Originally Posted by politicophile

So I was sitting in front of the television this afternoon watching the opening statements of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the John Roberts hearings. Mr. Roberts was sitting facing the committee, but was not asked any questions by the Senators, as these were merely opening statements. Instead he sat idly and did his best to smile at the Senators addressing him.

With a few exceptions, each opening statement went something like this: "The Constitution is the fundamental document in our nation, affecting the lives of millions on a daily basis. Interpretation by the Supreme Court will have lasting consequences for everyone in the country. Judge Roberts is only 50 years old, so his appointment will last for decades. This is why it is so important that we select the right man for the job..."

If Democrat: "We must find out Mr. Roberts' stances on abortion, gay rights, and other important issues before we agree to confirm him."

If Republican: "John Roberts has a perfect record, a calm disposition, and the appropriate judicial temperment for such a high office."

John Roberts, who knows more about the Constitution and the Judiciary than virtually anyone else on the planet, sat for hours on end listening to blowhard Senators lecturing him about the importance of the Constitution. In listening to the comments of some Senators, I realized that my understanding of constitutional law was superior to theirs. Yet, they felt qualified (I certainly wouldn't) to ramble on about a document they don't understand in front of a world-class expert on the subject.

Today's hearings shattered my faith in the importance of Senate confirmation. Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, seem to enjoy listening to themselves fail to read their pre-written speaches properly. Is there any purpose to having these ignorant elected officials confirm the judicial appointments of another elected official?