Roberts Hearings Q & A

So I was able to attend about two hours of the hearing today around lunchtime. The hearings today are not being held in the Caucus Room in Russell, but instead in Hart 216, much more modern, much less ornate.  I was seated near the beginning of Hatch's question time (each senator gets a half hour, per round, and two rounds). Nothing really stands out about Hatch's questioning; Hatch talked a lot and asked Roberts to comment on some of his lengthy diatribes. Then it was Kennedy's time. Kennedy clearly wanted to get into it with roberts and mix it up. He asked a bunch of questions about civil rights, starting with whether Roberts agreed that Brown was correctly decided and moving on to memos Roberts had written during his time in the Reagan administration. In the end, this discussion got into pretty technical details; no points scored, either way. Then came Grassley. Grassley asked a lot of softballs, but it was during this time that Roberts said the most interesting thing he's said so far. In answer to a question on his lack of an overarching judicial philosophy, Roberts basically dissected the claims of originalism as a school of interpretation. Really, it was a great answer, one that I will fish out of the transcripts and post at some later time.

It's interesting that Roberts is now arguing that he doesn't have an overarching judicial philosophy, given that President Bush has said that judicial philosophy would be the dominant factor in his selection. I guess that means that the "correct" judicial philosophy, in Bush's eyes, is none at all. Curious. (Not that "Mr. No Nation-Building 2000" has ever been a paragon of consistency on his talking points.)

Finally, it was Biden's turn. Biden was really grand-standing here. Indeed, if you wanted an example of a senator giving free rein to his senatorial urges, this was it. He started out, "Hi (Hey) Judge," and spoke down to Judge Roberts (i.e., he did not take a very respectful tone). He wanted to argue with Roberts that Justice Ginsburg had answered questions about cases, and that under that same standard, Roberts should answer questions about the scope of the right to privacy. Roberts refused. It got uglier from there. Biden made a few good points, but he wasn't really trying to get answers, I don't think. I think he wanted to show off that he could be tough with Roberts, and that Roberts would refuse to answer questions, if pressed. (Roberts pretty much refused, point-blank, to answer the "does the right to privacy reach abortion" question.)

In other words, typical Biden behavior: "Hey, look at me! I'm a senator. A kick-ass senator!"

Then it was time for lunch.

"Celebrity" sightings: former SG Ted Olson was three rows in front of me, and former presidential candidate and all-around whack job Gary Bauer was two rows in front of me (sitting with Jay Sekulow). I saw Stuart Taylor, again--it was even less fun the second time.

Roberts insisted on pronouncing Mobile the same way as in "going mobile." It's mo-BEEL, judge. It's from the French. (There's an important civil/voting rights case arising out of Mobile, so this came up a few times.) Oh, well.

There seemed to be more anti-abortion folks today than yesterday around the area, in general.

Maybe a few more reflections in a bit.