It sure would have been better theatre to have plain-spoken witnesses like these guys testify first before the Senators and Sotomayor plunged into the legalistic thickets.
And here's today cross-examination of Sotomayor by Sen. Kyl, who pretty much comes out and chants liar-liar-pants-on-fire over Sotomayor's claim that she was just following precedent in trying to deep-six Ricci. "What precedent?" Kyl aks repeatedly and never gets a satisfactory response.
There's so many weird customs here that apparently preclude asking obvious questions like, "Judge Sotomayor, on Ricci, you say you were bound by precedent as a non-Supreme Court judge. But now you want to be a Supreme Court Justice. How would you have voted on Ricci as a Supreme Court Justice and why?"