You can follow the hearings at Pacifica or at C-SPAN. The New York Times has a transcript of the morning hearings.

• Feinstein is really pushing a lot of important buttons. She gets Roberts to say that he does not look to the Bible or any religious source in making legal decisions. He does, however, refuse to say whether he believe in a absolute separation of church and state, because he doesn't know what an absolute separation of church and state is.

• Big moment: Feinstein brings up the Commerce Clause, as it realtes to environmental regulation. Roberts is asked if he believes the Commerce Clause allows for enviromental legislation and regulation. Roberts answers that he has not decided yet. WTF? Hasn't decided yet? To me, that sounds like he was saying no, because simple "yes" would have washed away fears that he was a Constituion in exile type.

• Feinstein moves to expand the privacy discussion back into reproductive rights--again Roberts evades. Feinstein then pushes to Stare Decisis about Roe, asking if Roberts agreed that Roe had indeed proved workable. This is exactly the ground that Confirm Them indicated earlier today Roberts would use to overturn Roe:
  Specifically, he indicated that Roberts said that precedent could be overturned on the basis of changing circumstances.
  Roberts replied:
  "that determination...is entitled to respect"...like other principles of stare decisis. "That is a precedent on precedent. In terms of a separate determination on my part, my review of what other nominees have done is that's where they draw the line, and that's where I draw the line."

  Also: "Settled expectations...people expect that the law is going to be what the court has told them it is going to be. That's an important consideration."

  Feinstein: Is the reliance or settled expectation sufficient?

  Roberts: "It certainly was the analysis of the joint opinion of the court entitled to respect. That is certainly be where I would begin. I would begin with the precedent that the court has laid out in this area."

  This could be conservative wiggle room, I'm not sure. This could be support for Roe, I'm not sure. This could be a confirmation conversion, I'm not sure. I'm not sure is becoming a theme about Roberts, since we still know so little about him.

• Roberts keeps emphasizing that he support equality under the law--neither defends nor apologizes for the dismissive, written statements, except to once indicate that it was because of the "candid" environment of the office he worked in. At least that is what I think he said--waiting for a transcript.

• Feinstein is delivering a catalogue of statement Roberts made concerning women, les focused on legal issues and mostly on what appears to be a generally dismissive view of women overall. This is, in fact, the question she asks. This is an interesting and, I think, welcome, as it de-wonkifies the hearing somewhat.

• Feinstein up now. This is important, as she is the only woman on the panel.

• Wow--a Republican complaining about "Free Speech Zones" alongside their typical complaints about religious persecution. I like that. No wonder DeWine is hated by the Republican base.

• Roberts endorsing Griswald--good. However, Fred Thompson seems to clearly indicate that Roberts has not endorsed a general right to privacy, and instead only a specifically enumerated one:
  On CNN, Fred Thompson discussed Judge Roberts' testimony regarding the right to privacy just opened the door wide. He said that even though Roberts recognized a right to privacy, he was not committing to what the privacy right entails. Well, Mr. Thompson, if that is the case, then we must explore in great detail then what exactly are the specific rights Judge Roberts recognizes within the privacy/liberty interest.
  Agreed.

• Kohl asks about Katrina, which must be a way of eventually hitting at a Constitution in Exile question via the Commerce Clause and the ability of the federal government to engage in broad social investment. From National Journal:
  Kohl asked Roberts what he would do to "right the wrongs" as revealed by Katrina.

  Roberts: "...equal justice under law. The most important thing the judicial branch can do is to uphold the rule of law. That's the key to making [rights] meaningful."

  As with Leahy's earlier innuendos on this subject, Dems are gonna have to be more direct to get an answer, or at least a hint, out of Roberts on this one.

• Kohl brings up the umpire analogy again. We don't just need more women on this panel, we also need less men.

• Right-wing code watch (emphasis mine):
  GRASSLEY: Well, is there any room in constitutional interpretation for the judge's own values or beliefs?

  ROBERTS: No, I don't think there is. Sometimes it's hard to give meaning to a constitutional term in a particular case. But you don't look to your own values and beliefs. You look outside yourself to other sources.

  From what I understand, this is right-wing theocon code for deferring to God and hte Bible. Correct me if I am wrong and it is more mainstream.
  "But you don't look to your own values and beliefs. You look outside yourself to other sources."
• You need to look no further than this passage from subscription only Hotline to learn why we are having such a difficult time with Roberts:
  A grand total of 21 people marched in protest of the Roberts nomination, chanting, among other things: "Two-four-six-eight, separation of church and state!" Police who were stationed "for crowd control, had no crowd to control." Sen Edward Kennedy (D-MA) shook the hand of Roberts's wife, Jane Roberts and said, "Congratulations." Both Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) and ranking Dem Patrick Leahy (D-VT) acknowledged they were acting out a bit of political theater, with Leahy noting during a picture with Roberts: "That is as staged a photo as you'll ever see" (Milbank, Washington Post, 9/12)."
  We are facing the twin problems of Roberts being one of the Beltway Kool Kidz for a long time now, and general apathy on the part of the left. The media and the chattering classes are not going to challenge him that seriously because, well, Roberts is one of them. The left does not appear very organized, and certainly does not appear energized. Obviously, there are other immediate concerns right now, but Roberts will be a concern for twenty-five or more years if he is confirmed.

  Even if he is confirmed, and later on ends up being the main cause for overturning important individual and civil rights, or for dismantling the ability of Congress to regulate the economy or create broad social investment, it is necessary that as many Democrats as possible vote against him. We can't end up being complicit with conservative debacles anymore, like we were when, combined, nearly half of all Senate and House Democrats voted for Bush's war. That vote has hamstrung us for three years now, and uniting the party to form an actual alternative to the wrath conservatives have wrought on America is one of the most important things in these hearings.

• Kyl has just put the word "progress," as it relates to civil rights, into scare quotes three times in the last two minutes.

• When Roberts made his statements about privacy earlier today, he notably left out the ninth amendment. As Lorraine Berry notes over at culture kitchen, it was actually the ninth amendment that was cited in the original right to privacy case, Griswold v. Connecticut. It was also the ninth amendment that " Robert Bork famously likened it to an inkblot, saying judges were not permitted to make up what was under the inkblot." Roberts needs to be pushed harder for a discussion of the ninth amendment, especially as to how it relates to privacy, and even to Griswold.