Ho-hum at Roberts hearing
A lone demonstrator with a "Confirm Roberts" sign stood on Constitution Avenue in Washington early this morning, two blocks from where chief justice nominee John G. Roberts, 50, would shortly begin his second day of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Inside the Hart Senate Office Building, no one had to wait in line for a peanut gallery seat in the cavernous room where Roberts's confirmation hearings are being held.
And when committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, opened the day's session by welcoming Roberts, 13 of the committee's big leather chairs were empty–only five of the 10 Republicans were on time, and none of the eight Democrats had yet wandered in. (Ranking minority member Sen. Patrick Leahy had a doctor's appointment, Specter announced.)
So much for the drama of the first U.S. Supreme Court nomination in 11 years and the history-making questioning of the man who is expected to become the first new chief justice in 19 years–and, who, with a lifetime appointment, could serve in what Sen. Charles Grassley called "the marble palace" for decades to come.
The suspense and agitation that have surrounded previous Supreme Court confirmation hearings–from Judge Robert Bork's failed nomination to Justice Clarence Thomas's rocky and divisive path to the bench–have been largely absent this week, deflated as much by Roberts's spotless professional resume and polish at the witness table as by a nation transfixed by the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. By afternoon, even Specter noted to reporters that the intensity of questioning seemed to lag. He wants to wrap up the hearings and witness panels this week and is aiming for a committee vote on Roberts as early as next Tuesday.
But Democrats Leahy and Sen. Edward Kennedy, both of whom questioned the nominee for the second time this morning, said they want a third shot at Roberts. This is a nominee, Kennedy said, who earlier in his career as a government lawyer raised questions about affirmative action and advocated that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission be abolished.
"How does he view these issues today?" Kennedy said as the committee broke for lunch.
Though most of the public may not be paying close attention – save for activists and C-SPAN junkies – the hearings today continued to probe Roberts's views and judicial philosophy on society's burning issues, from abortion and the right to die to the relationship between Congress and the courts, to civil rights, government secrecy, and the protection of individual rights in a time of terrorism.
Kennedy pressed Roberts to acknowledge that he sees no basis for viewing the current voting rights law as "constitutionally suspect," as he once described it, and the liveliest exchange today–as yesterday–was between the nominee and Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who has visions of a 2008 presidential run. Biden pushed Roberts to answer as "a father" whether he agreed that state legislatures should have the right to impose their collective will on families making end-of-life decisions.
Roberts demurred, saying the issue will likely come before the court.
Biden continued to push, characterizing the back and forth as a "kabuki dance."
"You've told me nothing, Judge," said Biden, who said that without more specific answers from the nominee, "we are rolling the dice (with) you." There was one life-and-death question Roberts did answer, however. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a medical doctor who opposes abortion, noted that in all 50 states the end of life is defined by cessation of a heartbeat and brainwave.
Addressing Roberts, Coburn said: "Would you agree that the opposite of being alive is being dead?"
The nominee paused, and rather tentatively answered, "Yes–and I don't mean to be overly cautious." He smiled, and the gallery laughed.
advertisement
