« Stop Ducking in Public | Main | Talk to Us, Judge »
September 13, 2005
CourtBriefs for Day 2: Never Ending or Beginning
|
Sen. Lindsey Graham: Takin' positions, gettin' paid (see below). |
From the full-circle file: Senators who talk about bloggers who blog about Senators. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is bloggin'! He refers to Jim Lindgren's umpire-analogy analysis on the Volokh Conspiracy from yesterday (see CourtBriefs for Day 1). Under pressure from the blogosphere, Roberts admits his umpire analogy isn't as obvious as it at first appeared, picks option #2. Thereby causing bloggers to blog about Senators who talk about bloggers etc.
Meanwhile at Legal Affairs, Mark Tushnet and Jeffrey Rosen debate the largely academic question "Can liberals oppose Roberts?"
Tushnet: Yes. ("The president does not choose someone who has a judicial philosophy with which the president disagrees. Neither should a senator.")
Rosen: Yes, but not the way Tushnet says it. ("I think your proposed standard — that a senator should not vote to confirm a nominee who has a judicial philosophy with which he substantially disagrees—is impractical and politically unwise." "[It] would result in more or less even partisan divisions on most Supreme Court nominees and lower court nominees.")
Dahlia Lithwick cracks wise at Slate:
"Today's hearings are not about the candidate. They are about the majesty and superiority of the Senate. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., describes these proceedings as a 'job interview with the American people.' But in what solar system would a four-day job interview include a solid day in which the interviewer talks about himself?"
From the Democracy at Work file: At 6:09 p.m. ET, Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog reports, "I went downstairs to watch the proceedings. 90% of the press seats are empty. 50% of the public seats are empty. The Senators other than Specter and Leahy who have asked questions are gone."
More from the Democracy at Work file, courtesy of an afternoon exchange between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Roberts:
GRAHAM: I imagine the reason that you argued different positions is because people paid you. Is that correct?
ROBERTS: That's how I made my living, Senator.
GRAHAM: OK. I can relate to that.
Posted at September 13, 2005 04:28 PM