Various blogs on the first day of hearings.
Huffington Post has live television from Senate Democrats Live
SCOTUSblog has a liveblog
Chris Good with some opening blog items:
Sotomayor: “If I introduced everyone who was familylike, we’d be here all morning.”
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tells her to introduce whomever she wants; the record will be kept open for later additions. Sotomayor then introduces her immediate family, points to “god children and dear friends” in the rest of the row.
Ramesh Ponnuru at WaPo, taking your questions.
Andrew Pincus, lawyer, livblogging at TPM
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey
UPDATE: Two from the left, two from the right.
Wouldn’t it be kind of great if the Senate GOP somehow did manage to trick Sotomayor into delivering a bitter tirade against whitey: “I took one look at Frank Rizzo’s pale, pale skin and unaccented speech and knew I would do whatever it takes to keep him down—that’s empathy in action!”
And just think of the gloating posts on the Corner.Update: Er… that should be Frank Ricci.
Etc. etc. Jesus. The Senate would be a much better place if senators weren’t allowed to speak. Is there really any reason at all for an entire day of inane opening statements from these people?
Hans Von Spakovsky at NRO
Listening to Sonia Sotomayor’s opening statement at her confirmation hearing today, I was struck by two of her assertions. First, her claim that she believes in “fidelity to the law” and that “the task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law” is quite a change from her previous speeches and articles. It reminds me of the famous statement by the former editor of the Saturday Evening Post who once famously said that “when a politician changes his position, it’s sometimes hard to tell whether he has seen the light or felt the heat.” Given the consistency of Sotomayor’s contrary views on this particularly issue throughout her career, it seems more likely that she has felt the heat rather than seen the light. The fact that she felt the need to address this in her opening statement shows that she feels vulnerable on this issue.
The real question is this: if Sotomayor’s practice is to “strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system” by carefully addressing the “arguments and concerns” of the parties, why did she depart so fundamentally from this practice in the Ricci case?