I fully agree with Michael Rappaport's argument that senators should not give broad deference to the President's choice of Supreme Court nominees. Michael makes an especially good point when he notes that deference to the president is likely to lead to a Supreme Court that is biased in favor of excessively broad claims of executive power.

Some may find my position convenient, since I am about to testify critically about a Supreme Court nominee before the Senate. I can only respond by saying that I took the exact same position during the Bush Administration, back in 2007. At that time, I never expected to have any official role in a Supreme Court confirmation process.

The bottom line is that Supreme Court justices wield great influence and serve for life. It is dangerous to give any one man unconstrained power to choose them. It is almost equally dangerous to give him unconstrained power to appoint anyone with appropriate professional qualifications, since the president can almost always find a technically qualified nominee who will reflect his views - even if those views may be seriously flawed or show excessive deference to the executive. The current confirmation process has many flaws. But one that gives the President largely unconstrained authority to pick justices would be worse.