my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms, and congress' intent, and keeping faithfully to precedents established by the supreme court and by my circuit court. in each case i have heard, i have applied the law to the facts at hand. the process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged. that is why i generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. that is how i seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our judicial system. my personal and professional experiences help me to listen

and understand with the law always commanding the result in every case. since president obama announced my nomination in may, i have received letters from people all over this country. many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggle. each letter has deeply touched me. each reflects a dream, a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to new york all those years ago. it is our constitution that makes that dream possible, and i now seek the honor of upholding the constitution as a justice on the supreme court. senators, i look forward in the next few days to answering your questions, to having the american people learn more about me, and to being part of a

process that reflects the greatness of our constitution and of our nation. thank you all. >> thank you, judge. i thank all the senators for their opening statements this morning. i especially thank senator schumer and senator gillibrand for their introduction of you. but especially, judge sotomayor, i thank you for your statement. i know your family appreciates it. we all do. we will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. thank you very, very much. >> that's day one of the confirmation hearings for sonia sotomayor to become an associate justice of the united states supreme court. you just heard the chairman, patrick leahy, the democrat from vermont, say the session will resume tomorrow, 9:30 a.m. eastern. that's when the questioning will

begin, all 19 senators, 12 democrats, seven republicans, will have 30 minutes in the first round of uninterrupted questions for sonia sotomayor, and then they'll have a second round. each of those 19 senators will have 20 minutes of questions, uninterrupted and if necessary, they will go on to a third round, presumably the next day, ten minutes of questions for each of those senators. she's going to be in the hot seat literally throughout tomorrow and much of wednesday as well. let's bring in some of our analysts and reporters to assess what happened on this day. we learned a great deal, gloria, about how the republicans are getting ready to grill her. >> i think we saw the idealogical divide on this committee. i think that they are making the case that she should not be confirmed because she couldn't be impartial, because she has too much empathy and she wants to make law, not adhere to the law.

today in her statement, though, just now, she said that her judicial philosophy is very simple. it is fidelity to the law and that would not be her job, however, she understands the human consequences of what she does. >> she didn't really get into some of the more controversial parts. she spoke in general terms in a rather brief opening statement, jeff toobin. >> she did. if i could just offer one thought about today, the striking thing to me is what i didn't hear. i didn't hear one senator mention gay rights. gay rights are very controversial. the republicans have used it as a threat. the democrats generally as a promise. both sides stayed away from it. i thought that was -- >> referring specifically to same sex ma >> same sex marriage but the subject of gay rights in general. but particularly same sex marriage. >> i suppose it will these guys have a lot of time on their hands to ask a lot of questions. what struck you, >> about applying -- being faithful to the law was her opening shot

to the republican senators who have said to her today that they didn't think she would be impartial, they thought she would substitute her experience. she straight on said those experiences helped me listen and understand so i think tomorrow, we are going to get into it. >> alex, what struck me was the difference between republican senators, there are seven republic the one hand, jeff sessions was very firm, but lindsey graham of south carolina took a different stand. >> he did. he took kind of an old school republican stance which is that a president has a right to have his nominee, that elections have consequences. but even the republicans who took on sotomayor on these issues were civil in tone and took her on on issues and nothing personal in tone or character. we can expect a different debate and i think we saw a little of the obama administration strategy here which is sonia, no gambling in this casino, no

risk. we have 60 votes, you are going to be the moderate judge, you are going to be reasonable, don't give the republicans really anything to chew on here. >> he said flatly that she's going to be confirmed barring some major disaster, candy crowley. we're talking about lindsey graham. >> absolutely. i think if you had to look in your crystal ball from what we've heard today, you probably are going to get a couple republican votes out of this, probably lindsey graham, orrin hatch. i think graham summed it up saying unless there's a meltdown, you will get confirmed. so you will hear this nice but tough look at what kind of judgment she's made and what they say about her judicial philosophy. she will have to repeat that phrase about 1,000 times between now and the end of these hearings but i think we know what the end is. we'll see what we're going to do in the middle. >> jessica yellin is inside the senate hart office building,

where this judiciary committee hearing has been going on. we have a picture of the back heads of patrick leahy on the right, chuck schumer right there in the sort of -- well, a little off screen right now. but he got very emotional, chuck schumer, jessica yellin. when he was introducing her, his lips were trembling a little, he got choked up. he got very emotional referring to her background. >> reporter: he said he is personally very invested in sotomayor and her success here, and he emphasized what we heard so many of the democrats say their message is, she has more judicial experience than anyone else nominated to the bench in the last hundred years. that's the message they will drive home. i thought what was interesting is we did not hear from sotomayor the words empathy or the word race or gender. she is going to steer clear of that as much as possible, although that won't be feasible for the rest of when she starts taking questions, but she's trying to stay on the message of her enormous experience. as another note, i would like to point out something you guys probably could not see from your

vantage but once al franken, the newest senator on the panel started talking, there is something in this room we rarely see, which is every single senator on that panel was listening to him with rapt attention. usually senators do not listen to each other, they're not even in the room for this, they all clearly wanted to hear what the newest member had to say, al franken. >> he was very, very serious. no jokes from al franken on this day. maybe down the road we'll get a few laughs from time to time. there were three interruptions, brief interruptions, hecklers being evicted but that was that. just a little housekeeping. tomorrow morning, we'll be here for our special coverage. it will begin at 9:30 a.m. eastern. that's when the questioning of sonia sotomayor by democrats and republicans will begin. that will be an important day tomorrow. we will learn a whole lot more. i'll be back in less than an hour here in "the situation room." right now, our coverage continues with rick sanchez and cnn "newsroom."

dick cheney told the cia don't tell congress? >> the cia is in the secrecy business. this is a question of whether the former vice president of the united states denied certain sensitive information to the intelligence leaders in congress. >> but if it happened, it's against the law, and cheney could be called on it. we are on that. republicans turn up the heat on the quote, wise latina woman. >> if i said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. >> what does she say about that? you'll hear it. kim jong-il. does he have pancreatic cancer and if so, how long would he live? your national conversation for monday, july 13th, begins right now.

it seemed like they were magic words we just heard. fidelity to the law, as i wrote them down. the job of a judge is not to make law. hello again. i'm rick sanchez with the next generation of news. th this is a conversation, not a speech. it's your turn to get involved. sonia sotomayor just answered her critics or did she? who insist that she's bound and determined to make law from the bench, that she would let personal biases get in her way somehow. you heard it right here. her retort to her opponents, i will now scrutinize what she says and prepare to grill her tomorrow. that's the way the system works. she says the law comes first. >> in the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. simple, fidelity to the law. the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law.

and it is clear, i believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms, and congress' intent, and keeping faithfully to precedents established by the supreme court and by my circuit court. in each case i have heard, i have applied the law to the facts at hand. >> key words again, apply the law to the facts at hand. that is what she says. her opponents, republicans, are suggesting that her judgment may be clouded by a bias towards minorities at times. there's an irony that we probably should point out here as well. the republican leading the charge is alabama's jeff sessions. years ago, sessions was chosen for a federal judgeship and had his nomination quashed by this

committee among criticism that he was grossly insensitive, stop quote, to minorities. now, ironically, it is sessions insisting that sotomayor demonstrate that she's impartial. >> i will not vote for and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality toward every person who appears before them. i will not vote for and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court. >> so it's an interesting process. so much of it has to do with perspective. as we follow along, sessions, the ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee, strongly suggesting that his mind is made up and he will vote against sotomayor.

but his comments were measured compared to those of arizona's jon kyl. i want you to listen to mr. kyl. here we go. >> i would hope that every american is proud that a hispanic woman has been nominated to sit on the supreme court. in fulfilling our advice and consent role, of course, we must evaluate judge sotomayor's fitness to serve on the merits, not on the basis of her ethnicity. with a background that creates a prima facie case for confirmation, the primary question i believe judge sotomayor must address in this hearing is her understanding of the role of an appellate judge. from what she has said, she appears to believe that her role is not constrained to objectively decide who wins based on the weight of the law but rather, who in her personal opinion should win. the factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her gender and latina heritage and foreign legal concepts that as she said get her creative juices going. >> so there's the conflict. there's something else i need to

point out for you as i take you through this journey of all these important comments raised by all these ladies and gentlemen today. senator republicans are raising concerns again about judicial activism. here is how rhode island democrat sheldon whitehouse responded to that charge. >> -- calls for restraint and modesty and complaints about activist judges are often code words seeking a particular kind of judge who will deliver a particular set of political outcomes. for all the talk of modesty and restraint, the right wing justices of the court have a striking record of ignoring precedent, overturning congressional statutes, limiting constitutional protections, and discovering new constitutional rights. >> as you might imagine, we have lined up for you a bevy of legal and political experts who are going to join us to give us

their perspective on everything that took place today, including that climactic moment where we actually heard judge sotomayor respond. it wasn't a lengthy response but it was a response, nonetheless. i want to begin with one of the members of this committee, senator john cornyn, republican from texas, was good enough to join us. thanks for being with us, sir. >> you bet. good to be with you. >> when i was listening to you earlier, it seemed like what you were saying was, i remember i took some notes, it seemed like what you were saying was that you didn't necessarily like what she had said or what you had heard that she had said, but you were willing to give her a hearing, to have her somehow convince you otherwise. what are you going to be looking for to have her convince you otherwise? >> i think that's only fair to give her the hearing. otherwise, we wouldn't need to be here for this week. but yeah, i think unfortunately, these hearings have not always been characterized by what i would call fairness. we mentioned miguel estrada's

nomination, filibustered seven times and denied an up or down vote. i assured judge sotomayor that would not happen to her and she would get the respect she and every nominee deserves. but she's made some pretty provocative statements as we know, her comment about a wise latina woman with the richness of her experience making better decisions than someone of a different sex or ethnicity. and those sorts of things begin to cause questions along with other things she said about whether she believes that -- in equal justice or whether the outcome's going to depend on who the judge is. that's what we're trying to get at. >> it seems like in the old days people didn't follow judges around with microphones and obviously, oftentimes maybe didn't even know what they said. today, we live in a society where everything is recorded, everything is jotted down, so what we have are some comments that she has made, which you are taking into account and certainly it's your right to, senator, but when you compare

that to the rest of her judicial record, how do you put the two together and what are you at this point, and you don't have to give us the plans at this point and tell us how you're going to vote, but does it make you perhaps lean the other way? >> well, it's hard to reconcile. i think she's got an 18-year record as a judge that does not appear to be all that radical, but her speeches certainly are provocative is the best word i can think of. but she also questions this issue of whether judges, whether the law is truly neutral or whether judges can be objective, and you'll hear our colleagues on the other side, senator whitehouse and others, questioning whether all there is is sort of a relative view of the world, if it's all just a difference of perspective. the concept of the rule of law depends on the law being the same and applied to each person in similar situations by judges and not have variable outcomes depending on that perspective

that they may bring because of their ethnicity or their sex or their race or, you know, but only on the law. that's really i think what we're talking about. >> it's interesting you mentioned senator whitehouse. he seems to be saying, and i want to get your take on this, he seems to be saying that you and other republicans are asking for, if not preaching this now, that in the past you haven't necessarily held that ground, and he even went on to say, quoting one of our own, jeff toobin, that this court under supreme court justice john roberts, has not ruled the way you guys are asking them to rule. fair criticism or what? >> i think it's a nice narrative he's selling but i'm not buying. i think sure, politicians look at outcomes. judges are supposed to look at the facts and work their way through a reasoned legal analysis and the outcome is a product of that analysis. you don't start with the outcome first and work your way back. so i disagree with senator

whitehouse and others that have complained that the roberts court, and i wonder why we're spending so much time attacking john roberts and the roberts court. i thought this was supposed to be about judge sotomayor. >> speaking of judge sotomayor, let me wrap things up with that. i want to get from you now, did you -- obviously you got a chance to listen to what she said there. it wasn't a long comment but she did right away, she hit it and hit it hard. she said fidelity to the law. loyalty to the law and then she went on to say my task as a judge is not to make the law. sounds like she, senator, is singing your tune. is that enough? >> well, she said all the right things in her statement. what i would like to do is have her reconcile what she said in her opening statement with the speeches that i alluded to earlier. that's where i'm going to inquire during my -- >> what about the ricci case? is that going to be something you will hammer away at as well? >> well, it is. i worry that the way she and her fellow judges sort of seemed to sweep that case by the

firefighters under the rug, it took another judge to call them out on it, and then ultimately because of his dissent, it was agreed, the supreme court agreed to hear the case, then reversed judge sotomayor. we will have a couple witnesses here, firefighters, who basically were denied a promotion because of the color of their skin as a result of judge sotomayor's decision, both a hispanic and anglo. so it ought to be interesting. they will be here on wednesday. >> my old football coach in college and high school always used to say sanchez, i appreciate the hustle. i will kudo that to you. i appreciate you getting to the microphone so fast. seems like this thing just ended and you were able to come up and talk to us. senator john cornyn from the great state of texas, we thank you, sir. >> thank you. up next, did dick cheney tell the cia not to inform congress of something? something somewhat mysterious to this day? we are drilling down with candy

crowley and david gergen on this. also, we're trying something new to this. stick around. when the tv version of this national conversation is over, i will try something new today. log on to cnn.com live where the conversation will continue. that's right. we will continue the show for at least another 15 minutes today, at 4:00 p.m. eastern. your tweets, messages, comments, our guests, held over. it's the after show. busy lifestyles can make it hard to get enough fiber and key nutrients in your diet. be proactive about your health with... this great-tasting chewable fiber supplement harnesses the goodness of real fruits and vegetables to provide you both natural fiber and protective antioxidants. its special blend of antioxidant vitamins c, e and beta carotene help support your long-term health and vitality. feel your best every day, even when you're on the go. try fiberchoice plus antioxidants. brand power. helping you buy better.

ies who need assistance getting around their homes. there is a medicare benefit that may qualify you for a new power chair or scooter at little or no cost to you. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen ... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm doug harrison. we're experts at getting you the power chair or scooter you need. in fact, if we qualify you for medicare reimbursement

and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information. getting a lot of comments as you might expect. going to be following some of those, both on sotomayor and

that story we suggested moments ago about former vice president dick cheney. let me catch you up. if you worked at the cia and vice president dick cheney came up and told you not to tell congress what you know, even if that's against the law, would you do what he told you to do? now, who is saying that the former vice president may have done just that? asking the cia not to say things? "new york times" citing two unidentified sources says the current cia director, the current cia director, leon panetta, is making that accusation about former vice president dick cheney and some secret program that he had initiated. notice the way i word that, some secret program that he had initiated. so what happens now? there's two reactions that we can share with you at this point, anyway. the party in power, the party in power, the democrats, say there should be an investigation about this. the party that was in power when

dick cheney was the vice president says why look back? >> if as the "new york times" says we have the vice president of the united states telling people to break the law, that's a pretty serious matter. either he did or he didn't. if he did, that's something we ought to know. >> we all know that bad things were done. we all know that the operatives who did it most likely were under orders to do so. for us to continue this and harm our image throughout the world, i agree with the president of the united states. it's time to move forward and not go back. >> you don't know at this point how much leverage this story's going to get in the coming days. but let's join two people now who certainly would follow a story of this magnitude. candy crowley is with us once again and david gergen is good enough to join us. my thanks to both of you for being with us. you know, it's ironic and interesting that it seems to be, candy, that this could very well

be a continuation of a story that began not too long ago when house speaker nancy pelosi told our own cnn's dana bash that the cia had misinformed her, and look where we are now. >> that's why republicans actually, they say they're very suspicious of this timing, of the leak, that they think in fact it was put out there in order to, because they believe obviously someone that was briefed by leon panetta put this out there. i think we know so little at this point about where this story is going. i think that when you put it in combination with some other things that are percolating over at the justice department about whether to call in a criminal prosecutor to look at whether the u.s. tortured outside the parameters of the bush administration, that this is building up to an extent that the obama administration, which really doesn't want any of this to happen, is going to have to go with it and i think probably the unhappiest despite what

senator mccain says, one of the unhappier people in this town about all this coming up, because there are four different things going on, is probably president obama. >> let's talk about one of those things. david gergen, if i could bring you into the conversation, the question of a lot of folks who are watching right now who maybe don't study the constitution of the law so closely will say so what, the vice president of the united states decided he wanted to keep a secret from members of congress. let me show you a quote. this is one of the interpretations of this law, if not the law itself. lawmakers on intelligence committees are to be kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the united states, including any significant participated intelligence activity. i think that dates back to the 1940s or '50s. it was a law passed. it sounds like, just judging by that right there, that could be potential trouble for the former vice president, right? >> well, this is a complex area, as you well know. the law was passed back in 1947. there have been a number of

amendments to this national security act of 1947. there are some loopholes in that act. and what this seems to rotate around, i think candy is right, we don't know all the facts, nor do we know exactly where this is going but it is starting to mushroom and take on a life of its own. i think we are heading toward some sort of investigation by the democrats. we'll have to see what it is. but going back to the law, the law says look, it tells the cia, tells the executive branch, you have to keep congress informed of significant intelligence activities. now, what we're hearing from the republican side or people close to the bush administration through "wall street journal" today, for example, is that there were conversations after 9/11 about setting up some sort of program to capture or kill al qaeda operatives, and that this would have -- and this would have been a major new initiative had it been undertaken. it was in the talking stage, according to these sources

within the bush administration, or close to. it never got to sort of the operative stage. therefore, they weren't under obligation to tell the congress. now, you know, there's a gray line here and a lot of democrats think, and some republicans think, that the bush administration did a lousy job of keeping the congress informed, but the cheney people will tell you wait a minute, we didn't get that far down the track so there's nothing illegal here. >> by the way, we should probably mention that caveat before we get too much grief from some folks who will say well, you only gave part of the law. you're right, david, as you usually are. there's part of the law that also says this. put that up if you can, i don't know if you have that caveat. it says the briefing should be done to the extent consistent with the due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of clarified -- classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters. in other words, if the person who's got the secret really feels that if he tells anybody, it might get out, then maybe he

can just not tell anybody. it's like we have a law but here's an exception to the law which gets us back to what the vice president was or wasn't doing. i'm confused. i'm sure everyone else is confused. candy crowley, do we know what this program was or as david alluded to moments ago, whether it even ever got off the ground? >> it doesn't at least from the reporting from the "new york times" and others, it doesn't look as though it ever fully got off the ground, that it was still in the planning stages, that it had to do with counterterrorism, surprise, surprise, and that it was about killing or capturing al qaeda members more personally than dropping or than sending off air missiles. now, it doesn't strike me on the face of that that surprising that the cia was going after al qaeda members sort of, you know, on the ground. but there's just, again, something about this we don't know. we don't know the details of, you know, when you say killing

them, what does that entail. you know, was it just okay, shoot them the minute you see them, should you attempt to capture them, that kind of thing. i don't think we know yet the specifics of that program. >> rick, you got to remember, we are in a new age here, too. you can now wake up somewhere in fairfax county and drive to work at langley and push a button and have a predator go in and hit an al qaeda, you know, camp. we have seen that, we reported on it. after all, bill clinton was accused of not being tough enough in going after osama bin laden. he didn't get there with predators early enough, hit them early enough. >> but i have to ask you, since you were part of the reagan administration, the reagan administration as most americans know, was accused of, well -- >> all sorts of things. >> not sharing with congress what was going on with iran contra. that was one of the main sticking points. how much trouble can an administration, either presently or former, get into by making it appear that they're not giving

congress or the american people enough information about what they're doing, by being secretive? it seems to be the theme we keep going back to with bush and cheney administration. >> listen, we have been here on this issue since time immemorial. before we were born, the congress and executive branch were fighting over this issue. on iran contra, iran contra underscores the fact this can be perilous for a president. in that case, what the reagan administration found itself mired in was a situation where they had told the congress one thing but were actually doing something very different in foreign policy. in effect, they were lying to the congress. the president paid a huge price because of his underlings going around doing this kind of thing. they were talking impeachment over that at one point. so this can get very serious. i think to go to candy's point, the reason this is becoming more serious now is this whole history of what happened in iraq, a lot of the country wants to know more about it. the democrats want to know more about it.

but president barack obama himself really wants to move forward. he does not want to get mired in the past. he's got too much else on his plate. so in some ways, there's a conflict here between the white house and the gathering momentum on capitol hill for serious investigations. >> irony of ironies. you make a good point. my thanks to both of you. interesting conversation. my appreciation. >> thank you. when the tv version of our national conversation is over, i want you to log on to cnn.com/live. we will do something a little different today. our conversation's going to continue online. that's right. at 4:00 eastern, your tweets, your messages on facebook, on myspace, and we'll be holding back some of the guests as well. <

jeff toobin got a mention during those hearings. i don't know if you noticed. we will have that for you in a little bit. our legal analyst will be joining me here in just a little bit to take us through the sotomayor hearings. but first, i want to get some of your reactions on the record as well because so many of you, after watching what happened today and now listening to that story we just did moments ago about former vice president dick cheney, have sent us your comments. let's share some of those. go to the twitter board, if we possibly can. art is saying aren't we supposed to go after the leaders, the al qaeda leaders? i'm glad cheney had a plan. why did l.p. and obama stop him? cheney's actions are a matter of interpretation of the law. was the omission vital to national security or not? my good friend and loyal viewer, mike, says obama gets hit in the

polls and the subject once more reverts to dick cheney. obama's lackeys are nauseatingly predictable. fun word to say. b.b. bruce says sometimes stuff that is top secret needs to be kept secret. sometimes it's not good for congress to know everything. finally, i doubt anyone is really surprised that cheney is behind cia stuff but dems need to get some spine and prosecute him. there you go. judge sotomayor, we will inquire as to how your philosophy which allows subjectiveity in the courtroom, affects your decision making. >> well, there you go. republicans today going after her but many of them saying i'm going to hear you out. supreme court nominee sotomayor, grilled during her confirmation hearings. we will examine with cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin, who calls today the super bowl, the super bowl for legal geeks. we'll be right back.

let me ask you a question. what other network's senior legal analyst has their name dropped at the sotomayor hearings? none. but ours, jeff toobin. joining us now from washington. i'm bragging on you, man. >> sheldon whitehouse, aptly named. he's got a future, that guy. >> brilliant, right? i say that about the folks that say nice things about me, too. >> absolutely. >> i know you watched this thing all day. i'm interested in your take, i don't know, did you see my interview with senator from texas -- >> cornyn. cornyn. >> cornyn. i asked cornyn, there's two

things to consider here. what she has said from time to time and her record. he seemed to be saying that he's just about giving as much import to what she said as her record. that was interesting. >> well, it is interesting, because there's a lot more for republicans to work with with her speeches, with her off the bench comments, which have been far more controversial than her rulings, which have been very mainstream, very extensive. she has a huge record after 17 years as a federal judge. but the comments are a little more provocative and that gives the republicans more to work with. >> what's the biggest problem for her? is it the ricci case or the quote, wise latina woman? >> i think it's a combination. basically, it's the ricci case, the firefighters case where she was overturned, it's the wise latina comment where she suggested it was somehow better to be a latina than a white male, and it's a membership on the board of directors of the puerto rican legal defense fund,

all of which the republicans, some republicans will use to paint a picture of her as kind of an activist, someone who is more interested in helping her community than in interpreting the law. that's a very tough sell, but i think that's the argument that they're building towards. >> you know what's interesting, my take at least on when she finally got a chance to speak, what she says is i love my father, i love my mother, i love my family, i come from a great place, isn't it great to live in america and by the way, fidelity to the law. is that pretty much what we're going to be hearing from her? >> she knows what the rap is against her. in a subtle way, her opening statement was an anticipatory response to the criticisms. equal justice under the law, no favoritism towards anybody, that's what the law means. that's the code she was speaking to respond to the criticism. >> do you think as we move forward here that she will be

able to move any of her critics, republican critics who are saying it looks to me like in fact, you're there trying to make law? >> i think there are two republicans on the judiciary committee, two of the seven, who really might vote for her. orrin hatch and lindsey graham. you really heard between the lines that they might. i don't think the other five, she has much of a shot at. but i think she does with those seven. can i add one thing, rick? >> yeah, go ahead. >> something that really struck me about today's hearing, which was something you didn't hear. same sex marriage. you did not hear the republicans threatening, you know, if she's confirmed, we're going to have same sex marriage. i think the politics -- >> is that because karl rove isn't in the white house anymore? >> well, i think republicans are recognizing that scare tactics that might have worked in 2004 do not necessarily work in 2009. the subject of same sex marriage has gotten so much more mainstream -- >> you think? >> so quickly. i do.

>> you don't think -- it was certainly a wedge issue, some would argue, that it helped get president bush elected for a second term. >> absolutely. that's what i said, 2004. i think it was a big issue in 2004. but that's five years ago. i think the politics of that issue are changing fast. i thought the fact that the republicans didn't raise it was interesting. >> you know what else is interesting? as i watch this thing, i think to -- i would, i mentioned this i think when i was talking to senator cornyn, got his name right this time, that i would have loved to have been a fly on the wall 100 years ago when they were going through these decisions and having these hearings, because it seems like there's a lot of political correctness going on today, and i agree with lindsey graham. i don't think a lot of folks in that hearing room are actually saying what they think. they are saying what they think they need to be heard thinking. >> i think there's a lot to that, rick, because each

president who proposes a nominee says well, all he or she is going to do is enforce the law. that's it. just apply the law. well, the fact is when you're dealing with questions like does the constitution protect a woman's right to abortion, may the university of michigan consider race when deciding whom to admit, those are questions that do not have obvious answers under the law. the law is ambiguous and it takes politics, it takes ideology, to decide those questions, and nobody really wants to acknowledge that. they say i'll just apply the law. the law is not clear. >> but you're an expert. if you said what you just said in that hearing room, they would throw your butt out. >> well, they had any number of reasons to do that. >> if she -- what i'm trying to say, i'm being funny about it, if she had said that, they would say forget about it, you know, case dismissed, you're out of here. >> that's part of the code that governs the supreme court, is that you're supposed to pretend that these legal issues are

completely divorced from politics when it's my belief that you can't decide these questions, however you come out, pro life, pro choice, without bringing your politics to bear on them. >> sometimes reality and perception are two different things. jeffrey toobin, congratulations on that shout-out by the way. >> thanks, rick. let's take a look at the north korean leader, kim jong-il. there have been some reports of his declining health. now south korean media say it's worse than what we thought. they say he has pancreatic cancer. also, we will be trying something new today. stick around for it if you can. it's the new tv version of our national conversation. it's going to be on cnn.com/live, so you can go there and catch us as we end things in a different way. your tweets, messages included, of course. seven symptoms. new visine totality multi-symptom. now reduce the red; bathe the dry and gritty; soothe the itch, irritated, burning and watery.

visine totality. no other drop does more.

last month, this woman wasn't even able to get around inside of her own home. they chose mobility. and they chose the scooter store! if you or a loved one live with limited mobility call the scooter store! no other company will work harder to make you mobile or do more to guarantee your complete satisfaction. if we pre-qualify you for a new power chair or scooter and your claim isn't approved, the scooter store will give you your power chair or scooter free. that's our guarantee. they were so helpful and nice. they filed all the paperwork, and medicare and my insurance covered the cost. we can work directly with medicare or with your insurance company. we can even help with financing. if there's a way, we'll find it! so don't wait any longer, call the scooter store today.

kim jong-il of north korea may have one of the deadliest forms of cancer imaginable. there are conflicting reports on this, but that is what south korea's state-run news agency is reporting. here are the most recent photos that have many people wondering what's up with the quote, dear leader. he looks gaunt, less hair and even with a slight limp. the story today from south korea is that he has pancreatic, pancreatic cancer. cnn is checking but has not been able to independently confirm that report. it is important to note, though, that if true, it would be particularly newsworthy given that only 5% of people who contract this disease actually survive it. the president nominates a family practice doctor from alabama to be the nation's surgeon general. who was it and what did she have

to say?

a small-town doctor from an alabama bayou famous for making house calls is the president's pick to be the next united states surgeon general. and there she is, dr. regina benjamin, 52 years old, a woman president obama called a relentless promoter of programs to fight preventable illness. dr. benjamin says, quote, i could be a voice to improve our nation's health for the future. next step for her, anyway, is the senate confirmation. trying to do something new today, speaking of confirmations. we're going to be covering the story of sotomayor and obviously the dick cheney revelations right here after the show. stick around when the tv version of our national conversation ends, logon to cnn.com/live where the conversation continues online, 4:00 eastern, your

tweets, your message, facebook, myspace, all of it for an extra 15. i had felt fine. but turns out... my cholesterol and other risk factors... increased my chance of a heart attack. i should've done something. now, i trust my heart to lipitor. when diet and exercise are not enough, adding lipitor may help. unlike some other cholesterol lowering medications, lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk... of heart attack, stroke, and certain kinds of heart surgeries... in patients with several common risk factors... or heart disease. lipitor has been extensively studied... with over 16 years of research. lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. i was caught off-guard. but maybe you can learn from my story. have a heart to heart with your doctor...

about your risk. and about lipitor. it relieves seven symptoms. new visine totality multi-symptom. now reduce the red; bathe the dry and gritty; soothe the itch, irritated, burning and watery. visine totality. no other drop does more. the pontiac summer closeout is here; hurry to get the pontiac you want before they're gone. the price on the tag is the price you pay. get a 2009 pontiac vibe for $13,708 after all offers. or get 0% apr for 60 months on most 2009 pontiac models! all are backed with the best coverage in america, including a 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. get some excitement while you still can, during the pontiac summer closeout. visit pontiacdealer.com

welcome back. i'm rick sanchez in the world headquarters of cnn following some of the major stories that many americans are keeping up with today. there's only one word on capitol hill today, and most people, by the way, are mispronouncing it. it's sotomayor. sotomayor. not something else. the pick for u.s. supreme court justice. despite strong language from senators, her confirmation looks, well, repeat, looks, at this point, anyway, like a shoo-in. all right. about to find out if another sanchez agrees with me on this one. leslie sanchez is good enough to join us now. also here is maria cardona, democratic strategist. you know leslie is a republican strategist, maria is a democratic strategist. that's why we bring them together.

leslie, my namesake, let me begin with you. >> sanchez. sanchez. >> oh, sanchez. >> kidding. >> sotomayor. >> i know. >> hey, how did she do? did she hold up? did you like what she had to say? what did you think? >> i thought she did incredibly well. you know, she did a very good job of threading that very delicate needle between answering her critics with respect to empathy. she says one line. my personal and professional experience helped me to listen and understand. she's particularly talking about that empathy that president obama has talked about in selecting her. but she also applied another word, the word "apply," which is something that justice roberts also said. you know, when she's talking about the task of a judge is not to make law but apply law. justice roberts also talked about an umpire, you know, applying the rules. so, regardless of the politics, i think she did a very good job at introducing herself and very

briefly. >> did you think -- let me ask maria this. at time when i was looking at her and she seemed to be annoyed at the fact that she was being lectured by some people who were telling her what her job as a judge is supposed to be vis-a-vis interpreting the law, rather than making the law, et cetera, et cetera. did it seem that way to you, or was that just my take? >> no. actually, what it seemed like to me, and several people repeated this, she had an incredible poker face on and that nobody would want to go up against her in playing poker. >> a what face? a poker face. okay. >> yes. a poker face. >> like not giving anything away. >> exactly. and that's, again, as it should be. i think that she was taking everything in. i think she did a fabulous job of -- in her remarks of addressing some of the key criticisms and the key concerns that she knows very well, because, again, let's remember that she has met with more senators than any other supreme court nominee in the past. she knows very well what the

criticism of her is. and she wants to face that head on and i think she did that well today by underscoring fidelity to the law, something she's been saying for a very long time. >> did you think, leslie, that the republican senators were able to balance their criticism of some of the comments that she had made in the past with their openness and ability to give her a fair hearing? >> absolutely. if anything, i think the republican senators should be commended. they did a very good job of being respectful, to be clear. but they also articulated what their concerns were. and i think, to go back to jeffrey toobin, shoutouts to him, he's exactly right in defining -- there's a distinct difference between the cases and some of her decisions as well as the -- kind of the toxic nature of her speeches and her off-the-cuff statements. that that's where we're going to see the clash beginning tomorrow. >> is that really fair? you know, if somebody follows the three of us around,

especially being that we're hispanic, when we decide -- >> i could say something but i'm -- >> no, seriously. and by the way, it's irish guys and italian women and everybody else. there's a bunch of us like this. when we're in a group of people and they ask us a question and we decide that we're going to be candid or jocular or jovial, we may say things that we don't necessarily say when we are in our chosen profession or when we're doing a dissertation. is it fair to judge people on those things? of course, unless they say something totally ridiculous. >> i think -- if i can answer, i think some of these statements were totally ridiculous. i think the important term that senator graham viewed was unnerving to some of these republicans who would vote sfwens against her based on these unnerving statements, these speeches she's made. she's going to have to clarify that. >> especially that -- yeah, i think the wise latina woman deserves to be -- >>