You are missing one of the great civic and history lessons of our time. Watch the replay if possible tonight.
I wish. No cable. I have printed the transcripts that Oxen so kindly linked to. That'll have to do. *whimper*
Do I ever agree with you. I got my law degree from Columbia in the 1980s and practiced corporate law in NYC for nearly a decade. Never in my life have I heard a lawyer who was as gifted as Judge Roberts. He's lightning-fast on his feet, his ideas come out in full paragraphs and sentences with subordinate clauses, and on more than one occasion I heard him give an extemporaneous answer that led with a tease of something that he intended to go back to. For example, he tossed off Madison's famous statement that the province of the court is "to say what the law is." This phrase is readily identifiable to any lawyer, but Judge Roberts seamlessly wove it into a sentence, and then in the next paragraph started talking about things that were happening at about the time when Madison made that statement.
It is obvious that Judge Roberts knows literally thousands of cases. Moreover, he knows them not only by holding (what they stood for), but by what was contained in the briefs, what the factual history was, what statutes were implicated and what their legislative history was, which judges or justices dissented and why they dissented, and what the legislative consequences were of those decisions. The questions -- many of them very interesting -- have touched on the history of constitutional law, as well as most of the important areas of constitutional law today and in the past. Yet Judge Roberts gives very clear answers and explanations and makes the whole thing look entirely effortless.
These hearings have made the case for strict constructionism like it never has been made before. I believe that Schumer was correct when he said that possibly in the history of the republic there has never been a more impressive presentation than the one given by Judge Roberts.
By making the nation understand why he cannot comment on cases that may come before the court, and by demonstrating again and again that his interest is in judicial process and not in advocating political ideas, Judge Roberts has set the stage for subsequent nominees to do the same. He has destroyed the perceived validity of judicial activism for at least the remainder of the Bush administration.
Then, too, he has mastered the 100,000 documents that were provided to Congress.
I want to get a videotape of these hearings. They were exhilarating, and showed the best of constitutional law and they demonstrate what every lawyer should aspire to become.
Oh, yeah. He did it without aides or notes. If you notice, there is a second chair at the witness table, and in front of the chair is a note pad with a pen. The chair has remained empty throughout. The pad never has been touched. Every single word has been extemporaneous.