with four inches of sewage. lol it ain't. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> up next, "lou dobbs tonight." lou? >> thank you, wolf. good evening, everybody. judge sonia sotomayor on her assertion that a wise latina woman usually makes better judgments than a white male. this what some are calling a confirmation conversion. also judge sotomayor faces a barrage of issues facing the supreme court including gun rights and illegal immigration. tonight we examine her responses, assess whether she should be confirmed, she will be, and house democrats move closer to an all-out on the cia and their mission to kill obama. tonight we ask whether an investigation is warranted, whether democrats are playing

politics with national security. that and more in our face-off debate tonight. we begin with judge sonia sotomayor today acknowledging for the first time that her wise latina woman comment was a mistake. on the second day of her supreme court confirmation hearing judge sotomayor declared that she does not believe any ethnic, racial or gender group has any advantage in sound judging but republican members of the senate judiciary committee appeared unconvinced that judge sotomayor changed her position. the ranking committee member jeff sessions says he is very troubled that judge sotomayor made the wise latina woman statement over a decade. candy crowley has our report from washington. >> reporter: a wise latina could more often than not make a better judicial decision than a wise white man. okay. she takes it back. >> it was bad because it left an impression that i believe that

life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's not clearly what i do as a judge. >> reporter: seriously, not what she meant. >> i want to state up front, unee kw unee kwivically without a doubt. >> i know it's been a long day. >> reporter: and so it was that sotomayor tried to shut down the parsing of her most famts sentence, not that that worked. >> do you understand, ma'am, if i had said anything like that and my reasoning was that i'm trying to inspire somebody -- >> reporter: now, only some of the more controversial issues when you look over the 17-year record of sotomayor, there is very lit toll indicate how she might vote on the supreme court on issues from gun rights, immigration, abortion, and

postpost - post-9/11 antiterrorist policy. when asked questions about that there was sort of a standard response, and that was she couldn't get into it because those questions might end up before the supreme court rule. lou? >> the ginsburg rule and the political theater, not only stage but somewhat staid in the minds of many, is that correct? >> yes. there's not anything that you and i would call fireworks. usually even if everyone's polite to the witness, they're mean to each other. there is none of that. part of that reflects really the republicans' desire to make this rather high-minded look at judicial philosophy without looking like the party of no. and without, you know, frankly trying -- without trying to offend or without offending what is a growing population, growing voting population and that's hispanics. >> thank you very much, candy. appreciate it.

candy crowley. appreciate it. as candy just reported the judge reverse heard remarks that a wise latina woman usually makes better judgments than a white male. the judge said her comments were a play on word that fell flat as she put it. >> i want to state up front unee kw kwivically and without doubt i do not believe that any ethnic racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. >> the judge's remarks today might come as a surprise to many of her supporter who strongly defended her when the controversy first broke. >> i don't have a problem with it. it's not -- it's not the right thing to say. it's not the right thing. but i don't think she meant it that way. >> i think if you look at the context of the longer -- longer speech that she makes, i don't -- i think what she says is very much common sense in

terms of different experiences that different people have. >> i think she'll stand by the entire speech, although the simple sentence there is simply saying people's experiences matter and we ought to have some diversity of experience on the court, and i think that's accurate. >> her defenders abandoned today and it's clear judge sotomayor has retreated again on a key issue. another big issue in the confirmation hearing today, the judge's position on racial discrimination, an issue that was high lighted by her decision in a case brought by white and latino firefighters against the city of new haven, connecticut. judge sew toy mayor ruled against those firefighters if a appellate decision but her ruling was later overturned by the supreme court. we have that report. >> reporter: it's the case that's become a lightning rob at judge sonia sotomayor's confirmation hearing. >> your decision has become very controversial. people all over the country are

tired of courts imposing their will against one group or another without justification. >> reporter: republican senators pressed her about the appellate decision about the new haven firefighters case later reversed by the supreme court. 20 firefighters, five latino and one white faced discrimination. >> you stated that your background affects the facts you choose to see was the fact 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. >> reporter: sotomayor said the panel had based its decision on judicial precedent and the supreme court based theirs on a different legal standard. >> they would be bound by new

supreme court direction, is that correct. >> absolutely, sir. >> i think she's spinning the case lateal bit. i don't think the case was clearly controlled by precedent as she had suggested and i doebltd think that other judges that viewed the case saw it that way. >> reporter: sotomayor said the panel had followed a thorough ruling by the lower court. she said the case was not about quotas, not about affirmative action. and sotomayor asked if she supported affirmative action. she said it should also first by a legislative determination. she also said in 25 years she hopes race won't need to be considered in any rule. >> it should be considered now, is that her view? >> her view is that in some forms in some cases race is considered and that the courts have said so, but she said that that's too protect the equal protection cause of the constitution. >> all right. thank you very much. judge sotomayor repeatedly

declined to give some senators direct answers to their questions. she defended that stance by declaring she does not want to prejudge any question that might become before her when she is confirmed as supreme court justice. however, one of the country's leading constitutional attorneys, floyd abrams last night said here on this broadcast that any supreme court candidate should be giving senators straight answers. >> people who are up for confirmation are not as candid as they should be. i think we'd be a lot better off if senators would say i won't vote for individuals who are up for confirmation unless they give straight answers. >> after watching these proceedings, there may be a -- well, an outcry to replace the so-called ginsburg rule with the abrams rule. joining me now with more on that, jeffrey toobin, author of the nine. jeffrey, you watched the whole thing. she has now retreated from two

statements that amongst others, senator schumer said she would not alter in any way. she has simply thrown her two most controversial remarks to the wi7bd, hasn't she? >> lou, you know the song, "you've got to know when to hold, know when to fold." it is an indefensible comment on its own terms. she explained what she was trying to do. i thought she did a pretty good job of saying, look, this is what i think. i made an inartful atemtd back in 2001 when i made the statement, but, you know, she did her best. >> an inartful statement that she repeated over the course of nine years, jeffrey. >> well, i don't know how many times she actually said it. it was several times. >> it was over nine years. >> it was over several times. i think it was a ham-handed attempt to say that latinas had a place at the table in judicial -- >> but why is there a separate

standard because lindsey graham in the midst of what was a rather studied -- i don't know what we would call it -- plotted hearing today, you know, he said it straightforwardly. his career would be over had he said something similar about white males in the senate. >> well, you know, think you put your finger on one of the key issues in all of american constitutional law right now, which is the law says you may treat a press -- formerly oppressed groups somewhat differently to achieve diversity. you can give black students an advantage in university admissions. you can under certain circumstances give black job app cabinet can'ts an advantage. that is hard to defend. that is the current state of the law. there is no doubt where there are circumstances where you can give advantages to achieve the goal of affirmative action, but

as today illustrated, that's hard to defend. >> hard to defend and obviously she's been given an exception by the u.s. senate. she will be confirmed perhaps by a significant margin including a large number of republican votes, comparetily large. what will be her impact on the supreme court? i mean we have more people running around from the administration, the democratic leadership in congress and, indeed, the liberals note worthy in the legal profession saying this is really a very conservative judge. if she's so conservative, why in the world would president obama have appointed her? the spin is really out of control here, isn't it? >> i think the spin is clearly wrong. she's not a con sevive jum. she's appears to be a moderate judge. i don't think the balance on the court will shift very much. she appears to be a supporter of abortion rights, of affirmative action, of limits on executive

power, much like david souk. up next we'll be skpanled the record on in issues involving illegal immigration. you may be surprised at some of her rulings. also democrats prepared to investigate the cia under president bush and their misch apparently to kill osama bin laden. the democrats aren't happy about that. others are happy for other reasons. >> this is indeed a happy day. are you happy? >> this is a very exciting day. >> and i'm delighted -- >> i almost feel like i'm one of the luckiest people in the world. >> we'll tell you why the democrats felt so delighted, so happy, so hyperbollic.

come on in. you're invited to the chevy open house. where getting a new vehicle is easy. because the price on the tag is the price you pay on remaining '08 and '09 models. you'll find low, straightforward pricing. it's simple. now get an '09 malibu 1lt with an epa estimated 33 mpg highway. get it now for around 21 thousand after all offers. go to chevy.com/openhouse for more details.

my doctor told me something i never knew. as we get older, our bodies become... less able to absorb calcium. he recommended citracal. it's a different kind of calcium. calcium citrate. with vitamin d... for unsurpassed absorption, to nourish your bones. (announcer) introducing new tums dual action. this tums goes to work in seconds and lasts for hours. all day or night. new tums dual action. bring it on.

judge sotomayor has done a good job of not answering questions. and nan aaron who says judge sotomayor has been surprisingly forthcoming. thank you both for being with us. let me turn to you first, if i may, nan. forthcoming, she has reversed two of her most controversial statements. did that surprise you. >> i think she came through with flying colors today. i think she gave very thorough answers to a wide range of questions. she was masterful.

and i think in some respects didn't do what some of her predecessors did which came up with pat phrases. i have no quarrel with this. they evaded answers, avoided them, saying i can't answer because that issue might come up before me. i think -- >> well, she said the same thing today though. >> oh, but i think, for instance, in the ritchey case, she could well have said, there is a pending litigation, it's going back down to the courts, i really can't answer that. in fact, i think gave a very and tensive response to it. >> what do you think? >> she wu masqueracarading as a judicial conservative. you have chief roberts for his unpiloted metaphor. judge sotomayor took it one step

further saying all she does is applies the law to the facts, nothing further said. what she did was repudiation very forcefully president obama's empathy standard. that was good to see. but then when senator kyle walked her through the statements in her record that caused real concern about whether she had that commitment to impartiality, she denied what those statements plainly mean, statements that were a carefully composed, reiterated over a period of years. so i think she has a lot to walk away from. one of the most striking passages is when senator shochur got her to say this even though she said the opposite a few months ago. really brazen. >> i'm not sure she said that. what she said was you don't use international law to base your decision. but i would say if you look at her 17 years on the court. at the district court, court of

appeals level. you find a very careful, meticulous, thorough, open-minded judge. and i think today her comments really reflected her decision-making on this. >> what about the -- well, her decision apparently not to answer on the second amendment? she did precisely as you were suggesting as judge roberts saying that case -- that issue may come before us on the court. i don't want to go too far into it after a rather extensionive discussion with senator hatch. it's hard to understand where she stand on the second amendment. where does she stand clearly forthrightly, nan? >> i think, in fact, she helped walk through what the law is on the second amendment, and what she did discuss in great detail is the heller case, decided by the supreme court recently, in

which justice skoe leah left open the question as to whether the second amendment applies to the state, and that appeared to be the case in an issue. in fact, she said because justice skoe leo left open that question, i cannot make that determination at this point. >> throughout the day she was picking and choose what she would answer. let me give one stark example. >> wait a minute. incoherent? >> in order to show he has some sort of sympathy for property rights she cited her work for a lawmaker in private practice where she represented owners of intellectual property. >> all right. >> but then when the topic came to the puerto rican legal defense and education fund, a spot which she devoted her energy for a dozen years, a cause that "the new york times" she's actively involved in, she said, oh, we were primarily fund

raisers. >> you know. i have to conclude this by again -- from talking with floyd abrams in a face-off today, much like the one you two were kind enough to participate in tonight, he said that he believes -- you know, i'm going to attach this name to it. the floyd abrams rule, which is no senator should support or vote for any -- any nominee who does not answer their questions, and that might be a wonderful change. do you not both agree, to the ginsburg rule? yes or no because we're out of time. >> yerk it would be good to get a straight answer. we have not gotten that so far. >> she has provided the answer. >> nan, i'm sorry. >> i think in this instance -- >> no, dow you think it would be a good idea to do what floyd abrams suggested? >> it all depends. >> okay. we'll take it. if you don't want to do yes or no, that's certainly one of the great things about this country. it's your right. thank you both. appreciate it. >> thanks so much. >> i'm going to have a few thoughts about this. join me on the radio monday

through friday for "lou dobbs tonight." go to loudons.com to get the local listings for the "lou dobbs tonight" and you can follow me on twitter.com, lou dons news. up next. new insight into the judge's cases. her position on abortion. and democrats want bush administration officials getted. they say the ci iowa kept secrets from them including a plan that allegedly included killing sosa -- osama bin laden. vote at loud dobbstonight.com. i never thought i would have a heart attack, but i did. you need to talk to your doctor about aspirin. you need to be your own advocate. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

you take care of your kids, now it's time to take care of yourself. dan marino influenced me and he really pushed me to get on nutrisystem. yeah, i'll take credit for peter jacobsen. introducing the all-new nutrisystem for men, flexible new programs personalized to meet your goals. get on the program, eat properly, you're going to lose weight. it's actually easier than you think it might be. that was really good. thanks. i had awesome results and i've kept it off for three years. for a limited time, get an extra three weeks of meals free. that's right, you can get an extra 21 breakfasts, lunches, dinners, desserts, and snacks.

that's 105 meals free. that's what guys like. "tell me, 'do this,' i do it, i lose weight." with prices as low as $12 a day, you'll save hundreds over other weight-loss programs. order now and get an extra three weeks of fantastic meals. that's right, 105 meals absolutely free. call or click now.

murderers sweeping across central mexico following the arrest of a drug cartel leader. mexican government officials said 12 federal ajemts have been tortured, killed, and dumped along a mountain road.

more than 11,000 people, including please have been killed since president calderon declared war on the mention cap drug cartels two years ago. turning again to the sotomayor confirmation hearing, sotomayor talking about hundreds of cases that she had dealt with involving illegal immigrants. she said she ruled mostly in support of the efforts. some question the judge's membership in an advocacy group. >> reporter: supporters of judge sotomayor say she has a proven track record of prolaw enforcement. >> i do know in immigration cases the vast majority of the bureau of investigation cases are the -- the petitions of review are denied, so that means -- >> right. the only point i'm making here,

if some are seeking to suggest that your empathy or sympathy overrules rule of law, this is a good body of law to look at. >> reporter: as a judge on the second circuit court of appeals she heard more than 150 cases involving illegal immigrants facing deportation. she ruled in favor of the government 84%. according to a study by the june verts of arizona professor chads westerland. another study found her rulings, affirmed convexes in criminal cases 92% of the time. yet there are parts of her record that concern advocates of strict immigration law enforceme enforcement. one is her membership. in 2001 she spoke to the brooklyn law school and advocated more probono work on lawsuits involving abortion, illegal immigration, and welfare reform. >> judge, i think it's consistent in the comments i've quoted to you in your previous

statements that you do believe that your background will affect the results in cases, and that's troubling me. >> as i've indicated my record shows that at no points or time have i ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of a case. >> reporter: yet in the portion of a university of texas study of her record limited to immigration-related civil rights cases where she wrote the majority opinion, sotomayor side with the immigrants 61% of the time. >> so far immigration has been mostly a nonissue. it has only been mentioned twice, both times by democratic senator schumer, lou. >> thank you very much. casey wian. an unanswered question going into her confirmation hearing. no one on either side of the abortion debate knows where she stands but today some answers were beginning to be shaped.

>> reporter: this week norma who was the roe of roe versus wade was one of the antiabortion activities. she interrupted the hearing by saying you're wrong, sotomayor. you're wrong about abortion although the court case established a woman's legal right to an abjork, she has since converted to christianity and has embraced the antiabortion movement. reproduction writings are a huge hearing in this case. they say they need to hear more. >> we heard important things today about the settled law roe versus wade, about the importance for women's health but we need to hear more discussion about the recent case in which the supreme court cut back on protections for women's health in the abortion rights arena. this is a critical issue for the

country. >> today in the hears she failed to appear the 1973 supreme court ruling that established the legal right to an abjork. she also cited a 1992 high court ruling. >> that is the precedent of the court and settled in terms of the holding of the court. >> in the past sotomayor has written opinions that touch on reproductive rights but has not directly ruled on the issue. in meetings with senators she was quoted by democrats as saying she had great respect for precedence, which many abortion rights activities took as tacit support. but in 2002 she sided with the bush administration in the restriction of taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other countries. now, the center for reproductive rights say it's been 15 years since a proabortion rights president has had a opportunity to fill a supreme court seat.

lou. >> what is she? is she proabortion or antiabortion? >> what she said today, she says there's great respect for precedent and she also says it's an established law. that would seem to give tacit support to roe v wade. >> so she's proabortion. >> she seems to be. >> up next, a secret plan to kill al qaeda leaders is escalating. a plan not implemented. we'll ask whether an investigation is warrant and into whom. our face-off debate tonight. and judge sotomayor failing to satisfy some of her critics on the issue of gun rights. those critics tonight are simply furious. >> with a firearm it's my constitutional right. i can protect my family. and if justice sotomayor doesn't get that, she shouldn't be on the supreme court. >> your second amendment rights next. e, and it's the best time to get some of the best deals. get in now and get the chrysler town & country with

a generous cash allowance, or 0% financing for 60 months. the @%ail rated jeep grand cherokee also comes with a cash allowance or 0% financing for 60 months. or choose a hard working all new dodge ram truck with a cash allowance that's tough to beat. all with our best in the business lifetime powertrain warranty. so hurry come see the deals we've built for you at the dodge chrysler and jeep summer clearance. capturing the beauty of nature. that's my vision. every day, transitions lenses are there

to help care for my sight. announcer: transitions lenses adjust to changing light to reduce glare and help protect your eyes from uv damage so you can see better today... and tomorrow. live your vision. transitions. healthy sight in every light. show us how you live your vision and you could win $10,000, plus transitions will donate $10,000 to the charity of your choice. enter at transitions.com.

supporters and defenders of the second amendment tonight have serious questions about judge sotomayor's record on the second amendment. a key ruling by the judge's second circuit court of appeals restricted second amendment

rights on the state and local level. in an early ruling states that gun ownership is not a fundamental right. that has second amendment supporters very upset. bill tucker with our report. >> reporter: it didn't take long for the subject of second amendment rights to come up in judge sotomayor's hearing. >> like you, i understand that -- how important the right to bear arms is to many, many americans. in fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the nra. >> she went on to cite a supreme court issue as to whether the second amendment rights apply at the level much as freedom of speech and freedom of religion does. the court expressly, judge scalia in a footnote, identified there was supreme court precedent that has said that that right is not incorporated against the states. >> reporter: sotomayor was

referring to the case d.c. versus heller in which the court found last year that individuals in d.c. have a right to own guns. gun right s activists interpret that. her tin ter preation is consistent with other rulings she's been a part of. in a decision in january handed down by the second circuit court of appears the court wrote, quote, the second amendment does not apply to the states. that judgment handed down six months after heller infuriated gun rights groups like the national rifle association. >> i think justice soto mayor in the maloney case treated it like some crazy old uncle that you can either listen to or simply disregard and she disregarded it. >> reporter: judge sotomayor has legal allies on this point and

conservative ones at that. sotomayor's comments predate that. she noted that, quote, the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right. ironically a conservative judicial panel in the seventh circuit court of appeals in denying a challenge to chicago's gun laws that past june also found that the second amendment is not a guaranteed right at the state or local level. that puts the seventh and the second circuit courts at odds with the ninth circuit twh which has ruled the gun ownership is a fundamental right. it appears to be sent down to the supreme court. >> a lot of questions about whether or not she would rekus herself in such a case. we're leaning to a place where she's simply avoided the question. bill tucker, thank you very much. still ahead tonight, did the cia lie to congress? and if it did, should bush

administration officials be held accountable and prosecuted? two members of the house intelligence committee join me for our face-off debate. also judge sotomayor's own words, continuing reflect something of a confirmation conversion. >> it's important to remember that as a judge i don't make law. court of appeals is where policy is made. >> well, she makes law, she doesn't make law. why is the judge seeming to take back so money of what she said for years before she was nominated to the united states supreme court? [excited crowd murmuring] it's got the line. aoney of what she said for years before she was nominated to the united states supreme court? noney of what shed for years before she was nominated to the united states supreme court? yoney of what she said for years before she was nominated to the united states supreme court? of what she said for years before she was nominated to the united states supreme court?

in what may be a prelude of full house of representatives hearings on the issue, the house intelligence committee today told the central intelligence agency to provide documents about a plan that had been canceled, a plan to kill al qaeda leaders. democrats claim that that plan was kept secret from them, but intelligence officials said the plan was never put into operation and there is no requirement to brief lawmakers on that program. did the cia lie to congress? should former bush administration officials be held accountable and prosecuted? that's the topic of tonight's face-off debate. joining me the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, congress pete, republican from michigan and congresswoman, a democrat of california amongst those signing

a letter from leon panetta, asking him to recan't earlier a defense of cia on misleading congress. thank you both for being here. congresswoman, you want a full investigation into these charges. why? >> i do. i think the -- i think that is really the main point because the national security act of 1947 requires, requires the executive branch to completely and fully inform the congress, and we know through the cia director, leon panetta, who followed the law and came and briefed us the day after he found out that this program had been in place since 2001 until june 23rd of this year that the congress had very purposefully been kept out. concealed was the word. >> right. >> that the information was concealed. so i think that we have an obligation to the american people to not only investigate

this but to establish the facts. i think that's the right thing to do. >> congressman, the congresswoman makes the case that the congress should be in full oversight of the cia. your reaction. >> well, lou, it's good to be with you and ann, it's good to be with you as well. >> thank you, peter. >> i think it's very clear here. if you go back to "the washington post" in 2001, they issued a report that says, you know, the president said do whatever is necessary to capture or take out the leadership of al qaeda. we're going to allocate $1.1 billion. and it's going to be a cia military and commando operation. >> october 21st report by the post? >> that's exactly right. >> all right. >> so it appears that the american people knew about these kinds of efforts. congress knew about these kinds offests. it appears that ever since may

14 or whatever when speaker pelosi said the cia lies all the time, that that's the only message that's coming from my colleagues in the house here. the chairman of the intelligence committee now says the cia lies all the time. member of the committee now say leon panetta -- >> you know, there are americans all over the country who say that's what the cia is paid to do. they're paid to keep secrets. and there are indeed americans saying if the cia wasn't trying to kill osama bin laden or al qaeda leaders there would be something peculiar about that. congresswoman, your reaction? >> my reaction is the following. we have a solid obligation to protect the american people. it's called national security. and i just heard -- and i have respect for my colleague peter hook extra. one of the shodiest explanations of how the cia informed the congress. the cia director, mr. panetta,

came up and briefed us, and he said he stopped the program the day before. now, there was never any notice. in fact, the cia was directed. this is according to the directors. they were directed not to specifically, not to inform the congress. now, i think this flies in the face of the law. i think that we have to establish facts. this should not and is not partisan. god help us if we start playing partisan games with national security. the law is very clear. the full committee needs to know who, how, when, and what the program was. there's been a lot of public speculation about what the program is. i think the full committee needs to know all of it. and we are there -- >> you talking about public or private hearings? >> well, if it's secured -- if it's classified, rather, it would have to be behind closed

doors. >> and congressman hoekstra, let me ask you, during the entire period in which republicans until 2006 were in charge of congress was that there was a failure of oversight. and you know that -- the allegations. now with them in charge, there seems to be the charge by the republicans that they're being too aggressive. where in the world is congressman -- congresswoman eshoo said, where is the bipartisanship on these issues? why is it a public battle. >> why does it seem to be irrespective of the disclaimers part of the battle? >> lou, i think we've always within aggressive on getting oversight done. i've challenged president bush a number of times that he was forthright with the community and the american people as to what was going on in the intelligence committee. we have challenged the democrats on the committee to do an investigation as to the killing

of two american citizens. my constituents that might have participated on that based on the report of the cia's own inspector general. >> do you believe there'll be a full hearing into the cia? >> well, as soon as we find out whether the facts warrant such an investigation. remember, general hayden, the former director of the cia came out yesterday and said i was never told not to brief congress. and the paid the line on this, lou, is this is a program that never happened. we weren't briefed on a program. >> i'm sorry. >> it was never executed. >> congresswoman, you get the last quick word, please. >> i think the american people deserve to have a congress that takes the word of national security as seriously as they do. this warrants investigation. and i hope and pray that the house intelligence committee will make the decision to do so, establish facts and deal with

them. >> congresswoman, thank you very much. appreciate it. congressman hoekstra, thank you very much. a reminder to vote on our poll. the question is would you trust your senator or congressman with a secret? we'd like to hear your answer to this. we'll have the results for you in just a matter of moments. up next, judge sotomayor retreating from her wise latina comment. she's no locker making law. president obama with pessimistic comments about the economy and that's not his only problem. >> to poll our economy -- oh, goodness. sorry about that, guys. >> we'll be right back.

the president whose reliance on scare yesterday. >> to -- oh, goodness. sorry about that, guys. >> and after that i assure you we shored up our teleprompters here. a group of officials at the white house. one of the executive office buildings. the screens came loose, crashed to the floor shattering. he went on to finish his speech. shattered glass at his feet and the audience in the palm of his hand. well, we are now joined by three of my favorite radio talk show hosts from karn, dave elsworth. wolb in baltimore. good to have you, larry, and here in new york, wor's john -- >> thanks for having me. >> let's start, and dave let me start with you.

sotomayor says she didn't mean it when she said she makes laws as an appellate judge. she didn't mean it when she said wise latinas are wiser than white males. what's your take? >> my take is she doesn't know what she believes, and that should worry anybody that she's going to be sitting on the supreme court. this is a woman who said, hey, my worries fell flat when she talked about being a wise latina. if your words fall flat, why do you repeat them seven more times the exact same words? it seems to me she's trying to cover up to get herself confirmed. >> larry? >> i think what she was trying to do if she had it to do again, she would pull it back. i honestly believe that she understands correctly that she's going to get confirmed, she's trying to be politically correct, and i expect it's going to be 80/20. i am not concerned as of yet that she's going to have a difficult time getting her confirmation through this process regardless of what the republicans and others might try

to throw at her. >> well, i certainly agree with my colleagues here that i think there's no question that she's going to be confirmed. this train left the station months and months and months ago. republicans are doing what the republicans need to do and that is push back as hard as they can and as you know, politically here, and politically correctly here, they cannot push terribly hard. you know, this is the spoils of war. the president gets to choose the chief justices. >> the house democrats today releasing their $1 trillion health care plan. 1,008 pages long. >> who is going to read it? nobody and along with it, how to pay for it. and they're talking about raising taxes up to 58%. almost 60%. >> and larry? >> my biggest concern here is we're going to be concerned about the cost, that's fine. but the president said he's going to get it done by the end of august, certainly no later than labor day. i expect him to meet that obligation. the american public wants him to

meet it. public health care, health care is a major issue. let's accept the fact we've got to deal with it. that was one of the major concerns, health care, this congress is going to try to write something, the president's going to watch it. between the two, we'll get a victory for people of this country. >> dave? >> i've got to laugh at that last statement. you've got to be kidding me. bottom line, let me give you one word answers to this. katrina, medicare, how about social security, they're both going broke. >> two words, two words. >> now we want to turn over our health care to the federal government, you've got to be kidding. >> you might laugh all you want, but i suggest to you, you ask the american public anywhere you want the top five issues of the day. and if health care doesn't land in the top five, i would be concerned about the type of the person you asked the question of. >> if i say you should have a free dog, most americans will say they want a free dog. >> we're going to -- >> i won't take lightly the

question of health care and compare it to what you just stated. i'll ignore that. >> actually the question of health care when asked, when americans are asked does not come in the top five. >> all right. we're going to be right back with our panel as we sort out the top five and whose dog is doing what. >> to who. >> we'll be right back with our panel.

a poll that the democratic leadership and the house may want to look at as they consider their cia investigation. 94% of this audience says you would not trust your senator or congressman with a secret. that may be something of a head wind for the cia. let's turn first to -- let me go back to you, dave, on the second amendment sotomayor. somewhat ambiguous in her responses today. some would say that's putting it mildly. >> well, i'm concerned with anyone who is going to sit on the supreme court that does not believe that the second amendment of our constitution does not give an american the

right to keep and bear arms. without the second amendment, it will no be long before we don't have a first amendment. the second amendment protects that from ever happening. and this woman scares me that she cannot adequately and clearly state her position on it. >> cia, do you believe that there should be an investigation of the cia, apparently a program, allegedly designed to kill osama bin laden and leaders of al qaeda, what are your thoughts? >> i definitely think there should be an investigation. quite frankly anything dick cheney steps out for gets me concerned. so if he's behind it, made that request, i definitely want to see it investigated. >> larry, cnn has received information from two reliable cia sources that the vice president is getting "a bum rap" here on these allegations.

>> lou, if that's correct, i'll pull back. but something inside suspicion or otherwise of dick cheney, this doesn't sit well with me. if it's true, i'll pull it back, otherwise, investigate to the fullest. >> what are we going to investigate, lou? the program as i understand it was conceived and it was begun to be designed but was never implemented and what is the cia -- if the cia wasn't looking for osama bin laden and spending as much money and resource and capital as they could, they weren't doing the job. >> resources and capital, resources and capital, $1 trillion budget deficit for the first time in history already, another second $1 trillion on the health care proposal today. this country is out of money. the president said nearly two months ago, dave. i mean, we are moving toward a crisis of debt and deficits in this country. >> everybody, you're on a roller coaster hang on. the big drop's about to come. >> i think it was --

>> don't say that. >> i don't think most americans understand that. i mean they read it, they hear you talk about it. >> debt levels? >> the debt levels. and what it truly means. i don't think they have a clue. >> well, who would blame anyone for being mind numbed, larry, by these colossal numbers. these are abstractions that one can't begin to comprehend. i don't care if your iq is 180. >> that's one of the reasons why i feel so good about this particular president. he's cool, calm, collected, has an agenda. he's going off to sell it to the american public. we have to have -- >> i'm glad he's -- now for the rest of us can stay cool. all right. >> and now he has to buy a new teleprompter. unbelievable. >> thanks for being with us. we appreciate it, larry, thank you. john thank you. look forward to it. and a reminder to join me on the radio monday through fridays for the lou dobbs show. go to loudobbs.com r