“White House experience really helps refine what one might call one’s ‘b.s. detector’ for determining when the executive branch might be exaggerating or misstating how things actually work, or the problems that would supposedly ensue from a particular legal interpretation. It gives you great respect for the presidency. But that doesn’t translate into undue deference. When Justice Kennedy says something, I listen — me and 320 million other Americans. If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully, that would be binding precedent of the court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court —” “I asked you your own opinion —” “And I’m saying, if I were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood versus —” “I understand. But what is your opinion? You’re not on the bench yet. You’ve talked about these issues in the past to other people, I’m sure —” “The Supreme Court has held repeatedly, Senator, and I don’t think it would be —” “O.K. —” “appropriate for me to give a personal view on that case —” “Not going to answer the question.” “He’s been one of the most consequential jurists in American history. No doubt about it. And his basic idea was: Pay attention to the words of the Constitution and pay attention to the words of the statutes that Congress passes. A very simple and easily conveyed idea. But it shows how far the Supreme Court had strayed from those ideas before Justice Scalia came on the scene. The Constitution is largely a document of majestic specificity and those specific words have meaning, which absent constitutional amendment, continue to bind us as judges, legislators and executive officials. The federal judiciary is really, as I said, many times — it’s one of the crown jewels, if not the crown jewel of our constitutional democracy and it ultimately depends on getting good people willing to become judges in our system.”