High-profile hearings on Capitol Hill, such as John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, become national spectacles. In turn, they offer opportunities to some political figures to stand out, be noticed, and be remembered.
During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Richard Ben-Veniste took on a noticeable role. During John Bolton’s hearings earlier this year, it was George Voinovich who stood out. Twelve years ago, Arlen Specter’s role in Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings was conspicuous, though not necessarily in a good way.
It’s too soon to say if anyone will be remembered specifically for their role in the Roberts hearings, but I’d like to nominate Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) for history’s consideration. After just two days of hearings before the spotlight, Sessions has made it clear to those who don’t know him that he’s in way over his head.
Ezra noted yesterday that Sessions “strikes me as an idiot. I don’t mean ideologically objectionable (though he is that), I mean dumb.” If anything, Ezra was understating the case. Take a moment to consider the questions Sessions asked Roberts, taken directly from the official transcript of yesterday’s proceedings:
* “So isn’t it true that, normally, a case would be initiated in a federal district court or state trial court, and a trial would be held — often with a jury — and a judgment is rendered?”
* “And if they appeal, the lawyers write sometimes beautiful, carefully written briefs that point out the reasons why they think an error may or may not have occurred. Isn’t that correct?”
* “And so the lawyers in the case and the clients and the parties want a judge who will carefully read those briefs and be fair and careful in analyzing whether or not they’ve got a fair trial to ensure justice took place.”
* “Isn’t it true that friends of the court can submit briefs?”
* “So the lawyers from both sides then appear before the court, over in the Supreme Court building, and they answer questions and make their presentations as to why they think the court should rule the way they would like it to?”
* “And I think there’s little doubt that you are the best practitioner of it in the country. But with regard to that you then finish, and do the judges then meet in conference to discuss the case?”
* “But, at some point, you agree to sign on an opinion one way or the other. Right?”
* “But wouldn’t you agree a judge should never make an opinion that is beyond what a fair interpretation of the Constitution would call for?”
These were real questions from a senator — who was a U.S. Attorney before entering politics — on the Senate Judiciary Committee to a Supreme Court nominee. It only sounded like a sixth-grade civics class trying to understand how the high court operates.
And it’s not as if these questions about procedure went anywhere. Sessions wasn’t leading up to a point; he was just killing time in a way that would ensure that Roberts answers would be controversy-free. Sessions seemed aware of the fact that this display would make him appear to be a political hack, but he didn’t care.
Sessions has been a controversial figure in some circles for a very long time. Anyone familiar with Session’s record on race and civil rights, for example, knows we’re talking about a dreadful lawmaker.
But even I expect this level of hackery from Sessions yesterday. Usually lawmakers at least pretend to ask difficult questions of judicial nominees when the eyes of the nation are on them. If Sessions were given more time, it was inevitable that he’d ask, “Judge Roberts, how do you maintain your youthful good looks?”