back with us are know was feldman and emily basel. oah is a professor at harvard law school where he teaches constitutional law. emily is a staff writer at "the new york times" magazine where she also focuses on legal issues. noah, my question to you is, what is the point of these hearings where the -- the judge or to be justice never answers any questions? essentially says i can't -- i can't opine on anything that might potentially come up before the court. tries to be as bland as possible. do -- what is the point of it all? >> not much. it's a kind of kabuki theatre. and it evolved slowly with the key points being when judge robert bork in 1987 actually answered the question honestly and directly and kind of conservatively that he was rejected by the senate overwhelmingly. the confirmation of justice ruth bader ginsburg, not only would she not answer questions, but give hints or previews. and that sort of enabled her not to answer about how she felt about certain kinds of cases. since then there is no upside for the nominee in answer