There’s little doubt that David Souter soon will be donning the prestigious black robe of the nation’s highest court.

The quiet, almost reclusive Souter will get the OK from the Senate because nobody can find any dirt on him—an extreme rarity in today’s political arena.

So as the confirmation hearings grind down, the public should start to worry about other, equally as important, judicial matters.

Like whether the senators on the judiciary committee have the right—or need—to know how any Court nominee personally feels on extremely volatile issues.

A highly touchy subject at the very least. On the one hand, one would think—or at least hope—the senators and nominees have enough integrity not to let anything but the facts and their duties persuade their decisions.

On the other hand, they are human.

The argument goes both ways. The sheer presence of a Supreme Court nominee is enough to safeguard against politicking. The genuine sincerity to do the best for the country is enough to protect senators from establishing their own agendas.

But does it make sense for George Bush to pick a young, pivotal justice who doesn’t hold the same views as he on abortion and other landmark cases that most assuredly will wind their way to the bench? And how far should a president go in trusting his aids, in this case John Sunnunnu, in making such an important decision?

Will the Democrats drag their collective feet just to make a point or will they drag their feet to at least act like they would prefer to take a chance with another nominee?

The jury is out. It doesn’t matter what a judge’s personal views are because the judge must weigh each case on its own merits. Ideally, a judge is supposed to be so super-human that his bias—and everyone has bias—is rolled up and put on a shelf when the robe comes on.

But fortunate or not, this is not a utopia. Even judges are human and can be tugged by their heart strings.

But some hold doubt, others fear, that justices will eventually succumb to the pressures of their personal beliefs. Should justices be punished for being human?

Then again, this is the Supreme Court.

But after sifting through the facts to find the answer, you will find nothing more than you started with and be forced to go with the gut feeling.

That being although there are flaws in any system, the one the United States has is pretty damn good. Knowing that, although there are flaws in many people, people getting to that level of the judiciary and the government also must be pretty damn good.

So you relegate yourself to praying the justice checks his feelings at the door more often than not.

And instead of making headlines, each does his thing.

The nominee plays it cool and doesn’t get excited. The senate judiciary committee doesn’t ask personal questions, but rather opinions on decided topics. The “do you agree with” and “what is your interpretation and application of” questions.

And in the end everything will work as well as can be expected.

Souter, whether the best man or not, should be congratulated for being scrutinized. Now it’s time for everyone else to scrutinize the questions.