on specific issues common? I.e. the President directly asks a potential selection what their ruling would be on a particular issue(s), and uses that to make a selection.

I was under the impression that candidates normally go out of their way not to stake a position on cases that they might see later.


Both Hillary & Sanders have said that they would require confirmation that a potential jurist would strike down Citizens before nominating them. I imagine that conservatives in the past have wanted selections to overturn Roe v Wade, but thankfully it doesn't appear that confirmations have been doctrinal yet.


As a corollary to the question, I do find continued hostility toward Citizens, and campaign finance issues, confusing. Election after election, we've seen massive amounts of money spent with little effect. Just this election, HRC & Bush are blowing through huge piles of cash while Sanders & Trump are spending little. Why do opponents dislike individuals being able to waste their money? In an ideal world, campaigns would be completely driven by policy proposals with equal message penetration. But with media, and the internet, there is a point of diminishing return for spending. The antagonism to that ruling just seems completely disproportionate to its consequences.