Welcome to day 4 of the John Roberts confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee as he hopes to be voted in as the next Chief Justice (big cheese, head honcho, numero uno) of the Supreme Court of the United States. Has this been a long week or is it just me?
Mr “Jell-O”* Roberts stated earlier this week that he did not have an “overarching judicial philosophy”. Not true. Here it is:
- respect precedents (stare decisis) except in “extraordinary circumstances” which he refused to define.
- follow the “rule of law” and let the Constitution be your guide. Well, that’s fine and dandy but judges do those things every day and their opinions are as varied as there are judges. So much for that little piece of insight.
- aspire to humility and modesty. That sounds good but, frankly, a “modest judge” sounds like an oxymoron to me and it did to Senator Schumer as well – who questioned Roberts on that point in a very interesting exchange (catch it at the end of Wednesday’s hearings in the C-SPAN archive)
That’s basically it for his philosophy. Mr Jell-O, indeed.
more…
9 am ET: Kennedy will be up for a third round of Q & A as will Feinstein and Schumer (who both began their third round Wednesday evening)
after that: the hearing will be closed so Roberts’ FBI file can be discussed
later that same day: witnesses from several Democratic and Republican interest groups will give testimony
Thursday, Sept 22: Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the confirmation
I have to say that the Democratic senators on the panel have done a good job in their questioning of Mr Jell-O…er Judge Roberts. Biden has been very Bidenesque – injecting the personal into the legal with his usual biting and sarcastic tone that’s gotten him into trouble with the chair, Senator Specter. Feinstein has focused on the importance of woman’s issues and civil rights, although she’s been frustrated by the non-responses. Schumer is one bright bulb. His questioning of Roberts, admittedly, has focused on trying to pry out of Roberts anything personal he can make a judgment about, but that’s been like pulling teeth and Schumer isn’t a dentist with a cooperative patient. Feingold’s questions have been forceful and intelligent. That’s about all I can remember right now. Kennedy, who will probably, maybe, definitely not vote to confirm, has shown that Kennedy wisdom and skill.
I think we can walk away from this week with the knowledge that the Democratic senators did the best they could. Roberts is one tough nut to crack. Biden noted that Roberts is probably the best witness to come before their committee since he’s been around because Roberts has been unflappable.
I have to say that this one has been tough to live blog, considering all of the Latin flying around and the plethora of cases cited. But, it has definitely been a learning experience as far as those cases and that Latin has been concerned. I’ve also learned about 25 different ways to answer different questions the same way ie. “I can’t comment on that because the issue may come before me”. He’s good at that. At least we know that.
What we don’t know is what kind of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court he’ll be – which was supposed to be the whole point of this exercise – a point that several Democratic senators openly expressed frustration about, reflecting their constituents and supporters views. There is no doubt about that.
So, following more questions and testimony this Thursday, the committee will vote next Thursday to send the nomination to the Senate and the Senate will vote to confirm him. The only question left is how many Democrats or Independents will vote against him. The Republicans will vote uniformly or they’ll have Bush’s wrath following them the rest of their lives. Life will go on and we can only wait to see how Roberts will perform. Hopefully, he won’t turn out to be a closet neocon out to destroy America and walk on everyone’s rights – like Bush.
____
* I call him Mr Jell-O because, as I stated in my previous diary, getting answers out of Roberts is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
Please don’t post any pics. Thanks!
You can find my previous diaries on the hearings here.
_______________
Update [2005-9-15 11:51:9 by catnip]: Here is Thursday’s witness list.
Before all the action starts (and I’m back at work), I just wanted to thank you again for doing these.
The Bolton live blogs you did felt more “fun” because there was more give-and-take and commiserating going on between everyone watching it live. I wish I had access to a machine/feed to watch along with you and comment. I really hope everyone who can, does!
Thanks again, catnip!
It’s been lonely. š
And, you’re welcome!
I managed to get up on time.
CNN reports that Harry Reid will meet with some liberal interest groups later to decide how to handle this nomination.
The schedule has changed just a bit. Leahy’s up first and apparently there are now 6 Dems who will participate in this third round of questioning ehich is projected to end at 11:30 am ET.
Leahy has been asking Roberts about prior cases that he has either been involved in or wrote memos about involving suing for damages – cases and memos in which it appears that Roberts was opposed to such damages. Roberts stated that congress ought to have addressed this question – that individuals have the right to sue for damages. He said there are instances where congress has made that clear, but there are others where it’s not.
Leahy is now asking about Gideon v Wainwright ie. the right to counsel in criminal cases if you can’t afford one.
(Leahy’s questions this morning seem to center on civil rights issues).
L.: asking about war powers…Grenada memo…do you cointinue to beleive that thepresident ahs the right to invade a foreign question without first being attacked?
R.: that’s a very abstract question (that shouldn’t be answered)…cites previous wars – Korea, Vietnam…
L.: can congress stop a war?
R.: difficult question…congress has the power of the purse..the question of terminating hostilities…is unsettled and have to be addressed concerning the paryticular circumstances…wrote the Grenada memo as a staffer…
L.: you wrote that there wasn’t much of a line between the president’s power and congress’s re war
R.: looking at the Korean war and the Vietnam war, the line was (muddy)
L.: FISA court (foreign intelligence court)…if you are confirmed you will be the overseer of that court…would you be willing to work with congress for more transparency
R.: you said most Americans aren’t aware of it – most judges aren’t aware of it…I was asked about appointing judges and I said they would have to be of the ighest quality….beyond that I don’t know enough about the operations of that court and how it functions to tell you what I would do…but I would be sensitive to the concerns
L.: asks him to keep an open mind on it
R. certainly sir
L.: tells him he hopes he’ll keep an open mind on it
Begins by asking about whether the national gov’t ahs the power to legislate against racial discrimnation. Roberts agrees. Asks thesame Q about gender and disability rights. Roberts answers yes. Re disability rights…Roberts said there are cases that question whetehr the state has the authority (state Sovereign immunity) over those issues.
K. Lane case…a woman who was involved in that case will be a witness in the hearings later today…the question was about whether a wheelchair-bound woman ought to have to crawl up the stairs of the courthouse…the case was a 5-4 decision..
R.: It’s the precedent of that court…)discussing state’s rights v the rights of congress to egislate)
K.: do you think having a diverse (?)…society?
R.: I do
K.: looking at the pattern over 20 years in which you were involved in affirmative action cases in which you expressed serious reservations…in 1981 you refused to take the side of the FCC – unusual case…we don’t have your records on affirmative action …at some time they were misplaced so we don’t have them..we don’t have the information from the attorney general’s office…FCC case re minority programming…FCC asked if you would act on behalf of the FCC…you would not..there have been cases since then that have altered the standards…in (?) you had a private case re Dept of Transportation (missed the details)…what in your record would give some sense of hope to women, minorities etc that are just looking for a chance for equal opportunity?
R.: I’ve argued on both sides of that issue…example: Rice case in which he was on the side of affirmative action in Hawaii…mentions some program he was involved in re minorities in the legal system…FCC – Metro Broadcasting System…the gov’t had already taken a position in which they were opposed to it..I authorized the FCC to defend its position in court..I didn’t have to do that…I thought the court should have both views…it was decided for the FCC 5-4 and was later overturned…
K.: as you know, the Hawaiin case was not an affirmative action case (it states that in the case itself)…on the EEOC – Employment Oportunities Commission(set up in 1964) , you mentioned in your memo “we should ignore teh assertion that the EOC is unAmerican, the truth of the matter notwithstanding…
R.: that was not my language…that was language employed by an individual invilved in a case who said it was unamerican…I had to figure out how to respond to that…by protecting the EEOC from (presidential interference)…I was unable to deternmine whether the president had decided to abolish the EEOC…
K.: submits the memo for the record
K.: mentions Justice Warren – the bringing togethr of a mind and a heart…OLiver Wendell Holmes said (judging shouldn’t be like mathematics)…another quote by someone re heart and head…bascially asks if he might be a similar type of justice to Chief Warren…
R.: refers to Warren wanting a unanimous court rather than a split court through collegial discussion and teh appreciation of the court’s decisions on real lives..repeats what he answered yesterday about going out to a native village and assembly line for research on prior cases…
Kennedy’s time is up but Leahy is allowing Roberts to look at his memo re the EEOC to clarify Kennedy;s questions. Roberts repeats that he wasn’t sure whether Reagan wanted to abolish the EEOC at the time he wrote that memo. Roberts says the phrase unAmerican was in quotes because the plaintiff in the case had used it. Kennedy disagrees, citing the last part of the memo – “the truth notwithstanding”.
Begins by stating that she had one opinion on Roberts when she met him privately but hasn’t decided how she is going to vote yet because of his performance in th eharsings.
F.: asks about Twyler (?)rights of illegal immigrant children to attend school…
R.: (finblly answers something from a personal view!) says he believes those children should have that right and goes on to explain that the case dissenters applied the law…not their personal opinions..
F.: is talking about a mayor she knows who’s built his city around the needs of illegal immigrants…in 1986 an amnesty was passed..Twyler was in 1982..would have caused some major problems…(someone) analyzed Roberts cases and determined he came down on the side of corporations
R.: I think the conclusion was wrong…9 cases is too small a sample…I’ve ruled against corporations as a judge on the DC Circuit…
F.: a number of people on our side are very concerned about executve power…greatly exceeded executive authorty in recent years…one document withheld related to NNHQ – (setting up the Nicaraguan assistance project)
R.: I don’t know why the memo was withheld…
F.: do you believe the admin’s funding of the Contras exceeded executive powers?
R.: from what I’ve read in the (news)papers, it did
F.: Regan admitted worngdoing…what you;re saying is that the provision of funds exceeded executive power?
R.: what I know (comes from the media)
F.: if an executive exercises power in opposition to a decision of congress, is that unsconstitutional?
R.: mentions 3 points that are used to determine those issues…cites pardon power…can’t answer a question in the abstarct…cites Youngstown case…if a president is acting against what the congress wants, that lessens his power
F.: Kennedy questioned you about civil rights issues..a a bit of the man came through…in the Gonzago case, you argued that (the power of the purese) is not the supreme law of the land (?)
R.: (complex answer)
F.: do you believe that spending issues made by congress are enforcable by law?
R.: depends on the case…
F.: IANAL…when is it a contract and when is it a law? Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc.
R.: it’s always a contract and in cases where congress says there is a right to sue, it is more than a contract
(more back and forth)
(I need mroe tea)
F.: asking about judicial conferneces and junkets sponsored by corporations…will you put in place new codes of conduct that will prohibit special interest from lobbying federal judges?
R.: I don;t think special interest should be allowed to lobby federal judges..I’ve never been on one of those junkets so I don;t know how they work..I;m willing to llok at this issue…I think it;s imprtant for judges to get out – to visit schools, talking to students etc…not ion junkets but to get out to bvisit law schools
R.: I think you’d agree that there’s nothing wrong with senators golfing
R.: may not be good for the game of golf (laughter)
F.: question re honorariums for speeches
R.: not a question I’ve addresses
F.: places item in record re memo in which Reagan said HIV was not spread by casual contact (a line which was deleted from the memo at the time citing insufficient evidence)…re death penalty cases…in a 1981 you argued in a memo to abolish habeus corpus in those cases…cites another memo…(Feingold speaks very quickly and I’m having a hard time keeping up with his quotes from the Roberts memos – basically, he’s quoting things re habeus corpus that appear to be Roberts’ personal views about the issue which F. characterizes as “hostile”)…
R.: the law has changed…in the 1980s there were no limits of habeas corpus issues…congress and the Supreme court limted the repetitive petitions of habeas corpus cases…(more, but that’s all I’m transcribing) š
F.: wouldn’t you agree that what was advocated in your memos was that had your view prevailed, innocent people would have been executed?
R.: they certainly wouldn’t have been able to assert their writ…the law has changed and congress made reforms
F.: I think it’s of great significance that you have (changed your view)… asks about the role of the chief justice to affect judicial philosophy by the assignment of opinions etc
R.: not by the assignment of opinions but overall – basically
F.: question about assigning (?)…missed that
F.: question about lawyers who represent clients seeking damages from corporations…basically – do you believe those lawyers are harming America?
R.: no
F.: Toyota v Williams – carpal tunnel syndrome case…you argued for Toyota..do you agree with the statement by one of the justices that the ADA covers people who are “wheelchair bound”?
R.: case might come before me…maybe the justice was playing devil’s advocate…
F.: do you believe that ADA or any other civil rights act should be interpreted narrowly or broadly?
R.: depends on the intent of congress
asks about Roberts views re the illegal immigrant chldren’s right to edcuation case…wants to know basically if his personal views will affect how he judges that type of case (state’s rights)…Roberts says no…
S.: asks whether he could assent to the release of some documents…
R.: says he can’t authorize that – it’s up to the client (ie. the gov’t)
S.: if you could ask yourself a question to determine whether or not you were an idealogue, what would you as?
R.: I would ask a lot of the questions that have been asked..most important question is about the role of a judge in our system..how do you approach particular cases…bladf blah blah
S.: any questions you would ask that haven’t been?
R.: basically no
S.: re commerce clause…apart from anybody’s view, do you believe that the congress has the authority to decide on questions that are purely local if they affect interstate commerce?
R.: if teh activities are commercial…
S.: do you believe congress deserves a great deal of deference when it decides something is commercial?
R.: I do…but Lopez and Morrison must be considered (as precednts)
S.: cloning…can congress pass a law that would ban non-commercial cloning?
R.: congress could consider that this is a matter that may have interstate impact
S.: (comments on what will affect how he votes)
on the pro side – brilliance, knowledge of law, may very well possess the most powerful intellect of anyone that has come before the committee…belief in the rule of law…judicial philosophy of modesty, but what you said about Brown v Board – that it was “modest”, I askled myself if overturning Wicker(?), Roe would be considered as modest…on the con side – compassion? it didn;t seem much for example to admit that thephrase that “illegal amigos” was insensitive…refusal of admin to let us see the memos you wrote as counsel to the attorney general which would have given us tremendous insight…most important on the con side is your refusal to answer many of our questions… most previous candidates answered more questions that you did…
(Note: I think these comments are very important and anyone interested in this confirmation should check out the video or transcript of Schumer’s views becasue I haven’t been able to transcribe them accurately)
Leahy thinks Roberts should be allowed to respond (Schumer’s time is up). Feinstein agrees.
Anybody hear me yelp when, as I was making coffee, he said he hoped his record as a judge for the past two years indicate the kind of judge he’ll be? (Narrowly missed burning self.)
Take that to heart, Jose Padilla.
comments about the huge number of documents that have been made available…
What kind of a justice wold I be? That’s the judgment you have to make…you need to look at what kind of a justice I have been…there are 50 opinions..I think if you read them that should convince you that I am not an idealogue…look at my briefs and my arguments before the Supreme Court and I hope you will see someone who respects the law and the process..
takes 3 minutes to stick up for the non-release of some of the documents since he was acting as a lawyer for the Reagan administration ergo, they were confidential and subject to attorney-client privilege…
Roberts agrees.
catnip is making tea and wondering if anyone is out there?
Yo Catnip. š
I was afk so I’ll summarize here a bit…Cornyn mentioned the memos that were stolen from their committee last year as an example of the privilge enjoyed by lawyers and those in gov’t…Durbin began by saying that the case of those memos, stolen by a Republican staffer (ahem) should have the same consideration as that accorded to that “poor woman” Paris Hilton, whose phone records hasd been stolen (laughter in crowd)…
He then revisited the memo which had quoted the pharse “UnAmerican’ and tried to clarify the last statement as Kennedy had…once again Roberts distanced himself from that statement as not being his personal opinion…
Durbin also revisited the case in Ill where Robertsdefended the HMO – a case which, if had been decided for the HMO would have impacted millions adversely…
He then went on to challenge waht Roberts had said yesterday about just taking the cases that came to him – regardless of what his personal beliefs might be…Roberts gave a long answer basically saying that he would stand for whoever hit his office first…this answer is questionable to Durbin because he is concerned about the freedom of Americans…Roberts restates his reliance on the const. to determine cases regardless of whether the big guy or little guy would win…Durbin asks if he would conceed that in the system the race goes to the swift ie. the powerful…Roberts says “absolutely”…believes in eqal justice under the law..don’t give the case to the side with the best resources, the best lawyers…the case goes to the side that is on that of the law…
Specter announces the closed session but Graham interjects and says he’s trying to compile a list of answers where Roberts said he could not comment…sticks up for Roberts…pontificates about judging people on matters of the heart…blah blah blah…
Does he secretly wear women’s clothes?
Is he a member of Al Quaeda?
Does he have an illegal nanny?
Is he having a gay affair?
Does he drive the wrong way on one way streets?
Does he wear jammies or does he let his johnson flap in the wind?
Has he ever spent the night with Michael Jackson?
Does he have a secret addiction to Fruit Loops?
How bad is his driver’s license picture?
Does he have road rage?
How about grocery shopping rage?
Does he secretly call 1-900 numbers? If so, which ones?
Does he read Democratic blogs?
Has he ever been a communist?
Is there anything on this guy??
really appreciate your hardwork and efforts in keeping us informed about Jello boy.
jello boy lol
for giving me a blow-by. When you need reassurance that someone is paying attention, think of me running back and forth between algebra questions.
Let your Senator know how you feel. You can call the Capitol Operator at 202-224-3121 and ask for each Senator by name. You will be connected with their office.
The Honorable Dick Thornburgh
Former Attorney General of the United States
Former Governor of Pennsylvania
Counsel
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham
Washington, DC
speaking about the French Fry case (WaPo article) and why he supported Roberts’ opinion…
I don’t know how long the break is, but after they return, there will be another break at 2 pm ET for lunch.
The Honorable John Lewis
United States House of Representatives [D-GA-5th District]
speaking about his history in the civil rights movement…notes that Roberts was only 10 in 1965…I feel that if Judge Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court, the people will (no longer have justice)…his memos are hostile to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Act…there is no doubt in my mind that if Roberts interpetation of the VRA had prevailed there would be fewer (black politicians)…
(I can’t do justice to this speech – please watch the video or read the transcript)
Jennifer Cabranes Braceras, Esq.
Commissioner
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
and Visiting Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum
Boston, MA
supports Roberts’ nomination…doesn’t know him personally and is “generally familiar” with his record (that speaks volumes, doesn’t it??)… accuses those opposed to his civil rights record as delivering “vicious attacks”…
(I need a pee break – she’s mean.)
Wade Henderson
Executive Director
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Washington, DC
The Leadership Conference is the main civil rights organization…represents women, children, gays & lesbians, the disabled etc…after our review, the Conference is conmpelled to oppose the nomination…we have heard nothing about a committment to continue to protect civil rights…(he thinks thing would go backwards)…citing history of civil rights – civil war, 13th amendment, outlawing segregation etc…in recent years we’ve seen the rise of a political movement that is an eerie parallel to the post-construction era(?)…if his views had prevailed, our VRA would never have (progressed)…cites Roberts opinion in the women in prison case…he has a pre-Brown vision…he’s gifted and intelligent but that’s not the test..the real test ifs whether he’s committed to the fundamental positions of the founders…America can and should do better
Peter Kirsanow, Esq.
Partner
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplay & Aronoff
and Commissioner
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Cleveland, OH
supports the nomination…believes his voews are mainstream…judicial restraint, modest disciplined, legally sound etc…record has been sorely mischaracterized…re VRA some say Roberts adopted an anti-civil rights stance, but the record showed that he supported the VRA as it was in the 80s…continued to advocate on behalf of his clients for Section 2… on afformative action, his criticism was correct…properly advised against unlawful racial quotas…contention that his positions were extreme or not mainstream..if they were, the courts would have rejected them…record doesn’t show that..courts agreed with his positions 71% of the time…Rehnquist agreed with him 75% of the time…(more stats on judges who agreed with him)…has a committment to equal protection
(more panels coming up)
The Honorable Nathaniel Jones
Retired Judge
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit
Of Counsel
Blank Rome LLP
Cincinnati, OH
prompted by my conscience…join with my colleague John Lewis whose life is a demonstration of courage…confronted with a serious moral and (?) responsibility…so much of Roberts’ history is against (the promotion of civil rights)…list various past judges who he says believed in (civil rights)…attacked racial segregation etc…my prfo and personal experiences qualify me to (invoke the voices of those judges)…Roberts (record raises concerns)…the next Chief Justice needs to understand that history…those (judges) are calling out to you to respect their voices…the nominees views and his activist (?) re segregation (?)…(he’s speaking quickly)…citing Dred Scott as an example of a hignly qualified judge who (made a bad judgment)…cites the judge in Plessy v Brown who similarly was qualified but failed as well…Lincoln stated in his 1852 that “felllow citizens, we cannot escape history”…MLK quote: “cowardice asks the question – is it safe?” etc…
Specter sticks up for Roberts…
L.: Lewis believes Roberts is on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the VRA…
I was young too at one time 24-25 but I tried to do the right thing..thinks Roberts failed to go with his gut…you don’t come back years later and say you were wrong..you ahve to fight…
Specter to Thornburgh: what’s your insight?
T.: I have never seen any evidence of any hostility on the issue of civil rights on the part of Roberts…Ginsberg was right to sepearte the views that might come up on behalf of a client and cases which might come before him…doesn’t think many people’s views held at 24-25 would hold up to scrutiny today (except perhaps Lewis)…
(lame excuse)
Leahy steps in to speak about how Ginsberg answered questions – that she answered on several issues…lists them…praises Lewis for his civil rights work…
Brownback butts in: yaps on about how people can see Roberts heart by looking at the cases he was involved in…mentions rule of law…if he’s dedicated to the rule of law, shouldn;t that give some solace that he could be quite a good judge for civil rights cases? (Q to Nathaniel Jones)
J.: we’ve looked at the record which shows an early disposition to take positions against civil rights issues..the burden is to show that those views have been overcome…(gives a bit of his history in the civil rights arena)…we thought several civil rights issues and affirmation action cases were settled..there was a wave of attacks against school segregation and affirmative action..and I’ve now learned in the boiler room of the Reagan admin stoking out a lot of these issues was the nominee. .wonders why (cites cases) were not seen as settled law…
Brownback butts in to defend Roberts and Specter cuts him off…
Kennedy next..
Catnip, Thank you thank you thank you for your work on the Roberts hearings. I’m so busy at work I can’t watch or even read your live blogging til evening, and I don’t have time to watch the recorded webcasts. I can’t even read this diary right now but wanted to tell you that your transcribing and comments are the next best thing to watching. You are a hero!
I hope you’ll get the chance to watch some of the highlights that I’ve pointed to.
states that he doesn’t see that any senator has said Roberts has been “hostile”…asks Wade Henderson – what about these answers Roberts has given where he’s stated he was just doing his job?
H.: (speaking quickly) basically saying that judges involved in civil rights issues need to do more than just follow the rule of law…
K.: asks John Lewis re the effects test and the intent test…(my back hurts – I’m fading)…
L.: directed teh Voter Reg Project in teh soth trying to get rid of the sense of fear…if we had relied on the intent test, I wouldn’t even be here…I don’t buy this argument that he was just doing his job – that he was just following the rules…I think someone should have a mindset…he didn’t stand up (against some of these things)
D.:reflects on Roberts testimony re civil rights…wants to know what Roberts’ positions are now as oposed to what they were 20 years ago..notes that he has stated some differences of opinion (Bob Jones Univ.)… asks Lewis if people can change (redemption)
L.: yes, but they need to show it…concerned about his mindset
D.: the issue of race is the threshhold issue…
Witness Kirsanow butts in to defend Roberts on the effects test…
Sessions butts in…blah blah blah…thinks it’s unfair to suggest that Roberts has a record that was wrong at civil rights at that time…yes he was opposed to quotas…yes he was opposed to extending the VRA but…
just in time for my soap š
Is there anyone out there who would like to take over the transcribing for a while?
PANEL III
Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq.
Partner
Latham & Watkins
Washington, DC
Carol M. Browner
Former Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Principal
The Albright Group
Washington, DC
Kathryn Webb Bradley, Esq.
Senior Lecturing Fellow
Duke Law School
Durham, NC
Anne Marie Tallman
President and General Counsel
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Los Angeles, CA
The Honorable Denise Posse-Blanco Lindberg
Judge
Third Judicial District Court
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
Reginald M. Turner, Jr.
President
National Bar Association
Detroit, MI
Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq.
Partner
Latham & Watkins
Washington, DC
(I need to step out for a few minutes – brb)
I’ve asked for feedback about live blogging in this diary.
Now up on C-SPAN’s site.
I’m just plain tired. Please catch the remaining witness testimony via video on C-SPAN’s site later. Thanks!
Hatch, Sessions and Coburn acted like right-wing assholes at the end of the last panel of witnesses in their “questioning” (they were actually just pompous statements).