Senator Leahy and I are talking during these hearings, we're gonna do that crack cocaine thing that you and I have talked about.
-- Sen. Sessions
A few highlights from today's hearings ...
Sen. Graham was right to note that there is enough play in the joints to show that the person who fills the job (and who nominates/confirms ... "elections have consequences") matters, thus her speeches and other off bench work is of some relevance. Sotomayor will be much less constrained as a Supreme Court justice. OTOH, he went too far with his in effect soloquy on military commissions and the like, eliding past the fact that those detained do have rights to some hearings. And, that they all aren't out to (seriously) "kill us all."
Sen. Coburn also raised some good points, but went too far. It is not true that women can have any abortion they want. OTOH, yes, no law truly survived (even the handful of liberal ones) after Roe v. Wade. Still, he (and others) ignored the importance of states when protecting gun rights. This includes state constitutions, most of which have some protection in the area. This was emphasized by Sen. Leahy (gun owner) who noted Vermont has more lax gun laws than many "red" states. OTOH, Sotomayor noted yesterday that she could not really think of any federal law related to self-defense ... obviously there would have to be some rules in that context too. Anyway, Coburn's concern for unclear statutes also underlines that he had something useful to add. If, as here with international law, it was of limited illumination on some level.
The questioning today, even Specter, was not very extensive though Franken asked her why she wanted to be a justice, leading to a cute story. We also had witnesses, which at times had a token feel, underlined by the few senators around and more junior senators chairing the rounds. This does not mean nothing of substance was added, Scotusblog, for instance, appreciating Professor Kate Stith's testimony on her qualifications. The highlight for many probably was Ricci/Vargas, and the guest commentator over at TPM had a good read:
Republicans' decision to ask Mr. Ricci and Lt. Vargas to testify is interesting, given the concerted attack on the idea that "empathy" has anything to do with judicial decisions. The two witnesses' testimony focused on the extraordinary effort that they put into studying for the promotion exam, their disappointment at the city's decision, and their unhappiness that the district court and court of appeals rejected their claim, the latter without issuing an opinion. It does not denigrate their testimony to point out that it is an explanation of the actual impact on their lives of the lower court rulings -- essentially an appeal for empathy, and therefore precisely what Republicans claim should not be relevant to judicial decisionmaking.
I don't really think it ridiculous per se that these guys were invited, they were as helpful as kneejerk advocacy group representatives or David Cone talking about Sotomayor saving baseball (or something). They give a human face to court action; but, obviously, they are largely a publicity suit with some irony (hypocrisy). It was useful that Specter actually asked Ricci if he thought Sotomayor made a reasonable (even if wrong) decision given the law. And, honestly, he said that was above his pay grade, that they came as a way to tell their story. It is appreciated that some photogenic plaintiff connected to a more liberal result was not brought out too.
The Dem witnesses amounted to people like the mayor and long time DA of NY, while the Republicans had the firefighters and (it seemed) a bunch of conservative ideologues. A rather obscure victim rights' advocate (he had a family member murdered) tried to trump the former director of the FBI and the head of police union and insist a former prosecutor and relatively pro-government judge on criminal law matters empathized too much with criminals. Another witness tried to explain how France will take advantage of use of international law to overturn the death penalty. Oh, she's out to get our guns because of a single per curiam decision. And, DR says Bush was pretty moderate so when the Supremes rejected congressional enabling, they went too far.
Kristina Moore liveblogging nearly all of this at Scotusblog was a trooper! Meanwhile, is Dahlia right that we know even less? I don't think so. See also here (bottom of article). Did we learn much? Was it that worth it? A different question. Anyway, DL's hyperbole here is annoying, particularly since it can be self-fulfilling (nothing to see here, so I won't even help show there was any value, since it is all hot air, right?)