When you're being confirmed for a lifetime judgeship isn't it best to admit IGNORANCE as the reason why you can't answer a question?

Part of the confirmation process is to reveal under questioning how you would rule on every type of case coming into your court. Of course, this line of questioning is designed to determine who is willing to follow a particular agenda, jurisprudence be damn**. This is vitally important, as one of the major tasks of the federal judiciary, is to legislate from the bench. You'd think that an ability to foretell the future would carry more weight than any talents as a jurist. Certainly, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but knowledge of law takes a back seat in political appointments.