The Roberts Hearings Are Set to Begin:
The Washington Post's preview is here. My sense is that Roberts is going to run circles around the Judiciary Committee, but I'm probably biased because of my man crush.
Armen (mail) (www):
Thirty-eight (or is it thirty-nine?) arguments in front of the SCOTUS, I think he can handle questions from Pat Leahy.
9.12.2005 4:39am
Phil (mail):
I think 39, with 25 wins
9.12.2005 9:16am
cfw (mail):
Winning less than 50% for the SG office would be pretty surprising. Still, very nice record.

It seems worth asking if detention of Japanese ancestry folks during WWII should have been reviewable by a) military commissions or b) courts (for treason issues) or c) not at all.

It might also be worth asking if Haupt (military commission followed by execution, US citizen who fought for Germans, then came to US) would need to be "modernized" now to include procedural protections (due process, 6th amendment, 8th, etc.) recognized since 1945.

I would not expect him to derail, and would not want that, but he seems in need of nudging about the civil rights we want respected if we have a 20-30 year cold war about terror, extremism, etc.
9.12.2005 2:04pm
Al Maviva (mail):
25-14, a pretty good record. (Actually I believe it's more like 25-10-4, or somesuch.

As long as we're discussing the nomination in sporting terms, I think the over/under on the confirmation vote is + 6.5 for Roberts.
9.12.2005 2:42pm
erp (mail):
I hope Roberts avoids doing what Bork tried to do, and that is answer the questions as if the questioner, a. was able to comprehend the answer (or the question, for that matter), and b. had the slightest interest in the answer other than to use it to segue into some outrageous slander. It's mind boggling that Leahy, Kennedy and Biden were also on the committee during the Bork hearings in 1981!

If anything sums up what's wrong with the left, it's that these dinosaurs spew the same garbage from one decade to the next.
9.12.2005 2:46pm
Uh...The Bork hearings in 1981? You mean 1987.
9.12.2005 3:06pm
myalterego (mail):
Senator Graham just said something in his opening statement that seemed odd to me. He said the central issue (and I'm paraphrasing) in the hearings should be whether President Bush is allowed to fulfill his campaign promise of appointing a strict constructionist. I'm a Democrat who believes that Judge Roberts should be confirmed (unless something really crazy happens in the next week or so). However, I think that when considering judicial nominees, the Senate should be exercising an Advice and Consent function that is different than that used when considering an executive appointment. Part of the genius of splitting responsibility of nomination and Advice and Consent for the judiciary (the Third Branch) between the two elected branches is so that they can each approach the confirmation independently. The Senate and the President, each in their roles, should be entitled to ask nominees about judicial philosophy, past cases, their favorite baseball team, or anything else they like. But it seems to me that each should exercise independent judgment without deference to one or the other. If one elected branch does defer to another in a USSCT nomination/confirmation process, it is for political reasons. Of course, most of this is political theater to prepare for the next confirmation hearings anyway.
9.12.2005 3:28pm
Larry (mail):
Maybe you need to provide a specifics. I understand that you don't like Kennedy. However, you would have to be very specific about how his point of view and his methodology is not only invalid but has no place in a confirmation hearing in order to convince me. Not everyone sees themselves, life, and politics in terms of "right" and "left" so it if you frame your critique in that way people might think that you are a non-lawyer.
9.12.2005 3:29pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
If the Senate were 55/45 favoring Democrats, Graham's argument would be specious. However, when for the past several election cycles one of the major issues has been the power to effect control of the power of appointment of the Federal Judiciary the argument has more validity.
9.12.2005 5:09pm
PG (mail) (www):
"However, when for the past several election cycles one of the major issues has been the power to effect control of the power of appointment of the Federal Judiciary..."

I didn't realize that so many Senate candidates had been running on their devotion to Scalia/ Thomas type justices; the 2002 and 2004 elections, in particular, seem to have been much more about security issues.
9.12.2005 10:36pm