Another Sort of Confirmation Hearing
Listening to Fr. Frank Pavone’s homily on EWTN’s daily Mass today, my mind wandered to the Roberts confirmation hearing. Well, not to Roberts’s, but to another Supreme Court nonimee’s: a nominee whose public statements on Roe vs. Wade tow the liberal line.
Chairman: The chair yields to the senior Senator from Missouri for ten minutes. Senator Bond.
Bond: Thank you Mr. Chairman, colleagues, Judge Smeal. (Sifting through notes) Judge Smeal, have you ever seen photos or diagrams of an abortion in progress?
Smeal: I don’t recall, Senator.
Bond: I see. Judge, did you know that most abortions take place during week eight of pregnancy?
Smeal: Yes, I believe that’s correct.
Bond: Now, judge, please look at the monitor in front of you. I’d like to ask if you know the gestitional age of the baby on the screen.
(Oohs and ahs from the gallery)
Bond: Judge? Can you idetnify the age of that child?
Smeal: Well, Senator, I’m not a doctor. So, no.
Bond: I understand, Judge, that you’re not a doctor, but would you mind taking an educated guess?
Smeal: I’d rather not, Senator.
Bond: Would you be surprised to learn that this baby’s gestiational age it 8 months?
Smeal: (pause) I . . . well . . . as I said, I’m not a doctor.
Bond: For the information of the committee, this photograph is medically certified to deptict an actual baby at 8 weeks gestation. Mr. Chairman, if the photo and document could be entered into evidence.
Chairman: So ordered.
Bond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (to nominee) Now, Judge, do you accept that this is a picture of a human baby at 8 weeks' gestation?
Smeal: Well, if you say so, Senator.
Bond: What if a doctor says so?
Smeal: Well, in court, I’d have to determine the doctor’s qualif . . .
Bond: (interrupting) The doctor who authenticated these photos is a board certified OB/GYN on staff at Yale-New Haven hospital, as the documentation states, Judge.
Smeal: I see that, Senator. (Seething). What is your point?
Bond: I’ll ask the questions, if you don’t mind, Judge.
Leahy: Mr. Chairman, I object to the Senator from Missouri’s tone toward our guest.
Chairman: I thank the Senator from Vermont. I understand your objection, but the chair would point out that it is the job of the committee to question the witness. Senator Bond.
Bond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, I’d ask you, once again, to look at the monitor. This image, also medically certified, is also an 8-week-old baby.
(Gasps from the gallery.)
Leahy: (Standing, shouting) Mr. Chairman, I must object strongly. This is a disgrace. There are children in classrooms watching these proceedings. The Senator from Missouri is obscene. This has nothing to do with the judge’s testimony before this committee.
(Chairman pounding gavel as gallery raises volume)
Chairman: Senator Leahy, please sit down. You are out of order, Senator Leahy.
(Leahy kicks his chair backwards and storms from the room)
Chairman: Senator Bond, please proceed. I would first ask our guests to compose themselves. Senator.
Bond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, judge, you have testified that, as a judge, you consider the mutilation and death of the child just depicted in these photographs to be a practice endorsed and ordained by the drafters, signers, and ratifiers of the Constitution, is that correct?
Smeal: Well, no, Senator. I never said that. The law deals with abstractions. In the abstract sense of the law, the Constitution protects a woman’s right to privacy.
Bond: So, judge, if the framers did not endorse the kind of slaughter we witnessed in these photographs, because they were dealing in abstractions, I would assume that you personally endorse the outcome seen in the second photograph?
Smeal: Senator, I don’t understand the question.
Bond: Let me put it like this. If someone showed you the first picture and asked you to sign the order allowing the actions that resulted in the second photograph, would you sign it?
Smeal: Senator, I cannot answer questions that may come before me were I confirmed.
Bond: You already have, Judge. You already have. (To chairman) I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Others: GOPBloggers notices the difference between Democrat treatment of Ginsberg and Roberts.
La Shawn Barber summerizes Roberts’s answers on abortion.
Amy Welborn finds Charles Krauthammer’s prediction of Roberts’s stance on Roe v. Wade disconcerting.
Jay Anderson has some questions for Judge Roberts about Joe Biden’s endorsement.
AfterAbortion’s follow-up on fetal pain might have given the fictitious Sen. Bond more questions for the fictitious Judge Smeal.
Planned Parenthood wants to deny women the right to see sonograms of their babies.