Yesterday's opening session of the Sotomayor hearings did not reveal much about the nominee, but may have previewed each side's strategy: Democrats will stress her biography and experience; Republicans will raise concerns about specific cases and quotes, but reserve judgment. I contributed additional analysis to the Washington Post's "Opening Arguments" blog here.

On thing that was interesting yesterday was how much time Democratic Senators spent talking about (and criticizing) Chief Justice Roberts and the current Supreme Court. (A point Jim Geraghty makes here.) Senator Charles Schumer, for instance, declared "any objective review of Judge Sotomayor's record on the Second Circuit leaves no doubt that she has simply called balls and strikes for 17 years, far more closely than Chief Justice Roberts has during his four years on the Supreme Court." Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) cited Jeffrey Toobin's New Yorker profile of Roberts to challenge his judicial humility and modesty. Yet as I blogged several weeks back, Toobin's article presents a distorted view of Roberts' record. Sen. Whitehouse also decried the alleged "fundamental changes in the law wrought by the Roberts Court's right wing flank." Yet as I've discussed time and again (see here and here, for instance) the Roberts Court's "right wing flank" has not wrought dramatic changes in the law (at least not yet).

UPDATE: Carissa Hessick further critiques the Toobin claim relied upon by Sen. Whitehouse here.

The second day of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing — the first in which she answered question — revealed relatively little. Judge Sotomayor played defense all day long — delivering cautious, deliberate answers to even the most pointed questions — under the (probably correct) assumption that if she said little of substance, she wouldn't give her opposition any footholds. She may have over done it — offering overly narrow (and sometimes inaccurate) explanations and defenses of her most controversial decisions and backing away from her public remarks to an implausible degree — but it has probably done the trick. I did not see anything today to cast her confirmation in doubt.

I've contributed additional thoughts to the Washington Post's "Topic A" (along with Randy Barnett, Erwin Chemerinsky, and Laurence Tribe).

UPDATE: I also have this essay on NRO discussing the efforts by some Senate Democrats to paint the Roberts Court as a radical right-wing court in their opening statements.

My preliminary reflections on day three of the Sotomayor hearings are now up on WashingtonPost.com here.

UPDATE: The NYT reports that, since Sotomayor's confirmation is all-but assured, "both sides are trying to use the Judiciary Committee hearings to define the parameters of an acceptable nomination in case another seat opens up during Mr. Obama's presidency. By forcing Judge Sotomayor to retreat from Mr. Obama's desire for justices with 'empathy,' Republicans have effectively set a new standard that future nominees will be pressed to meet."