For those of you curious about what went down at yesterday's confirmation hearings for Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the answer is simple: not a heck of a lot. As one might have expected from a session of posturing senators reading prepared statements, the first day of hearings was pretty uneventful. Some accounts of the proceedings are available from SCOTUSblog (here and here), the Washington Post (here, here and here), and the New York Times (here and here).
Based on Nancy Benac's amusing AP article (via How Appealing), "Roberts' Kids Steal Show As Hearings Open," it seems that the continuing antics of Josie and Jack Roberts were the most interesting thing about the afternoon. According to Benac, "Senators couldn't get enough of the two towheads, stooping to shake their hands, making game attempts at kid-friendly small talk, and posing for photos." A3G isn't surprised, having predicted as much: "If Judge Roberts wins confirmation to the Court, it will be due not to his stellar credentials or his reasonable jurisprudence, but his absolutely adorable son."
The hearing itself consisted largely of senators rambling on and on for several hours. It was actually pretty painful to watch, and A3G must confess that she couldn't make it all the way through. Some of the senators -- e.g., Senator Joe Biden, who stumbled repeatedly while reading from his script -- could benefit from watching a few episodes of Reading Rainbow.
After the senators were finished trying to make themselves look good (with varying degrees of success), Judge Roberts gave a brief, seven-minute statement. He didn't say much of substance in his remarks, in which he denied having any "agenda" and pledged to decide cases "based on the record, according to the rule of the law, without fear or favor, to best of my ability." Here are the parts that A3G found most interesting:
Last week one of [my] mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year, and I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient. He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose. His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and, I know, to many others. I will miss him....
These remarks reminded A3G that John Roberts and William Rehnquist will never get to serve together on the Court -- a prospect that both of them were surely looking forward to, before the Chief's untimely passing. Judge Roberts continued:
My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
Humility in discharging one's judicial duties is all well and good. But A3G must dissent in part from Judge Roberts's statement, to the extent that he implies that federal judges are not celebrities. Nothing could be more antithetical to the mission of this blog than to deny the fabulous starpower of Article III jurists. And contrary to Judge Roberts's suggestion, in comparing judges to umpires, some people do go to court to check out the judicial hotties! (Okay, at least A3G does...)
As one of the Supreme Court's finest oral advocates, Judge Roberts probably found delivering his brief statement -- which he did without notes, natch -- to be a piece of cake. It must have been far more difficult for him to sit through hours and hours of senatorial silliness, enduring lectures on the law and the Constitution from a bunch of people who know just a fraction of what he does about these subjects. (The bored A3G distracted herself with the eye candy of cute young Senate staffers sitting behind the different senators, but Judge Roberts, with cameras trained on him, couldn't avail himself of such ogling opportunities.)
Now, some UTR readers felt that Judge Roberts's performance yesterday left something to be desired. One wrote: "Could you possibly still love John Roberts after all the mugging and simpering he was doing for the cameras? Also, you had to have noticed the pate tectonics -- the bald spot is spreading rapidly. He is not going to be any silver fox!"
A3G agrees in part with this assessment; there were some imperfections in how Judge Roberts carried himself yesterday. She didn't like how broadly Judge Roberts grinned when Senator Jon Kyl praised the Robertsian resume; it looked "gloaty." And A3G started laughing uncontrollably when the camera cut to Judge Roberts during one of the Democratic senators' speeches. His tightly pressed lips, oddly shifting head, and look of studied thoughtfulness struck her as hilariously patronizing -- sort of like how A3G must look when her hairstylist opines at length on legal issues.
But then A3G reminded herself that it could not have been easy for Judge Roberts, a legal genius, to endure all of that lecturing on legal issues from people who -- while certainly smart (at least some of them) -- are mere morons compared to members of the Elect like himself. To his credit, Judge Roberts listened patiently to the senators, and he tried gamely to look respectful and attentive. He gets an "A" for effort.
So, although he wasn't perfect (for once in his life), Judge Roberts carried himself well enough given the circumstances. In fact, given how boring and repetitive the senators' presentations were, Judge Roberts deserves to be on the Supreme Court just for sitting through all that!
Finally, a few words on what matters most: fashion. In contrast to his carefully composed remarks, Judge Roberts's outfit was not well thought-out. His red necktie was simply too bright against his very dark suit and very white shirt. The overall effect was clashing, disconcerting, even distracting.
Jane Sullivan Roberts, however, was looking much better than she did on the day that her husband's SCOTUS nomination was first announced. This time around, instead of sporting a hot pink suit, she was wearing a well-tailored dark suit with nice contrast stitching. It was dignified, sober, and eminently appropriate for the occasion.
A3G does have one tiny quibble with Jane Roberts's appearance. The color of her lipstick had a bit too much orange in it; she should have gone with a slightly darker shade (although not all the way to wine-red, which looked good on Senator Dianne Feinstein, but probably wouldn't have worked as well for the very fair-skinned Mrs. Roberts). But this is, in the grand scheme of things, a very minor objection. On the whole, Mrs. Roberts was looking quite sharp yesteday.
And what about the Roberts children? As noted here, Josie Roberts was wearing "a baby blue party dress and white headband," while her brother Jack Roberts was dressed in "a blue blazer, bow tie and short gray flannel pants." A3G thought that the Roberts kids looked very nice -- regardless of what Robin Givhan might have to say!
Comments