But even when Sotomayor is being questioned about her judicial record, the focus isn't on her legal approach or process but on the outcomes. So when she talks about her Ricci decision, Jeff Sessions asks her why she didn't apply affirmative action precedents that had no bearing in a case that was not an affirmative action case. When she speaks about Didden, her eminent domain case, Republican Chuck Grassley asks why she didn't analyze the Kelo precedent in a case about timely filing. Nobody wants to hear how she got to a result. They want to know why she didn't get to their result.

http://www.slate.com/id/2222842/

Again I'd love to see journalists (and ourselves) apply this standard when they cover Roberts, etc

Sure, but again, needs to be applied to everyone.

The whole process for these hearings is very lame; it's why I am not paying much attention. It encourages the candidates to say as little as possible while the questioners fish for soundbites and gotcha moments. Very dull.

"At the same time, one "seeker" on each team must try to grab the "snitch" (essentially, a tennis ball in a tube sock carried by someone running around the field who's not on either team). Catching the snitch is worth a whopping 30 points and ends the game."

I wonder if the snitch holder has a broom. I would think not...

I don't know why your comment reminded me of this, but it did.

Damn, I gotta get me one of those...

I enjoyed a Talk of the Nation interview with Neil Gaiman today. He talked about his new graphic novel (Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?) and how he first fell in love with comics. He is currently writing short stories and working on a film script for Anansi Boys.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106615648
"I thought, 'You know, I'll probably screw it up, but then, at least that way it'll be me screwing it up, as opposed to somebody else, and I will screw it up with love and passion.'"