All Congress-watching eyes are expected to turn today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they begin their consideration of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. And the Committee, aware of the intense interest, will be live streaming video of the hearing, which they're wisely making available in blog-embeddable format. So that's exciting in itself. They know where the interest lies.
Thinking of popping some popcorn and watching the proceedings? If it's Sotomayor you want to hear from, make sure you get lunch first. And maybe a nap. Because although the hearings are expected to be gaveled into session at 10 a.m., the first order of business is opening statements. From the Senators. Nineteen of them. For up to ten minutes apiece. Plus statements of introduction from home state Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand.
That's Washington for you. Three to four hours of opening statements -- plus a lunch break -- before the person you're supposed to be talking about even gets to say anything. And then, once she makes her own opening statement, they'll adjourn for the day. It will take an entire day to "open" things with statements. You want to see someone ask a question? Come back tomorrow.
Meanwhile, some resources:
Interested in embedding the video in your blog? Judiciary Committee Dems have made it easy. Just follow this link, choose your format, and (theoretically) you're good to go. Video clips, highlights, etc. to be made available throughout the day here.
Plenty of good previews circulating online, too. (And if you find any more good ones, throw us a link in the comments.)
Why not start here, with Adam Serwer of TAP?
And perhaps something from Daniel Schuman of the Sunlight Foundation?
Myths vs. Facts, from Ian Millhiser at the Center for American Progress?
And a host of left jabs, hooks and crosses from Media Matters:
- Myths And Falsehoods Surrounding The Sotomayor Nomination
The media have advanced numerous myths and falsehoods about Sonia Sotomayor. In addition to evaluating these claims on their merits, the media should also consistently report that conservatives were reportedly very clear about their intentions to oppose President Obama's nominee for political purposes, no matter who it was.
- Conservatives Smear Sotomayor As "Racist," "Bigot" Over "Wise Latina" Remarks
Numerous conservative media figures have misrepresented remarks Judge Sonia Sotomayor made during a speech at Berkeley in 2001 to smear her as a racist and a bigot.
- The "Extraordinary Rebuke" Myth
In covering the Ricci case, reversing Judge Sonia Sotomayor's decision, media should not promote the myth that the reversal represents a "historic rebuke" or that Sotomayor's Supreme Court reversal rate is "high."
- Boehlert: The Press, Sotomayor And Ricci
- Politico Ignored Roberts, Alito Record In Claiming Ricci "Could Tarnish Sotomayor"
A Politico article about the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is unusual. However, the court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year since 2004.
- CQ Ignored Sessions' Previous Call For Speedy Supreme Court Confirmation Process
CQ Today reported that Sen. Jeff Sessions said Republicans "might throw up procedural roadblocks to delay" Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, but did not note that Sessions reportedly called for fast action on Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation process.
And a particularly interesting alternative viewing option: a partnership between The Uptake -- the excellent Minnesota-based blog who covered the Franken-Coleman court proceedings like no one else -- and Mother Jones
Technology gods willing, we'll be streaming it at Congress Matters, and likely commenting wryly all day. Come on and join in!
UPDATE: We're a go on the technology, and streaming live.
UPDATE 2: More smart stuff from Dahlia Lithwick, in this video put out by The Nation: