The Feld-Blog

Senators and surprised and angered. The Roberts hearings have drummed up little to no new information about Robert’s judicial philosophy and has given only a very few hints as to how he might vote in upcoming and critical cases for the Supreme Court. But it’s their own fault. If senators cut out even half of their own bravado, they could get a whole lot more done. This is happening across the board, independent of party affiliation. Each Senator gets 10 minutes, time in which they could each learn a tremendous amount about Judge Roberts and his philosophies, instead however, they launch into their own diatribes on subjects ranging from Hurricane Katrina to partisan politics to the gradual decline of the English language -- none of which, I might point out, have anything to do with Judge Roberts qualifications to be Chief Justice to our nations highest court.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D - New York) droned on about the ‘awesome responsibility’ of sitting on the Supreme Court -- a redundancy of which I am confident no one in the room needed reminding. He followed this with a clarification of the definition of “awesome,” reminiscent of a stand-up comedy act by Eddie Izzard. If I wanted to hear about the abuses of the English language, how colloquial speech has demoted the word awesome from a biblical demarcation of majesty to a cheap expression whored out to the advertising community, I would watch some stand up. I expect more of the senators trusted with the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

On the Republican side, Senator Tom Coburn (R - Oklahoma) put on a nearly Oscar winning performance. Through his tears, he managed to sob out “My heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger pointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship which sounds almost hateful [to some people.]” Finishing his question-less soliloquy, he relaxed into his chair where C-Span cameras reveal him doing crossword puzzles for most of the remainder of the hearing -- not the gravity with which I would like him to treat his responsibility of advice and consent. He patriotically rails against partisan hatred, but is the same person who said “I favor the death penalty for abortionists” and "They gay community is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," two of the most unfoundedly, ridiculously hateful statements ever to leave a politicians lips.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought hearings were intended to act as vehicles for senators to get information, not platforms for them to go off on whatever topic they chose. If they want to do that, make a floor speech. I have been impressed by the little I have heard from Roberts, but I’d like the senators to do a little less talking and a little more asking.