Liveblogging of Questions for Final Alito Panel

1:32 That concludes Alito’s nomination hearings.

1:29 Leahy says that Specter’s policy for voting against a nominee in committee but then voting to send him or her to the senate floor for a vote is a good one.

1:28 Specter will prepare a written statement further detalining his reasons for supporting Judge Alito.

1:24 Specter doesn’t think “there’s a dime’s worth of difference” between Roberts’ and Alito’s response to Roe questions.

1:21 Specter goes on to discuss some of the positions Alito took on different questions. He says that Alito clarified somewhat his idea of the unitary executive and acknowledged some privacy rights in Griswold and Eisenstadt.

1:17 Specter announces that he plans to support Alito’s nomination. He says that he does not take that position out of party loyalty. Specter thinks Alito’s qualifications are difficult to take issue with. Specter urged colleagues to reserve judgment until after the hearings–until they had all the facts before them and could arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Specter was concerned by some of the opening statements, as there were a lot of accusations on one side and a lot of hyperbole on the other. But despite that, the hearings provided Judge Alito with an opportunity to discuss the considerations involved in his decisions on difficult questions (although he stopped short of saying what decisions he might reach).

1:16 Leahy says that the problem is that the time at which they planned to wrap up the session kept changing, making scheduling difficult. He says they will discuss it further over the weekend.

1:14 Specter says that this is the first time he and Leahy have not agreed during this process. But he sticks with the schedule he proposed earlier.

1:10 Leahy says that Judiciary Committee democrats will delay the vote for one week; he’s concerned about scheduling conflicts that might interfere with a full and fair hearing.

1:06 Specter discusses the schedule of the hearings. The executive session has been scheduled for Jan. 17th, with floor debate following on the 18th, 19th, and 20th. The matter will be up for vote on the 20th.

1:04 Schultz states that the issue could indeed be framed as the state trying to insert itself into a family’s private tragedy; Supreme Court ruled that it was a state court matter. If Alito had been on the Supreme Court at that time, it’s unclear whether he would have ruled to allow Congress to insert itself into the matter.

1:02 Leahy was troubled by the conduct of many during the Shiavo tragedy. Related to the conduct of elected officials and the judiciary in the Shiavo matter, he asks Rep. Schultz whether she has a sense that Alito values an independent judiciary.