at least no one mooned the moonwalk. jeanne moos, cnn. don't forget 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning our coverage of the confirmation hearings continues. up next, "lou dobbs tonight." lou? good evening, everybody. judge sonia sotomayor facing her critics on a deeply divided senate committee on her first day of confirmation hearings. we'll tell you what the judge had to say. some of the country's best legal and political analysts join me. also the obama administration may appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate some of the former bush administration's anti-terrorism policies and officials. republicans accusing democrats of trying to politicize intelligence and threatening our national security. important new developments tonight in the hunt for the killers of a florida couple who had 16 children. as many as eight children may

have been involved in their murder. we'll have the very latest for you. first tonight supreme court judge nominee sonia sotomayor pledged fidelity to the law. on day one of her confirmation hearings, she declared the task of a judge is not to make the law. it is to apply the mrau law, a direct response to her critics who have accused judge sotomayor of being what they call an activist judge. the judge, however, did not address the controversy over her previous assertions that a, quote, wise latina woman would make better judgments than a white male." candy crowley reports now from washington. so help you god. >> i do. >> reporter: her turn, sotomayor on sotomayor. >> 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. >> reporter: it is the crux of the matter. how does the judge judge? >> there must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge america needs because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. must judges set aside or may judges consider their personal feelings in deciding cases? is judicial impartiality a duty or an option? >> i want to make -- >> reporter: the legal and political framework for the week was set off the bat when every senator on the 19-member judiciary committee broke roughly along party lines. republicans suspicious that the words and some decisions are telltale signs of a liberal activist judge. >> call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law. in truth, it's more akin to politics and politics has no place in the courtroom. >> reporter: and it is clear democrats intend to defend the judge with heavy credentials and a record they say is mainstream. >> she understands there's not

one law for one race or another. there's not one law for one color or another. there's not one law for rich and a different one for poor. there's only one law. >> reporter: the democrats were solicitous of her background and credentials, the republicans tough but polite. the nominee took it in with her best poker face judge work and laid the groundwork for tuesday. her allegiance is to the law, she says, her background helps make her good at what she does. >> my personal and professional experiences help me to listen and understand with the law always commanding the result in every case. >> reporter: the week promises to be a discourse on philosophy. everybody on the panel understands the undertow of politics that may creep up and the reality of what lies ahead. >> unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed. and i don't think you will, but,

you know, the drama being created here is interesting. >> reporter: senator graham said he has some questions about whether sotomayor's colored by her background. others are inclined to believe if a nominee is qualified, the president should get the person he picks. lou? >> well, after listening to 20 senators who sit on the judiciary committee, speak for ten minutes each, judge sotomayor responded eight minutes. i'm sorry, i missed the drama here. could you sort that out for us? would that have dominated? >> reporter: i think probably -- you know, first the drama was that we hadn't heard sotomayor defend herself, although for eight minutes. i think at the end we may be sitting around wondering what republicans are going to vote for. but, again, when you know what the end is, a little tough to get through the middle.

>> i'm going to pretend i understood that, the last part of your analysis. thank you very much, candy crowley, for all of it. democrats tonight are intensifying demands for an inquiry into the anti-terrorism poll tis of president george w. bush's administration. the obama administration is considering whether to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate some of those policies and former officials. many democrats say the cia lied to congress about a secret program, never implemented to capture or kill al qaeda leaders. we know no more than that because it remains highly classified. one of those democrats, senate intelligence committee dianne feinstein says the administration broke the law. >> well, it is pretty clear that the law provides that the congress should be briefed before any sensitive operation and that is usually the case. we were not briefed here and

people can dedeuce for themselves whether the law was broken or not. >> republicans accusing democrats of putting politics ahead of national security. one republican, senator john cornyn of texas, said senator feinstein's assertion looks like an effort to provide what he called political cover for house speaker nancy pelosi. speaker pelosi accused the cia of lying about waterboarding, an accusation the cia has denied. joining me now for more on the cia controversy and judge sotomayor's confirmation hearing are senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, the author of the book "inside the supreme court." let's turn to the cia controversy with all the experience that proceeds from the nixon administration, the church commission, what is driving here the possibility of an investigation? >> well, one thing that has been a constant of every washington scandal starting with watergate, through iran-contra and on into

the '90s has been theish be you of was congress misled? were false statements made to congress? that's perhaps not the most important crime in the world but it is one that congress cares about a great deal and that creates pressure to appoint a prosecutor to determine whether it took place. >> is there a specific requirement that a program considered but not implemented would be shared with congress? >> well, here is where i'm going to make like a supreme court nominee and duck your question because it's very hard to make a judgment about a circumstance like this when we're dealing entirely from leaks and without knowing what the program was, what was told to congress. this is a very fact specific inquiry. the legitimate -- >> we are, unfortunately, absent those facts. >> exactly. anyone speaking with great certainty about whether a prosecutor should or shouldn't be appointed i think is acting

irresponsibly here. >> then the suggestion there would be one, how would you -- how would you describe that on the part of the obama administration? >> the obama administration hasn't even called for one yet. there have been members of the democrats in the house and senate have called for one but i -- eric holder, who has the authority, he hasn't called for one yet. let's see what factual basis they have. >> eric holder did, however, say no one should be concerned about it because he will not prosecute the innocent. that suggested he would be going -- carrying on an investigation, does it not? >> i'm not sure you can draw much from that. >> then i won't. i'm not going to fail to follow your counsel, counselor. >> every prosecutor should be concerned about not prosecuting the innocent. that's certainly a good goal. >> i thought the attorney general was on solid ground there myself. turning to judge sotomayor who is, it seems at this point at

least, after watching as i was saying earlier with candy crowley, watching 20 u.s. senators talk for ten minutes about i'm not sure what in every instance certainly, this looks like a foregone conclusion that she is justice, sotomayor. >> it certainly looks that way but it doesn't mean it's without value. i thought there was something very interesting today. there was no mention of what we usually think of as the hot button supreme court issues, almost no mention of abortion, no mention at all of same sex marriage. the pressure point is identity politics. the pressure point here is sotomayor's alleged accused undue sympathy for plaintiffs in discrimination cases. and that's significant. i think that's where she's going to have her hardest time. >> hardest time but is it sufficiently high obstacle to even begin to contemplate the possibility of her not being

confirm confirmed? >> i think lindsey graham had it about right. she'd have to have some sort of meltdown in order to lose, but there is the question of how many republican votes she gets. there are 12 democrats and 7 republicans on this committee. can she get any of those republican votes? i don't know. also, it shapes our political dialogue and i don't think that's trivial. you know better than anyone, politics is an important thing. >> as an observer i know a bit and one questions whether or not the most productive use of the senators' time and that of judge sotomayor is to listen to 20 senators for 200 minutes while she speaks for eight. it seems possible that we could do better than that but i would defer to our best wisdom of the united states senate and jeffrey toobin. thank you very much, jeffrey. turning now to the war in afghanistan, insurgents have killed two more of our troops. u.s. marines killed by a roadside bomb in the southern

province of hellemond. 647 of our troops killed in afghanistan since the beginning of the war. 361 of our troops wounded. more than 2,000 of them seriously. the latest casualties come as u.s. marines were stepping up against insurgence in helmand province. up next, we'll have much more on judge sotomayor's remarks to the senate judiciary committee. >> the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law. >> is judge sotomayor a born again jurist? is this a confirmation conversion? we'll have the latest. and police giving new details of their investigation into the murder of a florida couple with 16 children. if you're taking 8 extra-strength tylenol...

a day on the days that you have arthritis pain, you could end up taking 4 times the number... of pills compared to aleve. choose aleve and you could start taking fewer pills. just 2 aleve have the strength... to relieve arthritis pain all day.

and it lets you do some pretty incredible things. you can copy a phone number... and paste it in a text. you can copy an article... and paste it in an e-mail. or you can copy a map... and well, you get the idea. copy and paste, on the iphone 3gs. the most powerful iphone yet. a sheriff in florida says as

many as eight people were involved in the murder of a well-known florida couple. byrd and melanie billings were known as a generous couple. they had 17 children, four of their own, 13 adopted, and many of the children had special needs a. home invasion ended with both byrd and melanie murdered, each shot a number of times. eight children were in the home it at the time of their killings. none of the kids were injured. police are still trying to determine exactly what happened and exactly who is involved, but they do know one thing for certain, it was all well planned. david mattingly has the latest for us now from pensacola. david, what have you learned? >> reporter: well, lou, authorities are calling this shocking and chilling, much because of the precision in which this crime was carried out. they say there's soon to be a lot of practice as two teens of the assailants entered the home at the same time. we have surveillance video to show you. this was taken at the family's

home. you can see men entering the home. they are dressed in black. they are wearing masks. they entered the property at the same time. they went into the house and they were only inside the house a matter of minutes, only four minutes to go inside the house, a presumed motive of robbery. they were only inside the house four minutes to do what they needed to do and kill that couple. now listen to what the sheriff is saying as he's looking at the video. >> we have verified that three individuals dressed in black and masks entered the billings' home from the east side. an additional fourth individual remained in the vehicle. >> reporter: they have arrested three people so far, two men are charged with murder, home invasion and the murders. they also are now talking to

persons of interest, more arrests may result. six to eight people believed to be involved in the assault on this home. as far as the children, the family assures everyone they are being well taken care of, being kept together as a family and they will be cared for by family, that there were plans in place in case something happened to the parents and those plans are being carried out. lou? >> david, is there any further information on possible motive in this murder? >> reporter: that's why we are paying so much attention in this case, everyone asking that question, why would this couple possibly be targeted by someone like this? so far the sheriff has only said the only 0 motive they can report is robbery when the people went in and forcibly entered the home. they cannot say if they had planned to murder this couple before they went into the home.

they cannot say why at the moment this couple was murdered, but they have three people in custody, two of them charged with murder, one of them, they say, was the possible ringleader. so they hope as they continue to bring more people into custody they will get more answers to these perplexing questions. >> david, thank you very much. david mattingly reporting from pensacola. in our law and order segment, police from brazil say arturo gotti was killed by his wife by a strap from her purse while he slept. gatti's wife said she woke up, found gatti dead in their apartment. police, however, say there is no sign of a forced entry, that it was impossible for someone to enter that apartment. prosecutors in germany charging former nazi prison guard with nearly 28,000 counts of accessory to murder. prosecutors accusing the 89-year-old of serving as a nazi

prison guard in poland in 1943. authorities say some 250,000 people were murdered there over a period of less than two years. he was deported from the united states in may. police in michigan have captured one of three state prisoners. those prisoners will stay sunday from a maximum security prison just across state lines in indiana. the captured prisoner was a convicted murderer. one of the prisoners still at-large is also a convicted killer. the other a convicted rapist. up next, judge sotomayor tells senators it's not her job to make the law. it's her job to apply the law. sotomayor giving every impression she is something of a born again jurist and has undergone a confirmation conversion. and how did michael jackson die? was he murdered? that is the new bombshell charge from his sister.

(male sportscaster) this has to be perfect. [excited crowd murmuring] it's got the line.

it has a chance. will it? will it? (male announcer) something new to crave. the cr-v, from honda. i switched to a complete multivitamin with more. only one a day women's 50+ advantage... has gingko for memory and concentration... plus support for bone and breast health. just what i need. one a day women's.

updating you now on the investigation into the death of michael jackson. jackson's sister, la toya, now claims her brother was murdered. jackson's father is also claiming that possibility.

for the very latest bryan todd joins us. bryan be? >> reporter: lou, la toya jackson has told two british newspapers that, indeed, she believes michael jackson was murdered. she told "the daily mail" her brother was worth more than a billion dollars and said, quote, he was surrounded by people who didn't have his best interests at heart. another quote from that same interview, he was worth more dead than alive. la toya jackson never mentioned who she thought was behind michael jackson's death or who would benefit from it. cnn has learned she was paid for at least one interview. the actual amount of money paid was not disclosed, lou. >> all right, brian, thank you very much. brian todd from washington with the latest. i'll have a few thoughts on this, all the week's news. join me on the radio for "the lou dobbs show" each afternoon on wor and get the local listings in your area for the lou dobbs show. you can follow me on twitter.

please do so. up next, a republican senator predicting judge sotomayor will be confirmed by the senate. >> unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirm confirmed. >> and, is senator lindsey graham correct and how could he not be? new questions about the obama administration's economic policies and whether there should be a second stimulus package.

more now on the partisan divide over the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor, two members of the house committee joining me now, congressman steve king, a republican, and congressman jerry nadler, a democrat. today we watched those 20 senators and if it had an 6:"r"r "d" it was predictable. congressman king, what is the partisan interest in doing this? >> well, there are two completely different views that are playing out on the senate judiciary committee today and in the following days' hearings with justice sotomayor. and the one view that the

judicial activism view that believes the constitution is a living, breathing document that can be shaped and molded by, let me say, a wise latina woman or some otherwise person on the supreme court if they can get four others to agree with them. and the other view is the view expressed by ranking member jeff sessions this morning at the opening of the hearing that the other side of it the constitution is not a living, breathing document but a document that constrains the judges and they are bound by the language in the constitution. >> let's listen to what senator sessions said as i turn to you, congressman nadler. this is what senator sessions had to say about empathy -- well, i'm told now that we don't have that sound bite. we do have it now. we'll listen to what president obama had to say about empathy and senator sessions' response to empathy versus prejudice.

>> judge sotomayor's empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudiced against another. that is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. empathy for one party is always prejudice against another. >> congressman nadler, your reaction? >> nonsense. there is no empathy standard. i hope that everybody has empathy for everybody else. and what you had in that case, of course, was the conflict between two different points, disparate points of the law. of course her opinion or participation in the case was well within the mainstream where the justices agreed with her. i have to comment on what steve king said about judicial activism. this judicial activism is an old sore used by conservatives against any democratic or

moderate or liberal candidate. the fact is it's been the conservatives on the supreme court, the so-called conservatives, who have been much more activist if you define activism as substituting their judgment for the judgment of the elected representatives. they've overturned more laws pa passed by congress and state legislators than most in courts in the past. every time the court has had an opinion from brown vs. board of education that they didn't like theshgs yelled judicial activism. >> let me do this. let's listen to judge sotomayor at duke university four years ago and what she said about applying or making law or policy. >> the court of appeals is where policy is made, and i know this is on tape and i never should say that because we don't make law, i know. i know. i'm not promoting it. i'm not advocating. you know.

okay. having said that, the court of appeals -- >> having said that today this is what judge sotomayor had to say at her confirmation hearing. >> in the past months many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. simple. fidelity to the law. the task of a judgment is not to make law. it is to apply the law. >> are you in any way -- do you feel a little better, congressman king, or is this confirmation conversion? >> well, i would say i don't feel the need to rebut mr. nadler because it seems to me that the language at duke university has already done so. i would point out the people of this country that judge sotomayor has had nine cases before the supreme court that she has decided upon and of those nine only one has been affirmed, seven reversed, awn

one was vacated. she's batting 1 for 9 before the supreme court and, by the way, this supreme court is the supreme court that is there, that's the backup if mistakes are made at the lower court level. there's nobody to back up a supreme court justice other than the other eight and this is a high test situation that's going on. i would also point out that justice sotomayor does not seem to understand that the constitution has to be there to protect the rights of individuals in a rigid fashion. i don't think she understands that. >> congressman nadler? >> well, she obviously does understand that and i don't know about the sta ttistic i just heard, i've never heard it from congressman king. i've never heard it before, but she has participated in thousands of decisions. she's been on the court for 17 years and she has a very good ratio of reversals, one of the best ratios in terms of percentage of case that is have not been reversed of any judge on the court.

and the fact -- >> is there any doubt in your mind, congressman nadler, that she will be confirmed? >> none. >> all right. how about yours, congressman king? >> i think there's an outside chance if she should contradict herself in a stark way in the hearings there's an outside chance but mostly this is make the case for what the constitution means and if the constitution doesn't mean what it says. >> i apologize. we're just out of time. congressman king, thank you very much. congressman nadler, thank you very much. >> thank you. still ahead, will the judge's personal background overshadow her professional experience? that's the topic of our face-off tonight. and republican senators raising questions about the president's motive in choosing judge sotomayor. president obama clearly believes you measure up to his empathy standards. that worries me. >> up next, senator tom coburn joins me with his view on the judge.

in today's supreme court nominee hearings, a recurring theme, appreciation of the judge's experience, concern about her ability to be objective. joining me now senator tom coburn, republican member of the senate judiciary committee, and it is good to have you with us. >> lou, good to be with you. >> the divide seems very clear. f focus on what appears to be politics, perhaps the suggestion of personal preference on the part of the judge, and the

democrats find her narrative and her record to be absolutely exemplary and also external to the committee and the hearings the ada saying she is well qualified to be a supreme court justice. are we going to see that assertion made by the republicans as well, or will there be contention tomorrow? >> i think we have to wait and see. we have finished the statement, then you'll start hearing the questioning. the thing that is concerning is both district court judges and appellate court judges have what they're guided by. the supreme court is not. they get a change precedent. and so even though she's had a long history on the bench at the appellate and district court level, what she says outside of her rulings bears a significant responsibility onto us for how we assess her capability to handle that precedent. and so precedent is important and she has the ability to

change that being on the court. >> and i assume there will be forgiveness on stare decesis? >> as precedence changes. whatever is precedent today could be changed tomorrow by the court and so that's why what she has said and spoken and given in speeches is very apropos that we consider that in terms of judging her qualifications to just follow the constitution, the statutes and the treaty and just the fact of the case not what her feelings may be. >> is there anything in her professional record as a judge that troubles you, any sort of favoritism you detected that has not been discovered anywhere else? do you feel a great sense of who she is as a jurist? >> i think there's nothing personal in her record and

there's nothing in her jury decisions other than she has missed the mark about 80% of the time when she'd been reviewed by the supreme court. and so that is concerning especially second amendment cases. her contention that foreign law is fine to use when in fact the constitution says she won't. there are some issues i think you will see covered very vigorously tomorrow and very thoroughly. >> to what degree, senator, as we have been reporting, 20 senators, ten minutes of time to speak today. we learned almost nothing from the nominee. and, frankly, a lot of people were bored to death by the senators. is there a way in which to improve this so it becomes truly a hearing rather than a presentation? >> well, i think that will depend on whether or not she will truly answers the questions. i'm going to inquire on second amendment, on life issues, on foreign law.

if she'll answer the questions, we'll have a real hearing. if she won't answer the question, then we won't have a real hearing and americans will either know that she either is hiding something or refuses to answer. >> senator tom coburn, we thank you for being here. >> you're welcome, lou. good to be with you. up next, democrats demanding an investigation of the bush administration's national security policies. the cia front and center. republicans say partisan politics trumping national security. and judge sotomayor defending her record on the bench. we will have an analysis of her record. you all want to run your businesses more efficiently, so we've brought in a team of experts to help. one suggestion is to make your shipping more efficient with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service. call or go online for a free supply and up to $160 in offers from authorized postage vendors. shipping's a hassle! weighing every box... actually, with flat rate boxes you don't need to weigh anything under 70 pounds.

if it fits, it ships for a low flat rate. ok, but i ship all over the country. you can ship anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. ship international, too. yes, but i ship hundreds of things, in all sizes. great, because flat rate boxes come in four sizes. call now and we'll send a free supply, plus up to $160 in offers. when you're ready to ship, we'll even pick them up for free, no matter how many you have. priority mail flat rate boxes only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship. call or go online now to get started.

judge sotomayor today

defended her record in brief remarks on the first day of her confirmation. in fact, i'm told it is the briefest of remarks ever by a supreme court nominee. the judge will face questions from senators tomorrow and the topic of our face-off debate tonight should judge sonia sotomayor be confirmed as the next justice of the supreme court? joining me now wendy long. great to have you with us, leading constitutional attorney floyd williams. great to have you with us. let's begin with what appears to be a confirmation conversion on the issue of either making law or applying law. how do you -- how do you react? >> i don't think there's any conversion at all. >> entirely consist snent. >> entirely consistent. she's ruled in thousands of cases when the supreme court doesn't take a case it's because they either don't think it's important enough or for some other reason.

when they take it it's generally the reverse. and they reverse in about 65%, 70% of the cases they get. >> so in the instance of a supreme court hearing, it's an honor you'd just as soon forego. >> yes. >> wendy? >> well, i think it was absolutely a confirmation conversion. she said as little as possible as we've noted and tried to sound as much like john roberts, sam ali at that and clarence tomorrow thomas as possible. she said her duty is fidelity to the law. is the law what's written in the constitution or is the law as the president thinks what's in the deepest recesses of your heart? sonia sotomayor's empathy and her personal gender and ethnicity and her views and what her personal notions of justice. what is the law? that begs the question. she didn't really say anything. having listened to john roberts'

eight-minute presentation and justice alito's brief presentation, it's not a little thing to get up and to define what is the law. everybody thinks that the law is what the constitution says it is. people disagree on what the constitution means. that's why we have 5-4 votes. >> she didn't say it's what the constitution -- what's written in the constitution and the history, she said fidelity to the law. and that, as i said, is a meaningless statement. >> would she have persuaded you if she said what i really care about is the constitution? are those the words you want? 0 no, floyd, with the record she's got, there's little to persuade me. the things she's already said for decades and years and, yes, her judicial decisions, too. she's ignored things that are in the text of the constitution and made up things that aren't there. >> wendy, i'm glad you're not on the court to decide what the

constitution means. i mean, in the cases she's had, she's had, what, 83% of the cases she's had in which people claimed a race violation, she's voted against them. 94% of the cases in which criminal defendants appealed, she voted for the government. i mean, this is not some wild liberal record. >> go ahead, be wendy. >> those percentages are meaningless unless you compare them to averages or norms of other judges. meaningless standing alone. >> she voted with her conservative brethren 95% of the time. >> and what -- lou, just one second, what did the president say that in 95% of the time a justice scalia and ginsberg -- i think he was wrong by that but by his own standard that's the 5% of cases the president thinks really matters. >> your program? >> well, it's our program. the idea, though, is with those percentages, why in the world

would a liberal president appoint such a conservative nominee? >> she is middle of the road. she votes as most judges vote on most cases and she does it in the very cases that people who are trying to blemish her record or say she's not trustworthy wouldn't trust her on. that's why i cite race cases fmt you go to immigration, 8 % of the cases in which immigrants appealed, she voted against them. it's not because she's anti-immigrant. it's because they had bad cases. that's what a good judge does. >> let's turn to the democratic majority in the senate. wendy, this, as you both know, this is all the ginsberg work today where you have 20 senators speaking for ten minutes each learning nothing from the nominee, the constraints all agreed upon, and the american people are nothing but the senators are intent on not learning anything. is it time to change the way in

which we conduct these hearings? wendy? >> well, i think that the hearing is not at all as meaningful as her record and as long as americans get a chance to know about her record by whatever means, and it may not be through the hearings, i think that's what's really important. but i hope that her record will be illuminated by the hearing and we will learn something. >> look, i would like it if people up for confirmation would be more candid. they are told, all of them, democrats and republicans, they have handlers. they know what gets people in trouble and they know what doesn't get them in trouble. and answer that is are general tend to be better off, the people are better served. not the public but the candidates are. i mean, that's just the way the political world is. >> is it another instance washington politics, the public be damned, and please go about your political theater, wendy? is there some point in which lawyers, attorneys, the aba,

left and right, liberal and conservatives say, please, we still are a nation that needs to be governed openly, honestly, transparentally and if we're going to put big boys and girls on the supreme court of the united states they should have the intelligence to handle the caldron of a confirmation hearing. wendty? >> absolutely. she's got to answer certain questions all the more so -- >> i didn't mean just she. i meant everyone. >> yeah, well, of course. i think senator sessions today did an excellent job explaining in detail what the problem is with her philosophy. he contrasted it with the opposing philosophy. what we hear from her is trying to mix up the issues and the white house is trying to make her sound like a proponent of judicial restraint. >> but the reality is that people who are up for confirmation are not as candid as they should be. i think she will be candid but if you cite anyone for

confirmation, since robert bork, they have been reticent, quick answers. they've stayed out of trouble and i don't blame them but, yes, i think we'd be a lot better off if senators would say, i won't vote for an individual up for confirmation unless they give straight answers, albeit ones which don't answer how will you vote in this case or that case that would be a great improvement. >> just to reiterate what -- sitting on the judiciary committee, you shouldn't support a nominee who will not answer a direct question. >> of both parties. >> absolutely. thank you very much. wendy, thank you very much. we appreciate you both being here. the federal deficit soaring to a record high. there's talk of another stimulus package. wow. what's it been, 4 1/2 months? just about.

well, joining me now, ron christie, former adviser to president bush and vice president cheney. president of christy's strategy

and mark, senior political analyst for "time" magazine, cnn contributor, robert zimmerman. thank you for being here. well, what do you make, ron, of these hearings today? sort of like watching paint dry? was there a great narrative being developed? >> i think i'm going to go with the paint drying narrative. i think really the senators were more posturing i think to the american people and given their philosophy of how they see this hearing coming out. tomorrow is where we're going to get into the meats and nuts and bolts into what's going on with sonia sotomayor. i think we've seen a conversion, the wise latino comments she made, the comments at duke university at how we don't make the law. now she's saying her whole responsibility is to the law. seems like a judicial conversion. >> seems like a lot of talking points, ron. the reality is -- >> share it with us. >> i knew i couldn't get away with that. i thought i'd try. there was a narrative emerging

from the hearings today. it gave paint drying a bad name, frankly. the narrative was the president's sitting supreme court represents mainstream philosophy as opposed to right wing activist and hopefully judge sotomayor, soon to be -- i tuned into the radio show. >> i think personally you could call her justice sotomayor. nothing but a big rubber stamp. >> hopefully she'll be able to restraint the right wing activist court. >> nasty people. right wing activism is not good, left wing activism is good? >> judicial interpretation is what counts. >> three things today i think matter. tomorrow matters more. one is the republicans showed they understand there was a danger here if they'd gone after her hard. they could damage themselves politically with latinos with women. they showed they met, talked it over, didn't mess that up. tworks she handles herself well. limited fashion, introduced her family. we had not heard her speak,

really most of us except her one appearance with the president. did that fine. finally, most important, we know al franken wants to be considered less funny than tom to bu cobur. keep up the notion he's a new senator and not crack a smile or tell a joke. >> so far, it's so good. it is not so good for the country. $1 trillion budget deficit for the first time in our history at this time. cap and trade. not law. health care reform, not law. there's a host of nishinitiativ this administration had want the to pursue almost as quickly as in the first five months of the administration. how can any of those people passed now, given the recession, given this spending levels that are -- i mean, we're literally on the verge of break this nation's bank. >> one of the real challenges for barack obama, as president, the administration, is to tie

the initiatives together with economic recovery, job creation. i think the message has become too diffused. that's been a problem. we can get health care done by the end of this year. there's a bipartisan recognition it has to be done. >> mark? >> the country in many ways is in crisis on health care, for years, crisis on the debt level. still at a potential financial crisis, in an unemployment crisis. the president, though, because he's got to balance these things is not acting like we're in crisis. on a foreign trip which we must do. dealing with other issues which we must do. until he convinces the country and congress these are crises that are interconnected and must be dealt with this year, i can't imagine how they'll be dealed with. >> the american people are concerned with the jobs issue and the economics issues. what is the president focusing on? the president is focusing on cap and trade and health care. there's a serious disconnect

betweens what's going on in washington -- >> the disconnect is not the fact these aren't related to economic recoverpy. the message has become -- >> i absolutely disagree with you on that. >> let me turn to the cia and interest on the part of the congressional leadership, certainly, and, perhaps, the obama administration, to opening an investigation it decided not to conduct earlier. do you think we're going to see this with the cia, see another church commission? >> i don't know if we're going toward the church commission. quite clearly the attorney general of the united states has an obligation to uphold the rule of law and can't ignore, in fact, a very clear example of violations of the law and can't overlook the fact george bush and dick cheney in office violated the integrity of the cia and put that agency in harm's way. by the way, held them back. >> i don't think we'll have the

cia investigation. the administration doesn't want it. the american people don't want it. i find it fascinating -- excuse me, i didn't interrupt you. the moral clarity have is george bush and dick cheney have done something wrong. i think it's interesting -- actually the point was that congress was briefed on this june 24th. there was a big discussion going on. >> after it was upheld by dick cheney. >> a program that had never been initiated. democrats are saying this is a full-blown -- >> mark will be adjudicating. >> there's issues. one is whether the attorney general wants to look at the interrogation techniques. the other is the new report from over the weekend whether there was a program or beginning of the program that the vice president may have been involved in saying congress should not be briefed. it goes back as a political matter to the question does the president want to be using capital and the bandwidth to look back. >> mark, this is not a political matter. this is the matter of upholding

the rule of law. >> i applaud, irrespective of this matter, i applaud any attorney general who shows independence from the white house. >> i applaud congress for conducting an investigation into why dick cheney -- >> are you suggesting if eric holder chooses not to investigate, that will be a demonstration of independence. >> as long as he does it based on the fact -- just the mere fact he's proceeding on something the white house doesn't want him to do, again, not in this particular case, but the concept is good for the country. >> we should take the public statements as sincere statements. >> absolutely. >> all right. thank you very much. ron, mark, thank you very much, robert. a reminder to join me on the radio mondays through fridays for the lou dobbs show 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. on wor 710 radio. go to loudobbs.com to get the local listings in your area for the show. follow me at lou dobbs news an twitter.com. do so. thank you