So how is it that no one at these hearings asks an actually relevant question. Like, say, asking the nominee for their opinion on the dormant commerce clause. Something all wacky and constitutional.

I would suspect it is because they all know that Roberts is more schooled on the Constitution than they are. They don't want him to make them look stupid, and most of them treat this an opportunity for air their own moralistic platitudes in front of the camera.

Dammit, they have staffers. Set those smarmy suck-ups to work and come up with some cogent questions to make them look good on the telly.

Come on, Prudence - you expect any hearing to be about substance? Not gonna happen. They would much rather have a sound bite of themselves thinking they sound clever. They would much rather try to spring some sort of trap to enable themselves to portray him in an unflattering light.

I want to clarify that it is members of both parties that are guilty of it.

My favorite trap sprung on a nominee was set perfectly by Orin Hatch during the Ginsburg confirmation hearings.

Hatch asked her if a company that employed 30 people, none of whom were a minority, could be seen as having discriminatory hiring practices. Ginsburg answered that yes, it was logical to assume that such a company was being discriminatory in their hiring practices. Hatch responded by pointing out that the law firm she headed up had 30 employees, all of which were white. He then let her off the hook by saying he didn't believe she was practicing discriminatory hiring practices, and suggested she might want to examine her view again.

I know, I know. But I keep hoping. There are so many of them -- surely one of them wants to sound like they have a clue.

A little bit of meat I took from a transcript -

My own Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona asked Roberts about the increasing use of foreign law by judges to interpret the Constitution.

Roberts: ".....there are a couple of things that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They're there.It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent. And I think that's a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent."

Good question, outstanding answer.

Oooh, that actually is a good answer.

I don't know about Roberts though... something about him disturbs me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. He says all the right things, but then, so did Bush when he was running for office...

If he is a Twisted kinky Catholic like me, we are in for some good times......good times...