Someone who read my blog (my brother-in-law, to be specific), chided me that its contents might someday be fodder for opposition political research or the basis for difficult questions by a minority senator in a confirmation hearing. Herewith, my response:

First of all, to the extent that this comment suggests I am worthy of political office or an appointment to something requiring Senate confirmation, thank you for the compliment.

Second, I welcome the opportunity to discuss these views in the context of a political debate. I come by these views honestly (that is, I'm not posturing, or playing Devil's Advocate, or anything like that). If someone wants to challenge me, the ensuing debate would, by definition, have to be substantive. (Gasp!) What's wrong with that? Given the state of political discourse these days, a little substance might not be such a bad thing.

Third, speaking for myself only, I want politicians and judges to be people who have points of view. How is it good for society if we insist that public figures be bland, think blandly, and stake out no position whatsoever for fear of offending somebody? If I disagree with their points of view, then I can choose whether to oppose their appointments or elections. But if I don't know what their views are, how can I make a meaningful determinations about where they (or, for that matter, I) stand?