>> reporter: with republicans questioning whether her background and personal experience will trump the letter of the law, sonia sotomayor confronted their concerns head on. >> 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. >> republicans will focus on one of sotomayor's rulings as an appellate judge against white firefighters who claimed they were victims of discrimination. the supreme court recently reversed the decision and indications say conservatives sotomayor showed bias towards minority firefighters. >> judge sotomayor's empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudiced against another. >> reporter: republicans will question statements sotomayor has made off the bench in years past, especially this one.

i would hope a wise latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. >> it bothers me when someone takes the robe off and says their experience makes them better than someone else. i think your experience can add a lot to the court, but i don't think it makes you better than anyone else. >> reporter: democrats say it's exactly that, her experience in the courtroom that makes her qualified to sit on the supreme court. and they argued there's nothing wrong with bringing life experience to the bench. >> this should be unremarkable, and in fact, completely appropriate. after all, our own committee members demonstrate the value that comes from members who have different backgrounds and perspectives. >> brianna keilar joining us now live from capitol hill. let's talk for a minute about the differences in strategy for today. the republicans and the democrats are definitely going to go about this differently in their questioning. >> reporter: yeah. republicans, of course, are going to focus a little bit on her record. they may -- they've hinted they're going to talk about that

new haven firefighters case where judge sotomayor's an appellate judge ruled against white firefighters. but what they're really going to spend a lot of time on, heidi, is her off the bench remarks. i just ran into senator jeff sessions, the top republican on this committee just a few minutes ago and he said this a particular concern to him because there's a difference in his mind in being a supreme court justice versus an appellate judge. he said when you're on the supreme court, there's this knowledge that no one's going to overrule you. he thinks there's more opportunity for opinion to drive decisions, and that's why he really wants to dissect, especially that wise latina comment. but democrats here, heidi, they are running defense. they are the friendlies here and they are going to be sticking, instead, to her record, her record, her record to quote one aide. trying to show if you look at her decision, she is in the mainstream. >> okay. well, we are going to have senator sessions on the show in just a if minutes, as a matter of fact, brianna, talking more about some of the things he said

yesterday and what he will be talking about and questioning on today. appreciate it, brianna, another big day. thank you. about the only fireworks on the first day of sotomayor's confirmation hearing came from anti-abortion protestors. >> four demonstrators were arrested, including the plaintiff in the landmark legal case roe versus wade. the woman in that 1973 supreme court ruling is now a staunch opponent of abortion rights. and as we mentioned in just a few minutes, we'll be hearing from two members of the senate judiciary committee, one republican, one democrat, they'll be sharing their impressions from day one in the hearing and looking ahead to what will be going on today. stay with us for our live coverage of this pivotal day of the confirmation hearing. day two is set to get underway at the bottom of the hour. if you cannot watch it live on cnn, see it on our website, go to cnn.com. turning to other news now,

president obama believes community colleges could play a key role in getting our economy back on track. so today, the president is traveling to warren michigan to announce a $12 billion ten year plan to help those colleges. initiatives include challenge grants to help underfunded community colleges. the access and completion fund to provide performance-based scholarships, moneys to modernize and maintain facilities and opening online courses as an option to classroom instruction. president obama's nominee for surgeon general is a doctor who has put her patients' health above their ability to pay her. the president welcomed dr. regina benjamin to the white house yesterday. the family practitioner founded a rural health clinic in alabama back in 1990 and has been running it ever since. she rebuilt the clinic three times after hurricanes and a fire. the house is scheduled to release its plan to overhaul health care today. speaker nancy pelosi says she expects a house vote by the

august recess. but, pelosi says more changes to the bill are likely due to differences over how to pay for it. the plan is expected to cost about $1 trillion over ten years with much of that money helping people who cannot afford care. the major u.s. offensive against militants in afghanistan's helmand province coming at a cost. a military spokeswoman says two marines were killed in a hostile incident on monday. some 4,000 marines are pushing through the province in the biggest afghan operation since 2001. federal investigators looking into what caused a hole to open on a southwest airlines jet flying at 34,000 feet. the plane was in route to baltimore from nashville yesterday when a football-sized hole in the fusil lodge caused the cabin to depressurize. the plane made an emergency landing in charleston, west virginia. >> we were seated about two rows back from the wing and about four rows back you heard this

loud rush and your ears popped and then we looked back and you could tell that part of the inside was trying to pull out. and it was really crazy and then the oxygen masks dropped and i put mine on as i was instructed to, then put them on my kids. it's crazy, but as a parent you're doing a lot of talking and calming and that kind of thing and how you've never gone through this before. >> the airline said no one was hurt and all of the passengers made it to baltimore safely on another plane. head over to the severe weather center now where jackie jeras is standing by to talk a little bit more about some storms that we've been hearing about, jackie. what's the latest? >> well, it's been a rough morning across much of missouri. take a look at this line of thunderstorms moving on through. kansas city pretty hard. the winds here around 40 to 50 miles per hour, so that can cause some damage. they're not as severe levels

right now, but putting down some heavy downpours, could see as much as 2 inches per hour. we think this complex is going to hold together and make its way across the state, eventually pushing towards st. louis and also heading into parts of illinois. now, the severe weather threat extends from kansas city on up through des moines, even into minneapolis today, and most of the real severe thunderstorms will come into play, we think, late this afternoon and into this evening. take a look at minneapolis right now, it's a cloudy start here this morning. we've got light rain in the area, temperatures 66 degrees, but those thunderstorms will be coming in, your drive time home. be aware of that, and make sure you've got your weather radio on, but a nice look there at the mississippi river in minneapolis and st. paul. the heat continues to be a huge problem across the southern plain states. this has really been going on for weeks already. >> nasty. >> and it's going to get up into kansas city today, all the way down to dallas feeling like 100

to 110 degrees. >> this is the first time i feel confident in saying you're going to have a very significant cool down and we think that will come friday. you'll get out of the triple digits, but still warm into the 90s. maybe 95 to 96, but that actually is going to feel so much better than 110 degrees in terms of your heat index. we've got some cool temperatures across parts of the north. record low of 36 degrees at international falls yesterday morning. that's in minnesota. 78 minneapolis, 82 in chicago, and boston not too bad around 77 degrees. the best weather in the country today, heidi, is going to be the great lakes in the northeast, in new york city, philadelphia, detroit, looking for some really great weather in the low 80s and lots of sunshine. >> okay, very good. nice to see you. thanks so much. nasa, meanwhile, will make a sixth attempt now to launch the shuttle endeavor tomorrow. yesterday's liftoff had to be scrubbed because of lightning. endeavor has been grounded for a month, first by leaks and then by storms. the shuttle is carrying the last

part of japan's $1 billion space lab and something the space station crew is probably even more interested in, hundreds of pounds of food. senators are set to fire off their questions to judge sonia sotomayor later this hour, but before they go into the hearing, i'm going to be talking with two members of the senate judiciary committee, one of them the ranking member. how did sonia sotomayor do on day one? and what did they want to hear from her today? . you have questions. who can give you the financial advice you need? where will you find the stability and resources to keep you ahead of this rapidly evolving world? these are tough questions. that's why we brought together two of the most powerful names in the industry. introducing morgan stanley smith barney. here to rethink wealth management. here to answer... your questions.

morgan stanley smith barney. a new wealth management firm with over 130 years of experience.

a convicted murderer and another inmate serving time for rape are still at large. two days after escaping from the indiana state prison, authorities say they escaped by traveling in tunnels under prison grounds. a third escapee was caught yesterday in southwestern michigan. police are urging residents in the area to be on alert. authorities in florida have a fourth suspect in custody in the killing of a couple known for taking in special needs children. bert and melanie were shot to death while nine of their adopted children were also in the home. surveillance pictures from the house have helped investigators. police expect an arrest -- to arrest a fifth suspect today and

they are looking at other possible suspects. >> we expect more arrests to be eminent in this case. these seem to take a life of their own at some point in time. and we're proud to announce that we hope to bring all of the suspects we have identified early on in this case to justice very, very shortly. >> police say robbery is one motive in the case, but they believe other motives will come out of their investigation. senators set to fire off their questions to judge sotomayor later this hour. before they go into the hearing, we'll be talking with two members of the committee. one of them, the ranking member. how did sonia sotomayor do on day one? what do they want to hear from her today? this is nine generations

of the world's most revered luxury sedan. this is a history of over 50,000 crash-tested cars... and 889 safety patents. this is the world record for longevity and endurance. and one of the most technologically advanced automobiles on the planet. this is the 9th generation e-class. this is mercedes-benz.

judging sonia sotomayor, the supreme court nominee is minutes away now from the second day of her confirmation hearings. what kind of impression did she make yesterday? to answer that, two members of the senate judiciary committee, jeff sessions and shelldon whitehouse. let's get started off the top

here. senator sessions, what do you want to hear from judge sotomayor today? >> well, she did a nice job yesterday. she's an engaging person and certainly one that all of us can like personally. but i think she needs to follow up on the statement she gave yesterday. because for the last 10 maybe 15 years, she's demonstrated a systemic philosophy that denigrates the ideal of equal justice in which she raises question after question about the ability of judges in perhaps most cases to set aside their personal biases and sympathies and prejudices. so i think that'll be what -- some of the things that will be talked about today, others will be the cases she's ruled on. >> okay, so you clearly have concerns. i understand you will be getting to them today. senator white house, what will you be looking for? what will you be listening for to come out of judge sonia sotomayor's mouth? >> i think the two things that judge sotomayor should do are

first to let americans who are watching know a little bit more about who she is. she has one of the greatest american life stories of anyone. i mean, it's really impressive. here's a little girl who grew up in the projects in the bronx with a single mom and you would have thought she didn't have chance. but through hard work and discipline and her native talent, here she is a candidate for the united states supreme court. that's a story that needs to be told. i think the other point she needs to make is that she's willing to take the extra step to listen to the unheard voice, to listen for the little guy. we have seen a lot of very tough decisions come out of the supreme court favoring big corporations against individuals. even to the point of requiring an elderly lady to have filed her lawsuit for unjust discrimination before she knew of the discrimination. so i think it's important to make sure that she will listen to all sides and not just the

big side. >> you know, i find it fascinating the way the two of you just answered these questions. because there was analyst on and i can't remember who it was. who was saying after the proceedings yesterday that it seems like the party in power always wants to talk about the personal side of the nominee and the opposing party wants to talk about ideology if it's a fair assessme assessment. senator sessions, do you want -- i should say judge sonia sotomayor to become justice sotomayor and be a member of the supreme court team? >> i'd hope that she can do that. and do that in a way that comforts the american people that she's committed to the judicial oath, which is not to favor the poor or the rich. indeed the oath is we will do equal justice to the poor and to the rich. we will be impartial and that will serve under the law not above the law. and some of her statements and philosophy which could well flower if she's on the supreme court with no other higher court

in the land could really be detrimental to the american legal system. i just believe a philosophy and the ethic of the american justice system is fabulous. and its objective justice, neutral judges who treat people fairly every day. no matter what their background. that's the essence of judging in america, justice and law in america, and i'm worried about some of the things she said and she'll get a chance to respond to that, but one statement at the day of a hearing does not necessarily wipe out a decade of contrary statements. >> well, and you are no stranger to the proceedings yourself, obviously. so what was that? a yes or a no? how are you going to vote? >> well, i'm not going to say how i'm going to vote. a lot would depend on her day, yesterday was senators, today she'll have a day to show herself and what she believes and she'll have favorable questions and she'll have a tough question, and it'll be interesting to see how well she does and not just how well she

does, but what her real take is on the law. >> understood. senator whitehouse, do you have any concerns whatsoever about this nominee? >> i think she's in a very, very, very strong position between her life story, her 17 years of essentially completely uncontroversial and very able experience as a federal united states judge both on the district court and on the circuit court of appeals. as a former prosecutor, i think her experience in the trenches of law enforcement in the tough gritty streets of new york is a very important plus for her. and she has immense support from law enforcement organizations, civil rights organizations, all sorts of organizations across the country. so she comes into this presenting a strong a position as a sensible, capable, experienced nominee as any justice this senate has seen, probably in 100 years. >> so no to the answer?

is the answer to my question about concerns. so to the two of you, we appreciate it. we know you have to get inside the hearings. senator jeff sessions from alabama, the ranking member of the committee and senator sheldon, thanks to the both of you. and we are hearing that the judge has arrived at the building. i wanted to give you some live pictures that we are able to get out of the confirmation hearing room there right there as you can see. everyone getting into position to begin. we're about eight minutes away or so from the top of this. the second day of the sonia sotomayor confirmation hearing. i'm heidi collins, and in a few minutes, wolf blitzer will take over our coverage as the support no, ma' supreme court nominee faces these questions from the senate judiciary committee. everything you need to strengen teeth, help prevent cavities, and kill germs. introducing 6 in 1 listerine® total care.

the most complete mouthwash. and to complete your oral care routine add superior plaque removal in places that are hard to reach with reach® toothbrush and floss. get the complete routine, reach® and listerine total care. (voice 2) how bad is it? (voice 1) traffic's off the chart... (voice 2) they're pinging more targets... (voice 3) isolate... prevent damage... (voice 2) got 'em. (voice 3) great exercise guys. let's run it again.

the united states supreme court at issue today. day two of the sonia sotomayor confirmation hearings. really day one of the questioning. yesterday all the opening statements, 12 democrats, 7 republicans, and one supreme court justice nominee. they made their opening statements, there were no questions yesterday, but this morning, within a few moments, patrick leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee will begin the questioning and then they will go down 18 more senators, each will have 30 minutes uninterrupted questioning for the supreme court justice nominee. we've got the best political team on television here ready to

assess, to analyze what's going on. let's go up to the hill for dana bash is there. set the scene for us, dana. this is going to be an historic and important day. >> reporter: it sure will. and as you said yesterday, we heard the senators give their opening statements and judge sotomayor do the same. but today will be the first chance for her to get these tough questions. both from democrats and republicans. we definitely expect democrats to do their best to bring out some of the credentials that they say she has. credentials that are better than anybody who has been nominated in recent past. but as for republicans, obviously, those are the questions we're going to be listening most intently to. and just in talking to one republican aide this morning, they say the key scene is where her advocacy coincided with her rulings as a judge. so clearly we're going to hear about the wise louisiana telati off the bench where her personal views may coincide in a bad way

from republicans' point of view with her decisions on the bench. but we're also going to hear some examples of decisions and rulings she made recently in the past couple of years that may do the same. one interesting note, though, we've been talking about her personal point of view. one thing to listen to and listen for is her position on guns. orrin hatch in particular has a vested interest in talking about that, other republican senators might, as well, because that is an area, the second amendment where they might be able to get some conservative democrats, maybe republicans to question whether or not she's the right person for the job. >> the office building, the chairman patrick leahy, others welcoming her. there's no doubt, there's no doubt that most of these substantive issues, there will be some strong questioning by these senators, including democrats. they're going to have tough questions and give her a chance to make her case. john king is here with us, the host of cnn's "state of the union." what are you going to be looking

for in this initial round of questioning? >> how tough the republicans will be. tough opening statements from the republicans, some of them a bit tougher than the white house an t anticipa anticipated. it comes down on gun rights, law and order issues. tries to connect some of her personal views to the judicial rulings. we're going to see what they're made of today because the republicans promise to come at her with tough questions. she is on a path to be confirmed unless she has what he called a major meltdown. that will be the big test today how does she perform under this spotlight. >> and gloria borger is here, as well. orrin hatch this morning on cnn's american morning basically said he's inclined to vote in favor of her confirmation. so that was -- that would be a very significant development if you get a senior republican like that, former chairman of the judiciary committee on board. >> it would be significant and he sort of gave us a hint about that yesterday in the way he handled her. but i think what republicans are

going to try to do today is she's not in the mainstream, in fact, she is too ideological, wolf. and the democrats will say she is in the mainstream, just don't look at those statements like wise latina, look, in fact, at her rulings and you will find that she has ruled more often than not with the majority of her colleagues and has not shown herself to be a judge out of the mainstream at all. >> and another republican, jeff toobin, who seemed to be open minded about this nominee is lindsey gramm of south carolina. >> gave certainly the most entertaining opening statement, the one who said that she'd be confirmed if she didn't have a major meltdown. but two things to keep an eye out for. we have not heard a lot about the staple of confirmation controversy, which is abortion rights. are the republicans shying away from it? is it because she's doesn't have a record? i'd be interested in that. the other is same sex marriage. >> here the gavel is coming downright now, looks like the chairman is beginning.

>> we can understand what's going on, i'm not sure whether we have votes or not. the extent that we do have votes or the extent we can keep the hearing going during votes and have different senators leave between them. we will, if we can't, then our recess for those votes. i will also have -- i guess we're one minute early here. the way the traffic was today, i think some people are still having trouble getting in here. i've talked with senator sessions about this -- excuse me. and what we're going to do is have 30 minute rounds. we will go back and forth between -- between sides. and senators will be recognized based on seniority if they're there. if not, then we'll go to --

we'll go to the next person. and with that, as i said yesterday when we concluded and now the american people finally have heard from judge sotomayor, and i appreciate your opening statement yesterday. you've had weeks of silence. you followed the traditional way of nominees. i think you visited more senators than any nominee i know of. for just about any position. but we get used to the traditional, the press is outside, questions are asked, you give a nice wave and keep going. but finally you were able to speak. i think your statement yesterday went a long way to answering the

critics and the nay sayers and so we're going to start with the questions here. i would hope everybody will keep their questions pertaining to you and to your background as a judge. you're going to be the first supreme court nominee in more than 50 years who served as a federal trial court judge, the first in 50 years to have served as both a federal trial court and a federal appellate court judge. let me ask you the obvious one, what are the qualities that a judge should possess? you've had time on the trial court and the appellate court, what qualities should a judge have and how does that experience you have, how does that shape your approach, your approach to being on the bench? >> senator leahy, yesterday many

of the state senators emphasized that the values they thought were important for judging. and central to many of their comments was the fact that a judge had to come to the process understanding the importance and respect the constitution must receive in the judging process and an understanding that that respect guided by and should be guided by a full appreciation of the limited jurisdiction of the court in our system of government but understanding its importance, as well. that is the central part of judging. what my experience is on the trial court and the appellate

court have reenforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. it's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge. >> well, you -- let's go into some of the sectors on this. one of the things i found

appealing in your record that you were a prosecutor, as many of us both the rank and member and i had that privilege. and you worked on the front lines, an assistant district attorney of the manhattan d.a.'s office, your former boss, the dean of the american prosecutors said one of the most important cases you worked on was a prosecution of the man known as a tarzan burglar, he would swing on ropes into their apartments and rob them and steal and actually killed three people. your co-counsel described how you threw yourself into every aspect, the prosecution of the case, helped secure a conviction, sentence of 62 years to life for the murders, your co-counselor describes you as a skilled legal practitioner who

pursued justice and victims of violence crimes, but understood the root cause of crimes and how to curb it. how does that experience -- does that experience shape your views in any way that both as a lawyer but also as a judge? i mean, this was getting into about as nitty-gritty as you could into the whole area of criminal law. >> i became a lawyer in the prosecutors' office. to this day, i owe who i have become as a -- who i became as a lawyer and who i have become as a judge to mr. morganthal, he gave me a privilege and honor in working with his office that has shaped my life. when i say i became a lawyer in his office, it's because in law

school, teach you on hypotheticals. they set forth facts for you. they give you a little bit of teaching on how those facts are developed, but not a whole lot, and then they ask you to apply legal theory and apply legal theory to the facts before you. well, when you work in a prosecutor's office, you understand that the law is not legal theory. it's facts. it's what witnesses say and don't say. it's how you develop your position in the record, and then it's taking those facts and making arguments based on the law as it exists. that's what i took with me as a trial judge, it's what i take with me as an appellate judge. it is respect that each case gets decided case by case

applying the law as it exists to the facts before you. you asked me a second question about the tarzan murderer case. and that case brought to life for me in a way that perhaps no other case had fully done before. the tragic consequences of needless deaths. in that case, mr. maddox was dubbed the tarzan murderer by the press because he used acrobatic feats to gain entry into apartments. in one case he took a rope, placed it on a pipe on top of a roof, put a paint can at the other end and threw it into a window in a building below and broke the window. he then swung himself into the

apartment and on the other side shot a person he found. he did that repeatedly. and as a result, he destroyed families. i saw a family that had been intact with a mother living with three of her children, some grandchildren, they all worked at various jobs, some were beginning to school. they stood as they watched one of their -- the mother stood as she watched one of her children be struck by a bullet that mr. maddox fired and killed him because the bullet struck the middle of his head. that family was destroyed. they scattered to the fore winds and only one brother remained in new york who could testify.

that case taught me that prosecutors as all participants in the justice system must be sensitive to the price that crime imposes on our entire society. at the same time, as a prosecutor in that case, i had to consider how to ensure that the presentation of that case would be fully understood by jurors. and to do that, it was important for us as prosecutors to be able to present those number of incidences that mr. maddox had engaged in in one trial. so the full extent of thiz conduct could be determined by a jury. there had never been a case quite like that where an individual who used different acrobatic feats the gain entry into an apartment was tried with all of his crimes in one indictment.

i researched very carefully the law and found a theory in new york law that they simply said if you can show a pattern that established a person's identity or assisted in establishing a person's identity simplifying the argument, by the way, then you can try different cases together. this was not a conspiracy under law because mr. maddox acted alone. i had to find a different theory to bring all the acts together. i presented that to the trial judge, it was a different application of the law, but what i did was draw on the principles of the theory and arguing those principles to the judge, the judge permitted that joint trial of all of mr. maddox' activity. in the end, carefully developing the facts in the case, making my

record our record i should say mr. mose and my record complete, we convinced the judge that our theory was supported by law. that harkens back to my earlier answer, which is, that's what's being a trial judge teaches you. >> so you see it from both ends, having obviously to a novel theory and now a theory that is well established in the law, but novel at that time. but you also as a trial judge, you've seen theorys brought in by prosecutors and defense and you have to make your decisions based on those. the easy answer to that is you do, do you not? >> well, it's important to remember that as a judge i don't make law. and so the task for me as a judge is not to accept or not

accept new theorys, it's just to decide whether the law as it exists has principles that apply to new situations. >> well, let's go into that because -- obviously the tarzan case is -- was unique case. and as i said, mr. morganthal singled that out as an example of the kind of lawyer you are. and i find compelling your story about being in the apartment. i stood in homes at 3:00 in the morning as they're carrying the body out from a murder. i can understand how you're feeling it. but in applying the law and applying the facts, you told me once that ultimately and completely the law is what controls. and i was struck by that when

you did. and so there's been a great deal of talk about the ricci case. and you and two other judges were assigned firefighters of new haven. the plaintiffs were challenging the -- decision to voluntarily discard the result of a pencil and paper test to measure leadership abilities. now, the legal issue those present to you in that case was not a new one, not in your circuit. in fact, there was a unanimous decades old supreme court decision, as well. and in addition, in 1991, congress acted to reenforce that law. i might note that every republican member of this committee still serving in the senate supported that statement of the law. so you had a binding precedent, you and two other judges came to

a unanimous decision. your decision deferred to the district court's ruling allowing the city's voluntary determination that they could not justify using that paper and pencil test under our civil rights laws. and federal -- you said it was federal judicial precedent. majority of the second circuit later voted not to revisit the panel's unanimous decision, therefore tupheld your decision. you had supreme court precedent, you had your circuit precedent, you were upheld within the circuit, subsequently went to the supreme court and five, a fair majority of five justices reversed the decision, reversed their precedent, and many have said they created a new interpretation of law. ironically, if you had done something other than followed the precedent, some would now be

attacking you as being an activist. you followed the precedent. so now they attack you as being biassed and racist. it's kind of a unique thing, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. how do you react to the supreme court's decision in the new haven firefighters case? >> you are correct, senator. that the panel made up of myself and two other judges in the second circuit decided that case on the basis of a very thorough 78-page decision by the district court and on the basis of established precedent. the issue was not what we would do or not do because we were following precedents and you on circuit court are obligated on a panel to follow established circuit precedent.

the issue in ricci was what the city did or could do when it was presented with a challenge to one of its tests that for promotion this was not a quo that case. this was not an affirmative action case, this was a challenge to a test. that everybody agreed had a very wide difference between the pass rates of a variety of different groups. the city was faced with the possibility recognized in law that the employees who were desperately impacted, that's the terminology used in the law and that is a part of the civil rights amendment that you were talking about in 1991. that those employees who could

show is a disproportionate rate, they could bring a suit and that then the employer had to defend the test that it gave. the city here after a number of days of hearings and variety of different witnesses decided that it wouldn't certify the test. and it wouldn't certify it in an attempt to determine whether they could develop a test that was of equal value in measuring qualifications. but which didn't have an impact. and the question before the panel was, was the decision -- of the city -- based on race or based on its understanding of what the law required it to do?

given second circuit precedent, bushy versus new york state civil services commission, the panel concluded that the city's decision in that particular situation was lawful under established law. the supreme court in looking and reviewing that case applied a new standard. in fact, it announced that it was applying a standard from a different area of law. and explaining to employers in the courts below how to look at this question in the future. >> but when you were deciding the -- when you were deciding it, you had precedent from the supreme court and from your circuit. basically determined how -- determined the outcome you had

to come up with, is that correct? >> absolutely. now that the supreme court has changed their decision without you having to relitigate the case, it would lay open, obviously, a different result. >> clearly. >> the circuit would be bound by the new decision, even though it's only a 5-4 decision, the circuit would be bound by the new decision of the supreme court, is that correct? >> absolutely, sir. >> thank you. >> that is now the statement of the supreme court of how employers in the court should exam this issue. >> during the course of this nomination, there have been some unfortunate comments, including outrageous charges of racism made about you and one person referred to you as being the equivalent of the ku klux klan and the other leader in the other party referred to you as

being a bigot and to the credit of the senators, the republican senators and most democratic senators, they have not repeated those charges, but you haven't been able to respond to any of these things. you had to be quiet, your critics taken a line out of your speeches and twisted it, in my view, to be something you never intended. you said that "you would hope the wives with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions." i remember other justices, the most recent one, justice alito talking about the experience of his immigrants in his family and how that would influence his thinking and helped him reach decisions. and you also said in your speech

to love america and value its lesson and great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. and then you said judges must transcend their simple prejss to achieve a greater fairness on reason of law and one more quote in there is what you told me is that ultimately and completely is what the law counts or what the law that controls. so, tell us, you've heard all of these charges and countercharges that wise latina and on and on, here's your chance. you tell us what's going on here, judge. >> thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks. no words i have ever spoken or written have received so much

attention. i gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups. most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly, of young latino lawyers and student. as my speech may clear in one of the quotes that you referenced, i was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do. i don't think that there is a coral with that in our society. i was also trying to inspire them to have them believe they could become whatever they wanted to become, just as i had. the context of the words that i spoke have created a misunderstanding and i want a

misunderstanding and to give everyone assurances. i want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, i do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. i do believe that every person has enough equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences. what the words that i use, i used agreeing with the sentiment that justice sandra day o'connor was attempting to convey. i understood that sentiment to be what i just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.

that has to be what she meant. because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time, or i shouldn't say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. justices on the supreme court come to different conclusions. it can't mean that one of them is unwise. despite the fact that some people think that. so, her literal words couldn't have meant what they said. she had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial. >> well, isn't that what you've been on the bench for 17 years. have you set your goal to be fair and show integrity based on the law? >> i believe my 17-year record

on the two courts, which show that in every case that i render i first decide what the law requires under the facts before me and that what i do is explain to litigants why the law requires a result and whether their position is sympathetic or not, i explain why the result is commanded by law. >> and doesn't your oath of office actually require you to do that? >> that is the fundamental job of a judge. >> let me talk to you about another decision that has been talked about. district of columbia versus heller. >> those are the two dramatic moments right now. she makes for the first time her case, her explanation why she decided on the firefighters'

case in new haven, connecticut, why she made that decision and why she said about a wise latina woman. we'll assess what's going on during these historic hearings right after this. dddddddd

sensitive issue of guns and whether it applies to the federal government or states, a sensitive issue for sonia sotomayor. she is being grilled on that right now by the chairman of the committee. >> i understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many americans. in fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the nra and i have fwrendz who hunt. i understand the individual right fully that the supreme court recognized in heller. as you pointed out, senator, in the heller decision, the supreme

court was addressing a very narrow issue, which was whether an individual right under the second amendment applied to limit the federal government's rights to regulate the possession of firearms. the court expressly justice scalia in a footnote identified that there was supreme court precedence that has said that that right is not incorporated against the states. what that term of intocorporati means in the law is that that right doesn't apply to the states in its regulation of its relationship with its citizens. in supreme court province, the right is not fundamental. it's a legal term. not talking about the importance of the right in the legal term, it's talking about is that right incorporated against the states. when maloney came before the

second circuit, as you indicated, myself and two other judges read what the supreme court said, that it had not explicitly rejected its precedent on application to the state and followed that precedent because it's the job of the supreme court to change it. you asked me, i'm sorry, senator, i didn't mean to cut you off. >> no, go ahead. >> you ask me whether i have an open mind on that question. absolutely. my decision in maloney and on any case of this type would be to follow the precedent of the supreme court when it speaks directly on an issue and i would not prejudge any question that came before me if i was a justice on the supreme court. >> let me just ask, i just asked, i wanted to ask one more question and it goes to the area of prosecution.

you've heard appeals in over 800 criminal cases, you afirmed many convictions and 99% of the time one of the republican-appointed judges of the panel agreed with you. the united states versus geraldonald. the young daughter and niece of a prostitute, young children as young as 9 and 11 were forced to engage in sexual acts with the defendant. the mayor was convicted under a law passed by congress prohibiting the use of any facility or means of interstate commerce to transmit or contact information about person for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. you spoke for unanimous panel, which include judge jacobs and judge hall and upheld that conviction against a constitutional challenge that

the federal criminal statute in question exceeded congress' power to the commerce clause. i mention that only because i appreciate your deference in the congressional constitutional authority to prohibit illegal conduct. did you have any difficulty reaching the conclusion you did in that case? >> no, sir. >> thank you. i'm glad you reached it. senator sessions. i appreciate senator sessions forbearance. >> welcome. good to have you back, judge. and your family and friends and supporters. i hope we have a good day today. look forward to dialogue with you. i got to say that i liked your statement on the fidelity of the law yesterday and some of your comments this morning and i also have to say, had you been saying that with clarity over the last decade or 15 years, we'd have a lot fewer problems today.

because you have evidence, i think it's quite clear, a velocity of the law that suggests that the judge's background and experiences can and should even should and naturally will impact their decision, which i think goes against the american ideal and oath that a judge takes to be fair to every party and every day when they put on that robe, that is a symbol that they're to put aside their personal biases and prejudices. i'd like to ask you a few things about it. i would just note that it's not just one senate, as my chairman suggested that causes a difficulty. it's a body of thoughts over a period of years that causes us difficulties and i would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise

latina comment you made. you said, i think six different times "i would hope that a wise latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion." so, that's a matter that i think we'll talk about as we go forward. let me recall that yesterday you said it simple, but delicate to the law. the task of a judge is not to make law, it's to apply law. i heartily agree with that. however, you previously have said that the court of appeals is where a policy is made. and you said in another occasion the law that lawyers practices and judges declare is not a definitive capital "l" law that many would like to think exists. so, i guess i'm asking today, what do you really believe on those subjects?

that there is no real law and that judges do not make law or that there is no real law and the court of appeals is where policy is made. discuss that with us, please. >> i believe my record is 17 years demonstrates fully that i do believe that law that judges must apply the law and not make the law. whether i've agreed with a party or not, found them sympathetic or not, in every case i have decided, i have done what the law requires. with respect to judges making policy, i assume, senator, that you were referring to a remark that i made in a duke law student dialogue. that remark in context made very clear that i wasn't talking

about the policy reflected in the law that congress makes, that's the job of congress to decide what the policy should be for society. in that conversation with the students, i was focusing on what district court judges do and what circuit court judges do and i noted that district court judges find the facts and they apply the facts to the individual case. and when they do that, they're holding their finding doesn't bind anybody else. appellate judges, however, establish precedent. they decide what the law says in a particular situation. that precedent has policy ramifications because it finds not just the litigants in that case, but finds all litigants in similar cases and cases that may be influenced by that

precedence. i think if my speech is heard outside of the minute and a half that youtube presents and its full context examined, it is very clear that i was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent and never talking about appellate judges or courts making the policy that, that congress makes. >> judge, i would just say i don't think it's that clear. i looked at that on tape several times and i think a person could reasonably believe it meant more than that. but yesterday you spoke about your approach to rendering opinions and said "i seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of the injustice system. i would agree. but you have previously said this. i am willing to accept that we

who judge must not deny differences resulting from experiences and heritage, but attempt as a supreme court suggests continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. so, first, i'd like to know, do you think there's any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision making? >> never their prejudices. i was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal biaseses and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case. what i was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adj adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome. life experiences have to influence you.

we're not robots to listen to evidence and don't have feelings. we have to recognize those feelings and put them aside. that's what my speech was saying. that's our job. >> but the statement was, i willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage. but continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. that's exactly opposite of what you're saying, is it not? >> i don't believe so, senator, because what i was saying was, because we have feelings and different experiences, we can be led to, believed that our experiences are appropriate. we have to be open minded to accept that they may not be and that we have to judge always that we're not letting those things determine the outcome,

but there are situations in which some experiences are important. in the process of judging because the law asked us to use those experiences. >> well, i understand that. but let me just follow up that you say in your statement that you want to do what you can to increase the faith and the impartiality of our system, but isn't it true this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately cannot influence a judge's decision. how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system? >> i think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result or their experiences are driving a result and the law is not.

>> i agree with that. i know one judge that says if he has a feeling about a case, he tells his law clerks to watch me. i do not want my biases, sympathies or prejudices to influence this decision, which i've taken a oath to make sure is impartial. i am just very concerned that what you're saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decisionmaking. >> well, as i have tried to explain what i try to do is to ensure that they're not. if i ignore them and believe that i'm acting without them without looking at them and testing that i'm not, then i could, unconsciously or otherwise, be led to be doing the exact thing i don't want to do. which is to let something but

the law command the result. >> well, yesterday you also said that your decisions have always been made to serve the larger interest of impartial justice. a good aspiration agree. in the past you said this, i wonder if achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all and even most cases and i wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society. aren't you saying there that you expect your background and heritage to influence your decisionmaking? >> what i was speaking about in that speech was harkened back to what we were just talking about a few minutes ago, which is life experiences to influence us, in good ways.

that's why we seek the enrichment of our legal system from life experiences. that can affect what we see or how we feel, but that's not what drives a result. the impartiality is an understanding that the law is what commands the result. and, so, to the extent that we are asking the questions, as most of my speech was an academic discussion about what should we be thinking about? what should we be considering in this process and accepting that life experiences could make a difference. but i wasn't encouraging the belief or temping to encourage the belief that i thought that that should drive the result. >> judge, i think it's consistent in the comments i've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your background will affect the result in cases and that's

troubling me. so, that is not impartiality. don't you think that is not consistent with your statement? that you believe your role as a judge is to serve the larger interest of impartial justice? >> no, sir. as i indicated, my record shows that at no point or time i had my personal views or sympathies to influence the outcome of a case. in every case where i have identified a sympathy, i have art articulated it and explained to the litigants why the law requires a different result. i do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudices to influence the outcome of my case. >> well, you, you said something similar to that yesterday. that in each case i applied the law to the facts at hand. but you've repeatedly made this

statement. "i accept the proposition. i accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and that my experiences affect the facts i choose to see as a judge." first, that's troubling to me as a lawyer. when i present evidence, i expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented. how is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts and not others? >> it's not a question of choosing to see some facts or another, senator. i didn't intend to suggest that and in the wider context, what i believe i was, the point i believe i was making, is that our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others. but in the end, you're absolutely right.

that's why we have judges that are more than one judge because each of us from our life experiences will more easily see different perfespectives arguedy parties but judges do consider all the arguments of litigants. i have. most of my opinions, if not all of them, explain to parties why the law requires what it does. >> do you stand by your statement that my experiences affect the facts i choose to see? >> no, sir, i don't stand by the understanding of that statement that i will ignore other facts or other experiences because i haven't had them. i do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging, they help you to understand and listen, but that the law requires a result and it will command you to the facts that are relevant

to the disposition of the case. >> well, i would just note you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of year span and it's concerning to me. so, i would just say to you, i believe in judge cedarbaum's nomination. she said and you disagreed and this was the context of your speech and you used her statement as sort of a beginning of your discussion and you said she believes that a judge, no matter what their gender or background should strive to reach the same conclusion and she believes that's possible. you then argue that you don't think it's possible and in all, maybe even all cases. you deal with the famous quote of justice o'connor in which she said the wise old man should reach the same decision as a

wise old woman and you pushed back from that. you say you don't think that is necessarily accurate. and you doubt the ability to be objective in your analysis. and, so, how can you reconcile your speeches which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a be possible in all or even most cases with your oath that you've taken twice, which requires impartiality. >> my friend, judge cedarbaum is here this afternoon. and we are good friends and i believe we both approach judging in the same way. which is looking at the facts at each individual case and applying the law to those facts. i also, as i explained, was using a rhetorical that fell flat. i knew that justice o'connor

couldn't have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn't wise. that couldn't have been her meaning because reasonable judges disagree. on legal conclusions in some cases. so, i was trying to play on her words. my play was -- fell flat. it was bad. because it left an impression that i believe that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what i do as a judge. it's clearly not what i intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young hispanic, latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process. >> well, i can see that perhaps as a lay person approach to it,

but as a judge who's taken this oath, i'm very troubled that you would repeatedly over a decade or more make statements that consistently, any fair reading of these speeches consistently argues that this ideal and commitment, i believe every judge is committed, jumust be, put aside their personal experiences and biases to make sure that person gets a fair day in court. judge, so velocity impact can impact your judging, i think it's much more likely to reach full flower if you sit on the supreme court and than it will on a lower court where you're subject to review by your colleagues in the higher court and, so, with regard to how you approach law and your personal experiences, let's look at the new haven firefighters' case,

the richie case. in that case, the city of new haven told firefighters that they would take an exam that would determine who would be eligible for promotion. the city spent a good deal of time and money on the exam to make it a fair test of a person's ability to see to serve as a supervisory fireman, which, in fact, has the awesome responsibility at times to send their firemen into a dangerous building that's on fire and they had a panel that did oral exams and wasn't all written consisting of one hispanic and one african-american and one white. and according to the supreme court, this is what the supreme court held. the new haven officials were careful to insure broad racial participation in the design of the test and its administration. the process was open and fair.

there was no genuine dispute that the examinations were job related and consistent with business purposes. business necessity. but after, but after the city saw the results of the exam, it threw out those results because "not enough of one group did well enough on the test." the supreme court then found that the city and i quote, rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. after the tests were completed, the raw, racial results became the refusal for the city to disclose the results, close quote. you stated that your background affects the facts that you choose to see was the fact that the new haven firefighters had been subject to discrimination.

one of the facts you chose not to see in this case? >> no, sir. the panel was composed of me and two other judges in a very similar case, the seventh circuit and an opinion -- i'm sorry, i misspoke, it wasn't just easterbrook saw the case in identical way and neither judge, i confused some statements senator leahy made with this case, and i apologize. in a very similar case, the sixth circuit approached a very similar issue in the same way. so, a variety of different judges on the appellate court were looking at the case in light of the established supreme court and the second circuit precedent and determined that the city, facing potential liability under title seven, could choose not to certify the

test if it believed an equally good test could be made with a different impact on affected groups. the supreme court as it is its peraugative and looking at a challenge established a new consideration or a different standard for the city to apply and that is, was there substantial evidence that they would be held libel under the law? that was a new consideration. our panel didn't look at that issue that way because it wasn't argued to us in the case before us and because the case before us was based on existing precede precedent. so, it's a different test. >> judge, there was a, apparently unease within your panel, i was really disappointed and i think a lot of people have been that the opinion was so

short, it was percurium and did not discuss the serious, legal issues that the case raised and i believe that's legitimate criticism of what you did. but it appears, according to stewart, the respected legal writer for the national journal that stewart taylor concluded that it appears that judge cabrana was concerned about the outcome of the case. was not aware of it because it was a precurium unpublished opinion but to raise the question whether rehearing should be granted. you say you're bound by the superior authority, but the fact is when the question of rehearing that second circuit authority that you say covered the case, some say it didn't cover so clearly, but that was up for debate. and the circuit voted and you voted not to reconsider the

prior case, you voted to stay with the decision of the circuit and, in fact, your vote was the key vote and you voted for judge ca cabranas, himself of puerto rican ancestry. if you voted with him, you could have changed that case. in truth, you were not bound by that case, if seen in a different way. you must have agreed with it and agree would the opinion and stayed with it until it was reversed by the court. let me just mention this. in 1997 -- >> is that a question? >> well, that was a response to some of what you said, mr. chairman. you misrepresented factually the posture of the case. >> i, obviously, disagree with that. but we'll have a chance to vote on this issue. >> in 1997, when you came before

the i asked you this, in a suit challenging a government racial preference, will you follow the supreme court decision and subject and subject racial preferences to the strictest, judicial scrutiny. in other words, i asked you if you would follow the supreme court's decision in aderan it held that all governmental discriminations, including afirmative action programs that discriminated by race of an applicat must face strict scrutiny in the courts. in other words, this is not a light thing to do. when one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it or it's not acceptable. the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people

differently by race. this is what you answered. in my view the aderan court direct are correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny applieses for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level based on race closed quote. so that was your answer and it deals with government being the city of new haven. you made a commitment to this committee to follow it. in this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, aderan and strict scrutiny completely missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision. >> because those cases were not what was at issue in this decision and, in fact, those cases were not what decided the supreme court's decision. the supreme court parties were

not arguing the level of scrutiny that would apply with respect to intenshzal discrimination. before our court and the supreme court which is what is a city to do when there is proof that its test impacts a particular group. and the supreme court decided, not on the basis of scrutiny that what it did here was wrong what the city did here was wrong, but on the basis that the city's choice was not based on a substantial basis in evidence to believe it was held libel under the law. those are two different standards, two different questions that a case would present. >> but, judge, it wasn't that simple. this case was recognized pretty soon as a big case. at least i noticed that what

kicked off judge cabrana's concern is that the judge said it was a discrimination case that the circuit had seen in 20 years. they were shocked. they basically got a one paragraph decision unsigned back on that case. judge cabrana's raised this case in the circuit and your vote made the difference in not having a rehearing and he said "municipal employers could reject the results, in talking about the results of your test, the impact of your decision. municipal lawyers could reject the results of an employment examination whenever those results fail to yield a desirable outcome, ie, fail to satisfy a racial quota." that was the judge's analysis of the impact of your decision. and he thought it was very

important. he wanted to review this case. he thought it deserved a complete and through analysis and opinion. he wanted the whole circuit to be involved in it and to the extent that some prior precedent in the circuit was different, the circuit could have reversed that precedent, had they chose to do so. don't you think, tell us how it came to be that this important case was dealt with in such a cursory manner? >> the panel decision was based on a 78-page district court opinion, the opinion referenced it and it's the court directly but it was referenced by the circuit. it relied on that thorough opinion by the district court. that opinion discussed circuit precedent to its fullest extent. the panel had one view of the

case and the majority of the vote, not just my vote, the majority of the court, not just my vote, this denied the petition for rehearing. the court left to the supreme court the question of how an employer would address, with no one disputed was primaphasia evidence that its test desperately impacted on a group. that was undisputed by everyone. that the case law did permit employees who had been desperately impacted to bring a suit. the question is when it didn't accept those tests or was it attempting to comply with the law? >> judge, i think it's not fair to say that a majority, i guess it's fair to say a majority

voted against rehearing, but it was 6-6 unusual that one of the judges had to channel a panel decision and your vote made that majority not to rehear it. in the ricci did deal with important questions. some of the questions that we have got to talk about as a nation. we've got to work our way through. i know there's concern on both sides of this issue and we should do it carefully and correctly. but do you think that frank ricci and the other firefighters whose claims you dismissed felt that their arguments and concerns were appropriately understood and acknowledged by such a short opinion from the court? >> we were very sympathetic and expressed our sympathy to the firefighters who challenged the city's decision. mr. ricci and the others. we understood the efforts that they had made in taking the

tests, we said as much. they did have before them a 78-page thorough opinion by the district court. they, obviously, disagreed with the law as it stood under second circuit precedent, that's why they were pursuing their claims and did pursue them further. in the end, the body had been recognized by our circuit court, at least the sixth circuit but along the forethought would be the right test or standard to apply. and that's what the supreme court did. it answered that important question because it had the power to do that, not the power, but the ability to do that because it was face would the arguments that suggested that. the panel was dealing with

precedents and arguments that relied on our precedents. >> thank you, judge. i appreciate this opportunity and had the procurement opinion stood without rehearing requested by one of the judges in the whole circuit and kicked off the discussion, it's very, very unlikely that we would have heard about this case or the supreme court would have taken it up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> all right, so the first hour of questions have now ended. the chairman patrick leahy, the ranking republican jeff sessions. they both had their chance and they got into the heart of some of the more controversial aspects of judge sotomayor's record, including that new haven's firefighters case, her comments about a wise latina woman and the second amendment, how far does the second amendment go in allowing folks to have guns. much more of our coverage coming up at cnn.com you can see all

these hearings unnrptanted. we'll assess what we just heard with members of the best political team on television, when we come back. yeah, no it's great. i eat anything that i want. key lime pie, pineapple upside down cake, raspberry cheesecake... ... yeah, every night is something different. oh, yeah yeah... ... she always keeps them in the house. no, no, no. i've actually lost weight... i just have a high metabolism or something... ...lucky. babe... umm, i gotta go. (announcer) 28 delicious flavors at around 100 calories each.

yoplait, it is so good. . unlock an outdoor dreamland for your indoor cat. exciting flavor combinations, plus a touch of garden greens make it irresistible. indoor delights. feed the senses. we have ever created. a car that can help awaken its driver if he begins to doze... keep him in his lane if he starts to wander... even stop itself if he becomes distracted. if you want to see the future of the automobile, just look at the new e-class... today. this is the 9th generation e-class. this is mercedes-benz. but we missed the first half trying to download the docs. which turned out to be the old-new docs... rather than the new-new docs. then bob dialed in from home and his... dog starts barking.

so jen jumped in with her "two cents"... which katy missed because she was buying shoes online. and then i hit mute... to talk timelines with my team. getting lots of dirty looks through the phone in the process. - overall... - a great call. - great call. yeah. introducing a better way. learn more at cisco.com/newways [ dog barks ] the $9 grand entrance. walmart announces op tops for just nine dollars each. back to school costs less at walmart. save money. live better. walmart.

the confirmation hearings are continuing. this is day two. that certainly looks likely. this morning, she's already been grilled on some of the most sensitive issues that have come forward, including a case involving new haven, connecticut, firefighters. let's assess that case right now. the issues involved and how she defended her decision. jeff toobin and john king are over at the magic wall. john? >> wolf, let me tap into the case files. here's one case that came up. a gun control case. but the case you mentioned just a moment ago is right here. ricci and jeff toobin, of course, the issue white

firefighters in new haven challenge city decision to throw out promotion exam results because too few. this became the big issue. judge sotomayor with the three-judge panel and the white firefighters lawsuit and sent this back to the city and said, come up with a new test. these guys were not promoted and the united states supreme court just recently reversed sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision sending it back saying she was wrong in this case. interesting y want to discuss the topics. did her own background as a latino woman influence her role in the case. number two a short ruling written by this court and jeff sessions, the ranking republican, who was saying did you give short swiftedness. if you make such a short decision, why didn't you say why? >> he was trying to tie the ricci case to her comments in speeches which suggested that

her background, rather than the law, is what leads her to make her decisions. she, of course, rejected that characterization of her views, but the ricci case was a case where she sided with the city, which said, look, we're worried about being sued by african-americans firefighters who didn't do well on the test. the supreme court said that's not a legitimate reason to cancel the test. the white firefighters who were denied promotions, they won their case. >> now, i want to come to you with another question. her argument there was the supreme court had every right, that is where you go to set the standard and that's what happened when she was reversed. but when she was ruling at the appellate court level she was following the appropriate precedent at the time. legal argument, is she on strong footing there? >> i think she's on pretty strong footing that the law she applied was the law at the time.

the four justices who agree would her certainly felt she was right. and, in justice kennedy's opinion in the ricci case, he pretty much acknowledges that supreme court was establishing a new set of rules for these kind of cases. the supreme court can do that. but i think judge sotomayor has a pretty good argument that the supreme court may have been right, they may have been wrong, but they have the right to make new law, i could only follow the law at the time. >> wolf, as we come back to you and the panel. this is jeff sessions right here. ranking republican on the committee and voted on two previous supreme court nominations both bush nominees justice roberts and justice alito. he's from the state of alabama. he opposed sotomayor back in 1998 when she was up for the appellate court and he was nominated himself and remember his nomination was defeated in this very same judiciary committee and here's what is at issue so far.

he had said he's concerned her policy preferences influence her decision making and, wolf, he is leading the charge for threns today questioning her saying in her speeches and her rulings she has not been as impartial. infidelity to the law and she is saying now her answers are much more politically motivated, not what she has done over the course of her record. >> very good point, john. the other sensitive issue that came up, her first effort to explain that controversial comment he made about being a wise, latina woman and a wise latina woman could make a better decision than a white man. you're very sensitive to this issue. she said what she was trying to do was inspire young latinos that they can reach for the stars. >> well, i think she clearly walked back her language, because her language was very clear and what she said today was she was talking about the obligation of judges to examine

what they're feeling and then put that aside as they judge a case and make sure that their personal feelings, their experiences, their gender does not affect their ruling, but it's very clear in the statement she made in that berkeley law speech in 2001, she said, but i accept there will be some influence based on my gender and my latina heritage. today she was saying, no. that the system is strengthened when judges judge themselves understand what they're feeling. set it aside. >> we'll get to mu aria and ale candy crowley, we'll continue our coverage. much more of these hearings coming up. remember cnn.com you can see the hearings uninterrupted and we'll go back to the q and a and the rest of this day two of the confirmation hearings right after this. mom: that's why i go to walmart. vo: find all the brands those other stores have but for low walmart prices.

vo: like dell, hp and toshiba. save money. live better. walmart. 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.

sonia sotomayor is being questioned right now before the senate judiciary committee. at stake whether she will become an associate justice of the united states supreme court. it looks like she will, barring some major, major bombshell. the democrats certainly have the vote. 60 democrats in the united states senate. but, let's assess what we've just heard so far. candy crowley, as you watched these hearings unfold and the sensitive issues of that new haven firefighter case, the white latina woman comments came up and the second amendment that applied to guns only for the federal government as opposed to states and local communities. she's obviously well prepared. she knew these were going to be big issues. >> she certainly read the papers and listened to the newscasts

since her nomination, that's for sure. for those not familiar with the ins and outs of the cases. this boils down to one thing. i followed the law. this is case law. nothing how i felt personally and from every case from the guns and when it came to her remarks that she made not on the bench, she redid those remarks and said i never meant to do it as gloria explained, that's not what i meant. what i meant is we have to be aware of those things and she gets a lot of help from the democrats who say, well, listen, those remarks are not reflected on the bench for her. so, that's what we need to look at. so, for the first 30 minutes, i heard her seven times say, i follow the law or some variation of that. i think by 9:00 tonight we'll have heard it more. >> we also heard, she loves the second amendment of the u.s.

constitution, which deals with the issue of guns. >> this is kind of breathtaking testimony here. who is this judge sotomayor? she seems to be the opposite of everything she's ever said before. it's kind of like believe me now, don't believe my evil twin skippy soto mayer who said all those things. that was someone else. >> hold on one second because i want to go back to the hearing. she's answering her question on the very sensitive issue of bush v. gore back in 2000. >> greatness of our american system, which is whether you agree or disagree with the supreme court decision that all of the branches become involved in the conversation of how to improve things. and as i indicated both congress, who devoted a very significant amount of money to electoral reform in legislation and states have looked to address what happened there. >> judge, in a 5-4 decision in

2005, supreme court ruled it kilos the city of new london that it was constitutional for local government to seize private property for private economic development. many people, including myself -- >> we're going to figure out exactly what she said on that issue of bush versus gore, that supreme court decision that allowed george w. bush to become president of the united states after all the ballots were counted in florida. but we'll assess what happened on that issue, how she discussed it right now. we'll pick that up. but i want to go back to alex. you were pointing out, alex, you've seen a different side of sonia sotomayor today. >> it seems to be her defense, what i meant was the opposite of everything i ever said. what i meant i disagreed with justice oo'connor, i agreed with her. a wise latina could reach a better decision, i actually meant i it couldn't.

when judges make the law from the bench, when i said that, i meant the opposite of that. on point after point, her defense is that i actually meant the opposite of what i said. democrats may have the votes to get this judge approved here, but there's the question, i think, she's going to be faced with next, which judge should we believe? the one who has an interest in gaining our approval or the one who spoke at unguarded moments at this hearing? >> you worked in the clinton white house and you teach at uc berkeley school of law right now. you're, obviously, very sympathetic to judge sonia sotomayor. >> she is well qualified to be a justice on the supreme court. >> there are two sides to her, what she said as opposed to how she's explaining it today. >> we should take a line from justice alito who said the kind of judge i'm going to be is the kind of judge i have been. that's exactly what she is doing. that her statements and speeches and trying to inspire young

people to go into law, to actually try to become judges are speak for themselves. i think the thing about the wise latina woman and all of that is trying to put experiences, the fact that you come to the bench with everything that you are, something that justice alito has said, that he's talked about his own. how his own family suffered discrimination because of ethnic background and i take that into account. he said that in 2006. justice alito said i bring a standing to stand in the shoes of other people. he said that in 1999. no one comes to the bench with a blank slate and the thing i most dislike about senator sessions comments is that he makes it sound like the law is mechanically applied. the reality is, we have controversy. there is 5-4. 7-5. there are real differences as to what the law, how it could be

interpreted. >> but the real controversy here is not between one judge and another judge or one justs and another, it's between sotomayor and sotomayor. she is saying one thing at one point and saying the very opposite today in these hearings. >> an accusation that is leveled at every supreme court nominee. they're having a confirmation conversion that any controversial opinion that they've held in the past, they try to whitewash. i think they all do do it to a certain extent and since all nine are on the court y don't think it's much of a disqualification. but that charge of a confirmation conversion is always something we see. >> hold your thoughts for a moment because we'll continue our coverage. cnn.com. these hearings s uninterrupted. they're only just beginning. much more of our coverage right after this. in your hands... knees... and back.

for little bodies with fevers.. and big bodies on high blood pressure medicine. tylenol works with your body... in a way other pain relievers don't... so you feel better... knowing doctors recommend tylenol... more than any other brand of pain reliever. i'm working on my digestive health. whatcha eatin'? yoplus. it's a yogurt for digestive health. here... blackberry pomegranate. i can't find my hand. (announcer) yoplus... a delicious alternative for digestive health... ...from yoplait. an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines... to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow.

thanks! no problem!