New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 19, 2005

Matt Welch manages to get through four days of Supreme Court confirmation hearings with his sanity intact. More or less.

Comments

|9.19.05 @ 3:26PM|#

I wish I was surprised that U.S. Senators ask the the same level of important, critical questions that one might hear at a meeting of a local Elk's club.

|9.19.05 @ 3:34PM|#

We should all be thankful Senator Byrd is not on this committee. He'd have recited poetry for 15 minutes.

|9.19.05 @ 3:38PM|#

Judicial Appointment Committee hearings make for great drinking games.

|9.19.05 @ 3:40PM|#

Good article. A lot of honesty in those hearings, for those that can see it. Tom Coburn's sobbing reminds us that, at heart, politicians are paid actors.

And there's another selection to be made, and you're going to get the same type person. And you can�I'm not even talking to you now."

The last sentence is probably the most honest thing said the whole hearing. Since when has anybody in a congressional hearing ever been talking to anybody except constituents at home?

Too bad nobody took up George Will on his set of questions.

|9.19.05 @ 5:59PM|#

COBURN: "And I will tell you that I am very pleased, both in my observational capabilities as a physician, to know that your answers have been honest and forthright as I watch the rest of your body respond to the stress that you're under."

Was Coburn hitting on Roberts? That's just inappropriate.

Warren|9.19.05 @ 6:23PM|#

Fucking eh, we are so fucking fucked. Who's round is it?

|9.19.05 @ 6:28PM|#

holly crap. Is it just me or did Robert's say that not only is anything that has ever crossed state lines interstate commerce, but so is anything that will cross state lines in the future, or that legislators suppose might cross state lines more exactly. The man should not be allowed within a mile of the court based on this opinion alone.

|9.19.05 @ 9:11PM|#

As you have been before our committee, I've tried to use my medical skills of observation of body language to ascertain your uncomfortableness and ill-at-ease with questions and responses. And I've honed that over about 23, 24 years.

John felt icy apprehension as the Senator Superior regarded him coldly. This only increased as he noticed his trusted party leader, George, bracing himself against the only door into the room.

"You show real mastery of prana bindu training. However, there is one test left. The test of whether you are a justice - or merely a judge."

The Senator Superior drew out something from the folds of his suit.

"Put your hand inside the box."

|9.19.05 @ 11:13PM|#

The man should not be allowed within a mile of the court based on this opinion alone.

I might agree, if I thought the statement had anything to do with what Roberts actually thinks.

Roberts, however, knows he's being badgered by politicians, and it looks like he's politician enough to maybe get by them.

When in Rome, do as the Romans. Once you're past the gate you get to run the ball however you want.

|9.20.05 @ 12:45AM|#

The man should not be allowed within a mile of the court based on this opinion alone.

I'd be inclined to agree, but do you think Congress would allow him within a mile of a court if he'd given any other answer?

That's where the checks and balances fall apart - one of the few institutions that can check Congress is subject to the approvals of - guess who?

|9.20.05 @ 12:50AM|#

Tom Coburn's sobbing reminds us that, at heart, politicians are paid actors.

"Politics is nothing more than showbusiness for ugly people."

I don't know who said it, but the older I get, the more true it becomes.

|9.20.05 @ 8:11AM|#

I'm inclined to agree with Pig Mannix that Roberts' answers on interstate commerce might be tailored to suit his interrogators. After all, some of those people apparently think that if you don't believe the Constitution allows the making domestic violence a federal crime then you hate women. Sorry, but a big government believing Senator does not have a disinterested opinion himself on the Constitutional law.

|9.20.05 @ 8:29AM|#

This is where the 2 different usages of the phrase "judicial activism" come into play. Saying that everything under the sun is "interstate commerce" is certainly contrary to any reasonable reading of the Constitution, and so if "judical activism" means "rulings that are contrary to the Constitution" then Roberts just declared himself to be an activist.

But notice how he basically said that he won't get in anybody's way. In that regard he just declared himself to be a very passive activist.

Maybe instead of "judicial activism" we should be railing against "judicial passive-aggressivism".

|9.20.05 @ 11:28AM|#

Steve Chapman had a good column on why confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices are pointless:

"They act as though a nominee who is pressed relentlessly will, like a guilty witness in a TV courtroom drama, break down and confess: '"Yes! I think Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided!' Or: 'I'm going to legislate from the bench, and nobody can stop me!'

"In fact, anyone smart enough to get picked for the court is smart enough to find a dozen different ways to say, 'None of your dang business.'...

|9.20.05 @ 11:29AM|#

The Steve Chapman column I mentioned is at
http://www.greenwichtime.com/technology/chi-0507240285jul24,0,2575509,print.column