My question is: Does it help or hinder to answer questions with hostility during United States Supreme Court Senate confirmation hearings?
There are many examples in real life where a senate asks inane or insulting questions of a candidate, all of them so controversial that it would be hard to not express my opinion so I will give a fictitious example so that the focus is the actual question.
Back in the day there was a Supreme Court decision that stated that checkered pants worn with striped shirts was a protected right according to the US constitution. Since then every time a Supreme Court nominee is brought before the Senate, their support of striped shirts is questioned vehemently. Today the nominee is asked: I don't think I have seen you or any of your family ever wear striped shirts, and I have proof here that you wrote that checkered pants do not go with your complexion since you are a winter. This puts us in the difficult position that you will be a no vote on this case. Is that how you would vote?
The classy answer is: I will respect Supreme Court precedent and will rule impartially in all my cases.
The answer I would give is: Pictures? Who takes pictures of their entire life? This is just a question to win political points and has nothing to do with my judicial credentials. I'm not answering this highly unlikely scenario.
Does anyone know of real life examples where a hostile answer was given and confirmation was rescinded because of this?