I don't know if that's a flaw for a judicial nominee or not, not to have a comprehensive philosophy about constitutional interpretation, to be able to say, 'I'm an originalist, I'm a textualist, I'm a literalist, or this or that.' I just don't feel comfortable with any of those particular labels.Yes, that's the last thing we need is someone with a comprehensive philosophy about constitutional interpretation (in other words, a comprehensive philosophy about how he should do his job). We need somebody who doesn't have some philosophy they're always coming back to. Somebody like Sandra Day O'Connor, who would rule one way one day and another the next based on nothing more than the mood of the moment.
Oh, it just keeps getting better!