to reason from the specific case," was the response of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Patrick Leahy's 1993 question to then nominee Judge Ginsburg on which of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment was subordinate to the other.