If you're like me, you are appalled at the questioning of John Roberts in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on his confirmation as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He is repeatedly asked by committee members how he would rule on specific cases and issues.

No one – neither Democrat nor Republican – is getting at the fundamental root of what qualifies someone to serve in a lifetime position on the court.

There are transcendent questions not being asked.

These are questions that should be asked not just of Roberts, but of every single nominee to the court.

Among them:

• Do basic human rights come from government or do they come from a higher authority? The people need to know what a Supreme Court nominee believes about the origin of basic human rights. We need to know if a Supreme Court nominee agrees with the founding principles of this nation – that men and women have unalienable rights that descend from our Creator. If not, then only government can grant rights and take them away. This is one of the unique aspects of American government. Without this precept, we are no different than other countries in the world – and only one short step away from authoritarianism.

• Is man's nature fixed or is the definition of a "person" subject to change with the times and fashion?

• Is law based on moral principles or only on the whims of lawmakers? It is often said today that government cannot legislate morality. But aren't all laws the reflection of someone's sense of morality? Are there eternal truths that undergird a civil society? And from where do they come? From where should they come?

• What is the proper role of the judiciary under the U.S. Constitution? Is it to be limited to interpreting the law or does it have a place in making and shaping laws?

• Is the court an equal of the other two branches of government? It is often said today that we have three separate co-equal branches of government. Is this true? From where does that notion arise? Where in the Constitution of the United States does it suggest that the court is equal to the executive or legislative branch of government? Which branch of government do you believe is granted most authority in the Constitution?

These are not only proper questions to be asked of any Supreme Court nominee, they are, in fact, mandatory questions. They are the ultimate issues by which we should judge the suitability and qualifications of any judicial nominee.

Not only would the questions and answers be enlightening insofar as the character, temperament and wisdom of those being considered, they would also give rise to a national debate that would be healthy for our constitutional republic.

Further, these questions and their answers would give insight into how a judicial nominee would rule in many specific cases – which seem to be on the mind of so many.

So how about raising the level of the national debate? How about asking intelligent, probing, deep questions for which no amount of scripting will help? How about getting at the real issues that cause so much conflict between "liberals" and "conservatives," Republicans and Democrats, right-wingers and left-wingers, libertarians and the apolitical alike?

Do you have some more similar questions you would like to see asked? Do you think there is any chance we will ever seem them posed by the current crop of senators who seem hopelessly bogged down in minutiae? How do you think Roberts might respond? How do you think future nominees might answer? Do you agree that these kinds of questions actually get to the root of who our judicial nominees are and what kind of jurists they might be?

So, why is it so difficult to get the really tough questions asked?