Quite a few Oregon bloggers were on the line tonight when Senator Ted Kennedy, Joe Trippi, and Ralph Neas (of People for the American Way) gave a briefing/pep-talk on the John Roberts confirmation hearings.
We'll use this space to highlight posts around the Oregon blogosphere about the hearings. Here's the first out of the box:
Jeff Alworth, with the blow-by-blow of the conference call.
Senator Kennedy spoke for twenty minutes, mounting a pretty good case for at least giving Roberts a careful look. Started out my mentioning that Roberts is competent, but, "Will he continue the march toward progress, or follow the stingy view of conservatives" like Scalia and Thomas?
Preemptive Karma, with the pitch on the Roberts Papers.
One would think it would be common sense for the White House to release the papers Roberts wrote as principal deputy solicitor general. ... But that's not the way this administration plays. We are supposed to take him at his word and not have full disclosure on his judicial record. Which is rather odd, considering the fact he's up for the Supreme Court.
Jeff Alworth, right here on BlueOregon.
From Matt of BOPNews came this dark rumination. He asked Ralph Neas whether Clarence Thomas's answers were accurate and candid, and if not, why wouldn't we expect Roberts to be similarly evasive and inaccurate? Neas confirmed that Thomas hadn't been perfectly honest, and sort of punted on why Roberts wouldn't do the same
And, a contrarian view from Jack Bogdanski:
Please give Roberts a relatively easy ride. Compared to the next nominee you're going to see, and the one after that, he's moderate. If you give Roberts a hard time, you will just be crying wolf. There is no way that his nomination won't be confirmed, so what are you gaining by grilling him? Then, when Karl Rove sends you the next Scalia or Thomas in a few weeks, with another one likely before the Dems are back in the White House, you will have already lost face with your moderate colleagues and the American public.
Update: Over at Oregon Sunrise, Chris Edwards asks a tough question about the right to privacy:
One must ask, if there is no protection against government preventing birth control, is there protection against government preventing pregnancy? It may sound crazy, but 1/5th of the world's population currently lives under such regulation: China's single child policy. The right to privacy is a critical underpinning of the American value of self-determination.
There will be more, and we'll post as they go up.