My old friend (and fellow WashCP alum) Mike Schaffer isn't expecting fireworks:
In explaining why confirmation battles have lost their drama, more significant than this self-policing is the fact that this sort of inside-baseball analysis is now commonplace in everyday life, in and out of politics: We watch Hardball not for the substance of people's arguments, but for how they're posturing around the day's issues; we game out American Idol more or less the same way. There's no shortage of opportunity to watch groups of variously informed experts sit in judgment of ambitious nobodies grasping for their dreams. And as TV gives way to other media, those variously informed experts include ourselves: In the heyday of the television era, ordinary citizens had to rely on others--say, hearing-room antagonists like Thomas and Hill--to act out a divided society's symbolically charged confrontations. In the vast interactive universe of the internet, we do it ourselves, all day long. American discourse, in the end, has become one big, permanent, unruly confirmation hearing.I actually don't expect much from Ricci. I just don't think there's much of an argument to stick on Sotomayor. She really is the perfect Obama pick--the sort of justice that forces rabid right-wingers into overplaying their hand.So even with an unexpected culture-war flare-up, don't expect much excitement about the hearings that started this week. If Ricci and his supporters want to transfix a new generation of hearing obsessives, they will have to not simply outshout Sotomayor's squad, but make themselves heard above the din of our Confirmation Nation. Maybe he can sing like Susan Boyle.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
He may also be able to flip it into evidence of Obama bi-partisanship in action if Graham and other Rs cross the line and vote for her.
I don't think you'll see any "rabid" attacks on Sotomayor, or any attacks on her at all for that matter. The purpose of calling Ricci (and Vargas -- let's not forget the Latino firefighter) to testify is to highlight the Democrats' position on affirmative action, which, according to recent polls, is far to the left of mainstream America's views.
Incidentally, who was it here who wondered last week if Univision was going to broadcast the hearings? I just checked, and Univision was showing some daytime talk show instead -- their regular programming, as I predicted.
HA ha ha ha that comment made you pretty salty...
Well, though they are not showing the hearings all day according to USA Today they plan to provide beefed up coverage later in the day. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-07-09-hispanic_N.htm
I think it's pretty rich to hear Senators voicing concerns about Sotomayor making the law versus applying it, when these same people support Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia.
But my real point here is that I'm tired of these confirmation hearings as political theater, just as I'm tired of what Schaffer describes about our national conversation as one big confirmation hearing. I don't want the public's business to be exciting. Just to be carried out in the interest of the public.
Exactly. I'm not sure that public business was ever carried out in the interest of the public but I concur with the sentiment.
I don't think the decrease in drama stems from a chilled out or impatient public, but from the actual decreased drama of the process. I'm not old enough to have watched (and understood) the Thomas hearings, but our Senators (and media) have determined that a confirmation hearing is an opportunity to see if the judge has any views you disagree with and can use as a rational for voting against her. The judge, who does not benefit from having any views, hides her beliefs. Rinse and repeat. My suspicion is that it wasn't always like this.