Stymied

Listening to and reading about the hearings over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts can be maddening and amusing. Senators who already know how they'll be voting prior to the Judicial Sub-Committee hearings, willfully leave the impression that they're carefully weighing Judge Roberts' answers. Everyone knows that Republicans and Democrats have made up their minds. Democrats have already signalled their opposition and now must search Roberts' answers for the rationale.

For his part, Roberts has sized up his opposition and carefully crafts his responses in order provide little reason for them to articulate their desent. This was the game set in motion following the rejection of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Since Republicans have the necessary votes, only by making impolitic statements can Roberts prevent the inevitable. Naturally, the answers are unsatisfactory--they're only meant to get him the job.

"I don't know what I'm going to do," said Feinstein, who said his testimony showed "this very cautious, very precise man, young, obviously with staying power. ... I'm convinced you will be there, God willing, for 40 years. And that even concerns me more because it means that my vote means more."

The senior senator from California, Diane Feinstein, would like the public to believe two absurd thoughts. The first is that she doesn't know how she'll vote. The second is that it matters.