Précis This!

Sotomayor Hearing: Laurels, Slag and — Batman? July 15, 2009

The Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is vastly more interesting than watching paint dry. Really.

You can catch the hearing live and uninterrupted on the Web here via The Washington Post, which has value-added and informed commentary and other valuable references, and at C-SPAN, among other places.

If you want something interesting for different reasons, you could turn to a blog devoted to the Supreme Court, in today’s case, SCOTUSblog. I tried it for a bit and found it mildly entertaining. Why try a blog for a live event?

Theory: I could rely on the blog to provide an accurate summary of the proceeding through its minute-by-minute, chat-style hearing updates, running silently in the background as I worked. I could check it every half hour and see what transpired, without monitoring an audio-video feed.

Reality: I suspect there is a parallel universe that bumps into mine from time to time. The blog notes were up to the minute but had an unexpected spin on the substance of the hearing.

For instance, from the hearing:

Senator Feinstein: I’m puzzled why Mr. Estrada keeps coming up. Mr. Estrada had no judicial experience. The nominee before us has considerable judicial experience. And Mr. Estrada wouldn’t answer questions presented to him.

This nominee, I think, has been very straightforward. She has not used catchy phrases. She has answered the questions directly the best she could. And to me, that gets points.

The SCOTUSblog version:

12:01 Dianne Feinstein is trying to figure out what [sic] Miguel Estrada “keeps coming up.” She likes SS much more than Miguel Estrada. For the record.

“She likes SS much more than Miguel Estrada”?

(For one record regarding the Estrada controversy, see this article regarding President Bush’s nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003.)

Feinstein then turned to the topic of abortion. From the hearing:

Feinstein: The Supreme Court has decided on more than seven occasions that the law cannot put a woman’s health at risk. It said it in Roe in ’73, in Danforth in ’76, in Planned Parenthood in ’83, in Thornburgh in ’86, in Casey in ’92, in Carhart in 2000, and in Ayotte in 2006.

With both Justices Roberts and Alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed, because in 2007, in Carhart II, the court essentially removed this basic constitutional right from women.

… When there are multiple precedents and a question arises, are all the previous decisions discarded? Or should the court reexamine all the cases on point?

SCOTUSblog [SB] translation:

12:05 [SB]DF – abortion.
12:05 [SB]: DF – 7 cases say that you can’t put a woman’s health at risk. But with JGR [Chief Justice John G. Roberts] and SA [Justice Samuel Alito], “this rule seems to have changed.”
12:06 [SB]DF – when there are multiple precedents, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should it reexamine them all?
12:06 [SB]: Bottom line: will you follow the older precedents I like, or the newer ones I don’t?

Clever punchlines like that are more fun than most headnotes.

There’s a lot to be said for following this confirmation hearing live if you can — and for checking out the The Washington Post’s blog coverage, which has been adding insight and useful information in real time, including responses to viewer questions, such as:

• Which Judiciary Committee members have which law degrees, which law schools, and the year(s) awarded.
• The background of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
• Reference analysis, such as Sotomayor’s split decisions.
• Does Sen. Leahy have an interest in photography? (He was shown photographing the hearing room from the dais. And the answer was: Yes, and he has appeared in a couple of Batman movies. (No joke. He’s in the Internet Movie Database).)

The hearing resumes hot and heavy today.