Not really diary-length, but something I have to get off of my chest. If I was interviewing Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice, this is what I would ask (with a short speech, since that’s how questions work in Congress).
We both know why you were nominated, which has nothing to do with your qualifications. I’m perfectly happy to stipulate that you are qualified to the extent that the ABA has rated you as such, so let’s just cut right to the chase. I’m going to give you a choice between truth and power, and like most tough choices, you won’t be able to get both of the things you want. I urge you to give the answers that you believe are true, but I’m afraid you’ll just tell people what you believe they want to hear. These are all yes / no questions, and I’m sure that even if you choose not to answer, your response will be informative, for which I thank you in advance.
Let’s assume that a man and a woman are married to each other. Do you believe that the woman has a right to make decisions that the man totally disagrees with?
Do you believe that other people have the right to make decisions that you totally disagree with?
Do you believe the law has any role whatsoever in enforcing religious doctrine?
Thank you, I yield the balance of my time.
What I’d like to do is simply give the nominee a choice between telling the truth, which will show that their beliefs are extreme and unpopular, and dissembling, which will show that they are untrustworthy. A fantasy, I know. Nobody in the room will put questions to the nominee so plainly, and nobody in the room will call out the inevitable mealy-mouthed equivocation that has become the gold-plated turd standard of a Senate confirmation hearing in the post-democratic era.
What questions would you all like to hear answered?
Edit: Fixed the intro paragraph since I added more than one question.