It is clearly inappropriate for senators to ask questions about the potential outcome of a pending case. It is not inappropriate to ask questions about the reasoning behind previous decisions, particularly when the nominee makes every effort to associate herself with the author of those decisions. The failure of this nominee, and many previous nominees, to provide any meaningful information about her judicial philosophy is the principal reason so many confirmation hearings have turned into exercises in the politics of personal destruction; opponents of the nomination on ideological grounds have nowhere else to go. In the long run, it discredits the process and shortchanges the public, particularly in an election year.
It appears that the only kinds of questions Barrett will answer either relate to originalism in general or opinions she actually wrote. The Democratic members of the committee need to work within that framework. There is still some useful information to be unearthed there with the right questions. Just no more tiresome speeches about the value of ACA . . . please!