Anyone watching the Roberts hearing?

[whometense]

I just turned it on, but Hatch turns my stomach, so I have it on mute. It appears Teddy is up next, and he should be worth watching. Anyone watch yesterday and have any comments to offer? It seemed to be a news-free day except for Roberts' baseball analogy.

He is freakishly pleasant. I can't tell if this is a good thing or bad. After Bolton, it hardly seems to matter.

[ginnyinWI]

1. I have it on

I can't sit around watching though, too much to do this morning.

But one comment: Leahy is a great cross-examiner. Very smart, probing, cutting to the chase. Reminded me of JK (but without some of the eloquent turns of phrases, and without the hair-lol).

also: does anyone else think that John Roberts has really creepy-spooky looking eyes? Is he slightly cross-eyed or what? :shrug:

[TayTay]

2. I am, but sporadically (At Work)

I don't get all of it, but some. So far, Roberts seems to be doing okay.

[ginnyinWI]

3. Teddy's up now n/t

[TayTay]

4. I love Uncle Ted

He held Roberts feet to the fire on his committment to the Voting Rights Act and to a equaitable interpretation of the law.
:loveya: Uncle Ted.

I have great Senators! I'm lucky.

[whometense]

5. live-blog link

in case you can't watch: http://bushvchoice.com/

[sandnsea]

6. Do people care?

It seems to me people either get that Bush appoints right wing extremists, or they don't. That's the only way I can see people supporting a filibuster. I guess we'll see if people really get it about these Bushies yet.

[whometense]

7. Ok, don't jump all over me here, but I was wondering

what you guys think about this.

First, after watching and listening to Roberts off and on all day, these are my impressions:

1.) very slick

2.) very smart

3.) he is either an honest man or he is a fantastic actor

4.) the repukes on committee (esp. the nauseating Cornyn) seem pretty smug

Now, I'm inclined to oppose Roberts merely because Bush nominated him, and everything Bush does either turns to shit or starts out as shit in the first place. But I'm not sure where I fall on this guy. Here's a suggestion my blog partner made, and it's an idea that's been lurking in the back of my mihd the past week or so: what if Roberts is being cagy so as not to tip off the wingnuts?? Maybe that's just wishful thinking, and maybe it's totally off the wall. But I tend to trust my gut level instincts on people, and this guy does not set off my inner fire alarm.

Then again, maybe I'm just being spun. Opinions?

Edited to add: it would, I admit be absolutely glorious payback if he did turn out to be a Souter, unlikely as that possibility may be. Imagine the freepers' heads exploding.

[ginnyinWI]

9. I don't have a bad gut reaction to him

so I'm willing to give him the benefit of some doubt. But heck what do I know. I said to my husband the other day that he might turn out to be more liberal than anyone thinks. Maybe just wishful thinking.

[whometense]

11. We were just discussing this at dinner.

My husband has had a positive gut reaction to him too. I guess we need to keep this quiet, huh? Wouldn't want Cornyn getting that message.

[sandnsea]

12. Casey

I see him as an empty cold fish, but that's just a personality opinion and probably not too useful.

The response that struck me today was on Casey, that's where women have the right to choose regardless of marital status. DiFi gave a Ginsburg quote and asked if he agreed. He said he agreed that's what Casey decided. And, oh yeah, it set a legal precedent. He did not say he agreed it was settled law or anything remotely supportive. That's a pretty basic right to me, for women to make reproductive choices without their spouse's opinion.

A friend of ours, older woman, is shocked at this guy's assault on women. Baptist Bush lover to the hilt. Didn't think Bush had the right to appoint somebody who would take away women's rights. Yes, I did ask her what she thought Bush was going to do when she voted for him.

[globalvillage]

8. He has 'Republican' hair. I don't trust him. n/t.

[BlueIris]

10. I'm still kind of fragile, so I'm keeping viewing to a minimum, but

I hate him. Vile, disgusting, misogynist piece of shit masquerading as a respectable jurist. A jurist with what--two years of relevant bench experience?

[whometense]

13. Teddy's conference call with bloggers yesterday:

Steve Clemons was in on it.

ON OTHER FRONTS, John Roberts stated that he believed that a constitutional case for the right of privacy did exist. This is somewhat stunning news -- and makes it tough for both left-of-center and hard-right strategists in the Supreme Courty appointment skirmishes underway.

Ted Kennedy is right that the American public deserves to see Roberts' notes when he was Solicitor General -- and he has made troubling statements about Roe v. Wade and about equitable gender treatment. However, it's clear that this candidate is extremely polished and unflappable.

He completely outclasses Scalia in his reasonable demeanor, and I can see Roberts recusing himself if he had been in the same duck-hunting mess that Scalia and Vice President Cheney were in when Cheney had the battle over his energy policy consultation notes pending before the Supreme Court. Scalia was gross about the whole affair and diminished himself and the Court by not recusing himself. I just don't see Roberts in the same mode, but maybe I'm being duped.

I heard Ted Kennedy on a conference call with bloggers last night -- and he said "This is John Roberts' job interview with the American people. . .There is no right to serve on the Supreme Court. . .You have to earn your way on to that court through the American public."

On the conference call, I thought Ted Kennedy was fair in outlining John Roberts' strengths and weaknesses.

But as he said, there is still much we just don't know -- and I think that most of what we will get to know is how polished he is -- not how he thinks and not what is in his heart.

[TheDonkey]

14. Roberts eyes creep me out

They are huge and look clear. I'm not watching it though, seems pretty boring when I tuned in.

[Firespirit]

15. I didn't see the hearing, but

I've read about it since then. I dunno... I'm just not comfortable with this guy, and it's not because of Roe v. Wade. I know lots of fundies want to see it overturned, but I don't think that'll actually happen. The Republican Party needs it as an issue to drag out and trot around every election season... a boogeyman to wave in front of the fundamentalist voters. If they overturn it and pass laws outlawing abortion, there goes a major issue for them, and what's more, our side would then have a huge rallying point and a massive GOTV drive to match it. (People will be complacent about a right as long as they have it. If it's taken away, then they get to work. :P) I'm really more concerned about how this guy may rule on other civil liberties that are not as hot-button and therefore get less "airtime"... I just have a bad gut feeling about that, and unlike pro-choice, the media wouldn't cover it very well if these liberties were restricted, so lots of people (who might potentially be outraged about it) wouldn't find out.

[whometense]

16. Interesting column in the American Prospect

by Kermit Roosevelt on Roberts, giving his post-hearing impression. Somewhat reassuring, if you are inclined to believe him.

. . . .Constitutional questions, conservatives have reminded us with increasing fervor, are matters of law and not policy. They have right answers, which do not depend on the political preferences of the judges. Senators, like anyone else, are entitled to reach their own conclusions about the right answers, and they are presumably also entitled to vote in favor of nominees they believe will interpret the Constitution correctly and against those who will not. There can hardly be a better way to decide that than asking about specific issues, or at least specific past decisions.

Sadly, we have had not had the chance to hear straight answers to those kinds of questions. John Roberts will smile and hedge and sail through the confirmation process. And both sides will watch, appreciating his humility and hoping they just saw a wink.

Kermit Roosevelt

Kermit Roosevelt is an assistant professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He clerked for Justice David Souter in the 1999-2000 term and is the author, most recently, of the novel In the Shadow of the Law.

Articles by Kermit Roosevelt from The American Prospect:

Articles:

Web September 15 2005 Robed Men Tell No Tales
John Roberts winked at moderates during his hearings -- a bit. By Kermit Roosevelt

Web August 4 2005 Five Big Issues
Sure, Roberts might not be as bad as you fear. But there are reasons to worry. By Kermit Roosevelt

Web July 5 2005 The Centrist Cannot Hold
Sandra Day O'Connor reigned supreme while on the Court, but she won't leave behind much of a legacy. By Kermit Roosevelt