I start with Hatch asking about Judge Cabranes' dissent on denial of rehearing en banc was right that this was an issue of first impression. I generally agreed with Judge Cabranes opinion but he was clearly wrong when he said the case was one of first impression. It wasn't. There was both controlling 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

Sen. Feinstein emphasizes Sotomayor's respect for precedent. She is animated for her on the point. Now she asks about the women's right to choose and the long list of precedents that were ignored by the Roberts Court in Carhart II. Sotomayor will of course dance around the issue, since that is what we expect nominees to do now. I hate that. I want answers. Sotomayor says the issue was different than the previous cases. I say BS to be quite frank. The funny thing is is Sotomayor may use the Roberts Court's subterfuge in its stealth overruling of precedents against them if she is on the Court. This is actually the most interesting thing Sotomayor has said so far.

Feinstein now cites Scalia's criticism of Roberts and his group's practice of stealth overruling of precedent. Feinstein quotes Scalia's accusing Roberts of "judicial obfuscation." for once, Scalia is right. Sotomayor deflects the question. But Feinstein makes her point. DiFi doing good imo. More . . .