There is no surprise that Nominees to the Supreme Court are reluctant to give their reviews on constitutional issues. This is particularly true when the nominee of a president faces the Senate where the opposition party is in the majority. The politicization of the Supreme Court began in 1987 at the hearings of Robert Bork. Prior to that time the Senate would defer to the president so long as the candidate was supremely qualified. In the case of Robert Bork, there is likely never to have been a candidate so well qualified. He was a noted Yale Law School professor. He was a legal scholar. He was the Solicitor General of the United States, the advocate of United States in Supreme Court matters. He has a judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the most important federal appeals court.
Three Republicans of 45 voted against him as did all 55 Democrats.
Though his confirmation was denied, he provided the single greatest public discourse on the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. At no time before or since (save the Federalist Papers) was the public able to learn what the Constitution and cases thereon actually mean and how one jurist provided his unbridled commentary as to the rationale of decisions over the history of the Supreme Court.
His honesty and forthrightness brought those qualities to an end for future nominees. His legal writings, expressing his opinions as to a myriad of issues, have caused all future potential nominees to be at least circumspect as to opinions to be shared.
The sad day when he was not confirmed has led to the mud-slinging and question dodging show which goes on today, regardless of the party.
The line was an ad lib by character Peter Clemenza, by actor Richard Castellano.