MyDD :: First Opening Statements Thread

I am having problems with my wireless connection, but it seems fixed now. Specter and Leahy have already spoken. Hatch is speaking right now. You can see the entire judiciary committee here.

It is over for a few hours. I'll have more on this later in the afternoon and evening. The hearings open again at 9:30 tomorrow, and will last until 8:30 pm (yikes!)
Senator Orrin Hatch: "[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists.” [Address before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, 2/18/97]. I guess he changed his mind.
Can someone be disqualified for excessive use of baseball metaphors? Lots of Americana, nothing of substance from Roberts.
I think it is particuarly interesting that as Roberts begins to speak, the news wire has Brown resigning from FEMA. This is not hte same Bush administration of even four months ago. This is an administration that has become weak to the point where it will indeed back down and cave to public pressure.
Coburn in tears when he says: "When I ponder our country... my heart aches for less diviseness, less polarization, less fingerpointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship, which at times sound almost hateful to the ears of Americans." And then he promptly left the hearings and went to a Club for Growth fundraiser.
Brownback opens by wishing himself happy birthday. How very humble of him.
Durbin looks to shift the burden of proof to those looking to confirm Roberts, rather than those who are not yet sold. Frankly, that is where it always should have been, but somehow our checks and balances have eroded enough that it doesn't work that way anymore.
I can't even remember which Republican is droning on right now. Its all the same: you never have to tell us anything about anything ever, except that you will stop persecuting us humble Christians. Don't they ever get bored of hearing themselves?
This seems to be the culimination of five years of speeches for Schumer. I remember when he first laid out this argument five years ago, and I was hooked instantly. Ideology needs to be a determining factor in judicial confirmations because, let's face it, ideology plays a role in how judges rule. As Schumer just said, certainly both Ginsbewrg and Scalia think they are fair, yet they rule differently case after case after case. Ideology is the reason. We all know that, and thus we must consider it when confirming a judge, just as President's consider it when selecting a judge. Ideology is perhaps the number one determining factor in determining how a judge will rule, and thus it is absolutely necessary for Roberts to answer every qeustion, so we can develop a clear picture of his ideology.
Woo-hoo! He actually said "resume" instead of calling him "well qualified." I always thought Schumer was excellent on judges.
Schumer's up--perhaps the main event. He tries to frame the debate as mainstream versus ideolouge. Says he will vote based on the answer ot this question.
They are back, and I'll tell you right now, if Lindsay Graham really is a "Democrat by night," then the sun won't go down for a long, long time.
Feingold just spoke--nothing remarkable--and the first break has been announced.
Did Sessions really just say "objective standards of morality," after a huge tirade about "activist judges," and then go on to argue that ideological concerns should not be a factor in approving nominees? Wow.
Feinstein was way too wonky (autonomy is not exactly the most emotive word for self-determination), and her speech ran long. This was too bad, because the end was the most interesting part, where she began to talk about the potential abuses of religion. I've been waiting a while for someone to finally talk about that.
The Dems are conceding the "well-qualified" point. Worse, they keep repeating it. Kennedy did it earlier, and Feinstein just did it. In fact, it was practically the first thing out of Feinstein's mouth. For crying out loud Dems, if you want to concede the point, that's one thing, but don't help the Republicans hammer it home by constantly repeating it yourself. Just come up with another word for it, like "you have a long resume," or something. Don't use their words, for crying out loud.
DeWine seems to be fretting about the loss of his base. He just indicated that he will be voting for Roberts.
Whether or not the basic Democratic talking point will work in slowing or stopping Roberts almost doesn't matter to me, because it is just so wonderful. We must protect civil rights. We must allow the government to step in and work toward a common good. Big government is not a bad thing, as long as it is effective. The struggle for civil rights is not over. A lot of this is related to Katrina, but it seems to be a near-total reversal of 1990's era rhetoric that dominated the party leadership for a time and helped turned me away from the party for a number of years. Even if it is rheotic--and coming out of the mouth of Bankruptcy Biden it sounds like just rhetoric--it is an important turning point in the national debate that will indeed be to the benefit of progressivism. The era of small government is over.
The basic Republican talking point so far seems to be that Roberts is oh so well qualified, and that he should shut up and eveyrone should be happy with that and vote for him. That strikes me as a defensive talking point that seeks to avoid conflict (and democracy) at all costs.
Biden comes out hard and strong. Says right now he would vote no. Very impressive. I had stepped out of the room to grad some food, and when I came back in I heard Biden's voice saying words that I never thought I would hear from Biden. So far, itseems the Dems on the committee are united in opposition.
Kennedy now. He's a much better speaker than Leahy. His speech is mostly about rights, with a heavy emphasis on civil rights.
Hatch goes on about politicizing the judiciary, when no one has politicized the judiciary more than Hatch:
Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees. But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees. In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote. Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.
After that, he went on for ten minutes about how Roberts shouldn't answer any questions, and we should all like it. Seems to fit with his general pattern.