Friday, July 17, 2009

Making The Grade: Experts Evaluate Hearing Performances

In recognition of the political theater that is a Supreme Court confirmation hearing -- on the part of nominee and senators alike -- NationalJournal.com asked more than a dozen legal experts to grade key players' performances this week in Hart 216. Most of the poll respondents attended the hearings and did some form of coverage, whether it was live-blogging, partisan tweeting or traditional news reporting.

The experts graded nominee Sonia Sotomayor and a handful of senators: Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; and committee members Al Franken, D-Minn., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Arlen Specter, D-Pa. Who got the best reviews? The two newcomers, Sotomayor and Franken, who each got B averages. The committee's veterans, Leahy and Specter, scored the lowest, at C+. The two Republicans, Sessions and Graham, each got a B-.

Poll respondents were: Tony Mauro, National Law Journal reporter; Dahlia Lithwick, Slate senior editor; Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and Supreme Court litigator at Akin Gump; Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice; William Marshall, University of North Carolina law professor; Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Ellis Cose, Newsweek columnist; Leonard Leo, Federalist Society executive vice president; Cristina Rodriguez, New York University law professor; Carl Tobias, University of Richmond law professor; Wendy Long, general counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network; Kristina Moore, who was covering the hearings for SCOTUSblog; and National Journal's own Stuart Taylor Jr. In order to encourage frank and open speculation, contributors were given anonymity.

After the jump, see some highlighted grades and responses.

Sotomayor:

• A "For her success in not being a target and for presenting herself as a person to whom impartiality matters; but it would have been nice to see her really communicate the essence of who she is."

• B+ "Her calm, painstaking demeanor took the sting out of the whole affair, leaving Republicans frustrated that they could not draw blood. But her self-portrayal as a judge who follows the law and precedent unquestioningly is hard to believe."

• B+ "Her description of her judicial philosophy was wooden seventh-grade civics lecture."

• B- "She is an eminently qualified nominee who should and will be confirmed, but no one left this hearing better educated about our Constitution and the real work of the Supreme Court, and some of the blame goes to the nominee."

Sessions:

• A "Informed, tough as nails and committed, but always gave Judge Sotomayor the chance to have her say."

• B "His courtly manners barely masked his contempt for Sotomayor, and he could not let go of the 'wise Latina' remark, long after he should have."

• B "Proved to be a more effective questioner than I anticipated."

• C "He asked pointless questions over and over and was overly fixated on the 'wise Latina' comment."

• F "By far the most frustrating senator. While I understand it's his job to motivate the Republican base and show a unified front against her, his line of questioning, obstinacy and incredulity seemed to undermine any serious discussion of opposing judicial philosophies."

Graham:

• A "I found him the most honest; some say he was pedantic, but I sure didn't feel that way."

• B "He was the most refreshingly candid of the bunch but was almost unbearably patronizing."

• C "He was downright nasty and dismissive toward Sotomayor in a very unappealing way. He was kinder on Thursday, but too late to repair the damage."

• C "His questions highlighted some key issues and problems with Sotomayor, but much of his behavior also seemed like self-serving headline-seeking."

• C- "Being charming and complimentary doesn't negate being condescending and rude. Especially when you are dealing with your own witnesses. I think he hurt himself."

Leahy:

• B+ "He did what he had to do as chair of the committee to get the nominee through and had proceedings under control, but he did not elicit anything of substance."

• B "With Walter Cronkite almost gone, Leahy is the personification of an avuncular old man. He still has the chairman's touch, but at times a little too self-congratulatory."

• C "So vanilla. So, so vanilla."

Specter:

• A- "Raised important and under-explored questions and made it appear, while he was speaking, like these hearings were actually important."

• B- "He never established his relevance."

• C- "With little time to ask questions, Specter was a man on a mission to cover too much ground, and he was way too impatient with Sotomayor's painstakingly slow answers. Came across as a rude old man."

• D "More focused on his pet concerns than on the concerns of the American people."

Franken:

• A- "Articulated a judicial vision better than most. Didn't pretend to be a legal scholar. Was truly the people's senator. May need to reign in the funny."

• B "Started extremely strong, but never showed real intellectual heft; did come across as thoughtful and charming."

• B- "Based on how strong his opening statement was, I had high hopes for Franken. He had clearly done his homework, but then became the annoying kid in class who has to show off. Talking about [National Cable and Telecommunications Association v.] Brand X and Net neutrality was a refreshing change, but broke his stride. The Perry Mason talk drew laughs, but I had hoped for a little more punch."