Though I do not think the hearings are useless, I must admit to not having much desire to actually listen to them. I caught a few minutes, and you get the idea that nothing much is going on pretty fast. Maybe, if one has lower expectations. Still, what if the Dems got together and submitted a truly well staged attack building off each others' questions? They just might score more points.
In response to an essay that suggested Judge Roberts' nomination as chief justice as such is not very important, I sent this email:
As to your Findlaw piece, it might be argued that the ability to distribute opinions (as the most senior justice) is of some importance.
For instance, let's say Justice Brennan was in a sense the true power behind the throne. If Chief Justice Warren was not so friendly with him, however, Brennan might not have been as powerful. Warren could have gave key opinions to other justices, or if he had the wherewithal, kept them for himself.
Also, CJ Rehnquist's personality helped him to put his own spin on the Court, including cutting back opinions, in a way that CJ Burger arguably was less able to do.
As Linda Greenhouse noted in a recent piece, justices aren't fungible; in some sense, neither is the role of Chief Justice and associate justice. One should not exaggerate, but underestimating is also possible.
Meanwhile ... I found blog commentary, including in comments, quite helpful in getting a read on the Katrina response. Also, this essay explains the "legal necessity" defense for "looting" quite nicely.
Finally, though Newdow lost, (not surprisingly) a custodial parent did win a Newdow claim on the district court level out in the Ninth Circuit. Will the Ninth uphold the riginal appellate ruling striking down the use of "under God" in the Pledge? The odds say, no.