home, i don't want to suggest i am, quite frankly. if i go home and get a gun and shoot you, that may not be legal under new york law -- >> you'd have lots of explaining to do. >> i'd be in a lot of trouble then. but i couldn't do that under a definition of self-defense. >> okay. >> so, that's what i was trying to explain in terms of why, in looking at this as a judge, i'm thinking about how that question comes up and how the answer can differ so radically given the hypothetical facts before you. >> the problem is, is we think, we doctors think like doctors, hard to get out of the doctor

skin. judges think like judges and lawyers think like lawyers and what american people want to see is inside what your gut says and part of that is why we're having this here. i want to move to one other area. you've been fairly critical of justice scalia's criticism of the use of foreign law and making decisions. and i would like for you to cite for me either in the constitution or in the oath that you took outside of treaties the authority that you can have to utilize foreign law in deciding cases in the court's law in this country. >> i have actually agreed with justice scalia and thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even in using foreign law with the things that american law permits you to and that's in interpretation or in conflicts of law because it's a

different system of law. >> but i accepted that. i said outside of those, in other areas where you will sit in judgment, can you cite for me the authority, either given in your oath or the constitution that allows you to utilize laws outside of this country to make the decisions about laws inside this country? >> my speech and my record on this issue is i've never used it to interpret the constitution or to interpret american statutes is that there is none. my speech has made that very clear. >> so, you stand by the saying, there is no authority for a supreme court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of making decisions based on the constitution or statutes? >> unless the statute requires you or directs you to look at

foreign law. some do, by the way, the answer is no. foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of the legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law that doesn't direct you to that law. >> let me give you one of your quotes. to suggest to anyone that you can outlaw is a sendment based on a fundamental misunderstanding, what you would be asking american judges to do is close their mind to good ideas. nothing in the american legal system prevents us from considering those ideas. we don't want judges to have closed minds. just as much as we don't want judges to consider legislation and foreign law that's developed through bodies, elected bodies outside of this country to influence what and either

rightly so or wrongly so against what the elected representatives and constitution of this country says. so, would you kindly explain the difference that i perceive in both this statement versus the way you just answered? >> there is none. if you look at my speech, you'll see that repeatedly i pointed out both of the american legal system was structured not to use foreign law. it repeatedly underscored that foreign law could not be used as a holding as precedent or interpret the constitution of the statutes. what i pointed out to in that speech is that there is a public misunderstanding of the word use and what i was talking about, one doesn't use those things in a sense of coming to a legal conclusion in a case, what judges do, and i cited justice ginsburg is educate themselves. they build up a story of

knowledge of legal thinking, of approaches that one might consider. but that's just thinking. it's an academic discussion when you're talking about, thinking about ideas than it is how most people think about the citation of foreign law in a decision. they assume that if there's a citation it's a foreign law. that's driving the conclusion. in my experience, when i've seen other judges cites to foreign law, they're not using it to drive the conclusion, they're using just to point something out about a comparison between american law or foreign law. but they're not using it in the sense of compelling a result. >> i'm not sure i agree on that with 8th amendment and 14th amendment cases. let me go to another.

i have just a short period of time. do you feel it's been said that we should worry about what uothr peep al think in terms and i'm paraphrasing not very well, i believe. is it important that we look good to people outside of this country or is it more important that we have a jurisprudence that is defined correctly and followed correctly according to our constitution and whatever the results may be, it's our result rather than a politically correct result that might please other people in the world? >> we don't render decisions to, we don't render decisions to please the home crowd. or any other crowd.

i know because i heard a number of speeches in the past. the supreme court hasn't taken many treaty cases. that maybe it should think about doing that because we're not participating in the discussion among countries on treaty provisions that are ambiguous. that may be of consideration to some justices, some have expressed that as a consideration. my point is, you don't rule to please any crowd. you rule to get the law right under its terms. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> coburn. >> so, the final republican member of the senate judiciary committee, representative tom coburn of oklahoma have asked his questions and they got into very sensitive issues including

abortion and foreign law and issues that we are going to digest and assess. several democrats still have 30 minutes each to ask their questions, including arlen specter, the return turned democrat and al franken, the newest member of the senate jud judiciary committee. we will have extensive coverage we will have extensive coverage of all of this right after this.

welcome back. we're continuing our coverage, extensive coverage of this, the third day of the sonia sotomayor confirmation hearings. all seven republican members of the committee have now had a chance to ask their questions. yesterday we heard from the ranking republican jeff sessions. we heard from orrin hatch, chuck

grassley and today we hear from the two remaining republicans john cornyn and john coburn of oklahoma. candy crowley, an extensive exchange that coburn had with sotomayor on abortion rights. she made it clear that the president of the united states and no one else ever asked her in vetting her whether she would be the nominee to spell out, to spell out what her position on abortion rights is. in fact, i'll play a little clip of what she's just said. >> should viability, should technology at any time be considered as we discuss these very delicate issues that have such an impact on so many people? your answer is, is you can't answer it. >> i can't answer it because that's not a question that the court reaches out to answer. that's a question that it's created by a state regulation of

some sort or an action by the state that may or may not, according to some, place an undue burden on her. we don't make policy choices in the court. we look at the case before us with the interest that are argued by the parties. >> all right, candy, she also said as did samuel alito when he was before the judiciary committee and john roberts before, she can't get into the substance of this issue because it is an issue that will come before the court down the road. >> certainly abortion is one you can count will get to the supreme court. either if it's viability as coburn doctor brought up saying we can detect life at 14 days. what does this mean for how early or how late you can have an abortion? we saw south dakota just one of many states that tried to

restrict abortion and it tried to ban abortion completely in the state, it ultimately did not do that, but it went through the court system in the state and where do they always end up? they end up at the supreme court. this is what i was talking about before. while rowe is established law, there are so many things around it where certainly those who are against abortion are trying to sort of tight on the parameters of abortion and she will get those and she's not that different or any different from anyone since robert bork to say, i can't do that. >> alex, our cnn contributor of the republican strategist, she basically took the exact same line that alito and roberts took in saying, you know what, i'm not going to talk about it. >> that seems to be what's coming out of these hearings. she will be alito and roberts on the court. really, you can see no differences, which i think most people would find inaccurate that that's not her background. on the puerto rican legal

defense fund, which, again, she was on the litigation committee and i believe she headed it and active in supporting it and that committee and she signed a letter to that effect. that they did go to try to limit taxpayer funding of abortion and wipe out parental notification on a few occasions, things like that. again, most republicans would have no trouble voting for her if she was pro-choice or prolife as long as she adhered to the law, strict interpretation of the law and hadn't said those other things like judges make policy from the bench. that's the real concern. >> on the litigation committee, she reviewed staffing, resources and didn't write the briefs. but, more importantly, i don't think the reason you can't expect roberts, alito or sotomayor to answer the question what about viability and technolo, those are precisely the issues that are going to come up, which a perfect exe why the law, get chang moved as things,

circumst so, this notion - >>he won't say that, will she? she has said just the opposite. >> she said congress changes the law. the judges don't. and you can disagree with that. >> the fact that those issues are going to come before the court is precisely why i think she should have to answer those questions. she is going to be up there for 30 years with no oversight, with no possibility of being removed and we're supposed to not ask her questions on the one opportunity that we have to ask them questions. i just think it is preposturous. >> this rule goes back to ruth baiter ginsburg and when she was testifying. >> they all do it, yes. >> presidential elections are about. if this is what the hearings are going to be after judge robert bork and that has changed since then, then, that's what presidential elections are about and you have to assume. >> this is potentially an area. i don't know if it is or it isn't, let me let john king

weigh in. she will succeed and we will all assume she will succeed and david souter who was a conservative, yet turned out to be a liberal once he got on the bench. is it possible, we don't know that much about her personal views that she could be a surprise on the bench? >> it's possible. it does happen that judges appointed by liberal presidents don't turn out to be as liberal. judges appointed by conservative presidents like george h.w. bush don't turn out to be as conservative as they thought. the happiest people in town when a conservative republican was asking those questions are the abortion rights groups because they want the answers, as much as conservatives want the answers, they want the answers because just to your question, they are a bit nervous about this judge because her case record, all those cases don't deal with the specifics of rowe v. wade and the cases in the pipeline are not so much about rowe v. wade, parental notification and parental

consent and the so-called late-term abortion and several state laws, late-term abortion laws that some made their way up to the court and been sent back and the biggest question in those is the health and safety of the mother. is there an exception, does the mother's life have to be at risk or just some sort of a health issue. those cases and many percolating and in those cases the technology questions could come up as we make medical advances at the beginning of life and end of life, very delicate, very sensitive emotional, personal issues and also very open legal questions. >> i was going to say, you heard when senator, i think it was senator cornyn was quoting one of her former partners in a law firm, look, don't worry about her. >> you can tell she got angry. >> litigator and involved in corporate stuff, he has no idea what my personal views are. >> these proabortion rights

groups want the democrats to be asking more questions on her views on abortion. >> and the white house has told them -- >> and the white house has said, why should they, you're hearing republicans ask it, but it's the liberal groups who are worried about it. >> you mentioned the surprise that some presidents get in their supreme court nominees. that's actually much more the exception than the rule. most justices turned out to be just what's advertised. look at the last five on the court. alito, roberts, brier, gindzbering, thomas, all as predicted. souter, more liberate but he was known as a moderate up in new hampshire. she is a centrist democrat likely to be a democrat on the bench voting with ginsburg most of the time. >> sandra day o'connor become a surprise? >> she had such a limited record and she was, i think, a centrist conservative and i say pretty

much as advertised. >> hold all those thoughts because we'll have to take another commercial break. a wise latina woman and we'll go down to florida and rick sanchez is standing by and he has some wise latina women with him and we're also gearing up, amy, a wise minnesota woman will be asking some questions, as well. our coverage will continue right after this.

welcome back. we're watching day three of the senate judiciary committee hearing for sonia sotomayor. at issue, once again today, during some of the questioning her controversial comments about

a wise latina woman. here's what she had to say today. >> do you stand by your words of yesterday and when you said it was a failed rhetorical flourish that fell flat that there are words that don't make sense and that they're a bad idea? >> i stand by the words, it fell flat. and i understand that some people have understood them in a way that i never intended and i would hope that in the context of the speech, that they would be understood. >> rick sanchez is joining us now from florida where there are a lot of wise latina women and, rick, you had a chance to meet some of them. >> what we want to do, wolf, from time to time take the conversation outside the beltway. and get a perspective from people living in america, especially people who are touched by this particular vunacular.

this new term that will be used and has been used by so many people. wise latina woman. so, what i have done is assembled a panel of very wise latina women in south florida. i think when you hear what they have to say, a perspective that, look, most of us don't often hear. like the stories they told me about what it's like to walk into a courtroom as a latina woman and have people walk up to you and think that you're the court reporter or some lawyer's wife but that you're not there as a prosecutor or distinguish ed attorney like these women you will be hearing throughout the day did. their perspective is extremely interesting and, certainly, will be a valuable part of the conversation that you all are having there in washington today. but i had to start it, of course, with the wisest of all latina women.

with some trepidation we chose to come back and do this, in the place where i grew up, the home where i grew up and i started off by asking, i asked my mom a question i'd never really been that serious about because she more often than not likes talking about what my kids are doing. i asked her what she thought of sonia sotomayor and here's what she had to say. you like sotomayor. are you proud? you're proud? pro proud because someone like y you -- oh, you're proud because she came from no where like you. you're proud. and you're proud and you like the fact that she did it on her own.

nobody gave it to her. she did it on her own. my mom is not an accomplished lawyer, former prosecutor, but she does seem to have that resounding sentiment that i've been hearing, wolf, from people all over the country, includish some of those women that you're about to hear from throughout the day, who seem to say there's something special about having someone like sonia sotomayor on the bench at some point because she does bring with her a rootedness, a sense that this is a woman that really came from no where. you know, bottom line is, in america we do pay a lot of attention to that log cabin mentality, somebody who picked themselves up from their own boot straps and made it, even much more so than the british and other european countries and as you go around the country and you talk to people and certainly

people in the hispanic community, this is something that is very, very important for them. >> you know, rick y want you to stay with us because we have alex, he's here, he was born in cuba, as you know, and marie is here, as well. she's a wise latina woman, i must say. when you heard maria, rick, talking to those women and talking to his mom, you were smiling broadly. >> well, because both from the mother, it's absolutely this notion of and it's true, only in america can you start from nothing and worker daughter working the white house. only in this country. but what you are getting from the other women, the lawyers, the fact is you still, you walk in the room, i practiced corporate law walking in the room and having assume you're the secretary and that you don't belong here and why are you here? so, it's a wonderful country, but it has its issues. >> even it's amazing, i just want to point out to alex that even, even sonia sotomayor,

herself, is now saying that that comment she made about a wise latina woman was not playing well and it's a failure and she regrets it. >> that's understandable. but her own experience is that equal opportunity has advantaged her. and that's one of the issues that she has to deal with. is she, does she feel that she's a product of affirmative action? has that been a help to her and would she use the court to advantage that? that's a fair question to ask. i think one of the issues hispanics have to deal with is how tough is it fair to be on a hispanic? is it okay to ask a hispanic in america what their views are in affirmative action or are you singling them out because of their background. i would love to live in a country in the united states where you can be asked the toughest questions regardless of your ethnicity and your gender and that is what we should aspire to and not have the first

line of defense be, they're asking that question. >> rick, come into this conversation? >> i can't help but think of some of the conversations i was having last night over those famous cuban pastries that you had down here, wolf, in south florida. i challenged these ladies, these women who are so accomplished on that and i said, she didn't say as well as, she said better. and take yourself out of miami and los angeles and chicago or new york and put yourself in kansas or in south dakota and in iowa and tell me how you think that's supposed to be taken. we're not one country and we're not monliffic and they held their ground for the most part saying that they believe that what she was trying to say is there is a perspective that has been missing for a long time in our judicial system and it's about time we have a woman who is latina who can at least share a perspective just like it's good to have a justice who may have once been a soldier and can

understand a veteran's perspective and especially at a time when the number of latinas in the united states is growing. that's the resounding sentiment that they were sharing with me. >> it's an enormous amount of pride the thought, maria, that there is about to be hispanic on the united states supreme court, only the third woman ever to be on the united states supreme court and there's nothing wrong with that pride. >> there's nothing wrong with that pride at all and i think it's shared by women and shared by latinos, in particular. but i think she has been very clear that she's got the qualifications and she's been asked tough questions. no one has pulled any punches on her. let's not, which is describing that somehow we're not asking tough questions, she's getting asked hard questions. >> supporters at the very beginning and this is outside the senate, but some supporters, the minute she was nominated said, well, we'll be to the republican that goes after the first latina woman that goes on

the supreme court. that has always been the political undertow there that you cannot go after a minority because all the, everybody else will get so upset. so, to alex's complaint about can we just ask any question, i think it goes to what senator graham was saying. when larry sumner says women think differently and not as good at chemistry, he's absolutely pillred. i think white men, my favorite sons are white men, have a very hard time navigating these waters right now because it still is pretty new. >> well, it's heartbreaking how white men suffer in this society. they only, they only have about 90 seats in the senate and only -- i know, i'm just giving you a hard time. >> trust me, i get it.

>> just say to alex's point, she has openly and happily said that she's an affirmative action baby. in fact, she would not have gotten into the ivy league schools she got into it. she did, however, perform really well once she got there, but she happily said, i'm an affirmative action baby and that helped me. so, that's not something she's ever hidden. >> why aren't we getting that in the hearing? why aren't they asking that? that would be a useful discussion. >> let me play that clip about what she said about being an affirmative action baby. listen to this. we'll get that down the road. this is live television. it's a very good clip. but, you know, rick, i was going to point out, rick sanchez is sticking around to help us. she, what, she may have had

advantages getting into princeton or yale law school, but she was suma lata. >> she felt like she was an alien or something, she didn't understand. look, that's an experience that many of us, i'll be honest with you, when i went to the university of minnesota, you talk about a culture shock. you talk about, in many ways, people not understanding me and asking me if i made good tacos, which cubans generally don't eat tacos. there's a perspective in this country and it's a very important conversation that we're going to need to have. that's why, i'm excited about the fact that we're doing a black in america and latino in america and all these segments because the resounding question continues to be, why does it matter that she's his ppanichis? why do we need a hispanic on the

supreme court? why don't we just get a judge on the supreme court or why do we need a woman on the supreme court or an african-american on the supreme court and we tussle with this still as a nation and it's part of the conversation that you all are having and that really is still underlying many of the krveshs or many of the confirmation hearings themselves. this is something i got into with many of these accomplished lawyers and leaders in south florida, as well. these wise latina women, as well. i look forward to seeing what some of the other folks have to say. >> rick, don't go away, we'll continue this conversation and we'll continue our special coverage of these historic hearings. the democratic senator from the state of minnesota. one of only two women on the judiciary committee. she's getting red tee ask her she's getting red tee ask her questions. been our dream since we were kids. naing onon ud r.

weotototatatininci on us cars for everybody anont cfidedence ininin o. caususususlendnds s ve a a a t tcks. ququq n .

looking at these live pictures from the senate judiciary committee. they're taking a photo opportunity. these are the new haven firefighters who have come in. some will be testifying tomorrow outside witnesses they were upset, several of them with sonia sotomayor's decision as part of a lower court ruling overturned later by the u.s. supreme court in a 5-4 decision that stood with them as opposed to her and they're coming in to testify tomorrow to make their case. the republican ranking member of this judiciary committee senator jeff sessions of alabama has come outside and he's speaking to reporters talking about guns right now. let's listen in. >> good to have senator cornyn here. he does a great job in these hearings, the supreme court

justice and the attorney general of texas and john. >> i want to say for my part that judge sotomayor is a very charming and, obviously, very intelligent individual and i admire her service on the federal courts, the district court and the court of appeals. what we've been trying to do, though, is trying to reconcile the sonia sotomayor that we've come to learn about in her speeches and that approach to judging and compare that to what we know about her judicial record and we're left with a lot of questions. principally because as a district judge and a court of appeals judge, she will have all of her decisions reviewed by the united states supreme court. but as a member of the united states supreme court, she would have no one review her decisions and she would be free to do, basically, whatever she wants. and if that means she would embrace some of the philosophies

and approaches that she's done in her speeches, then that would be very troubling, indeed, because that would, i think, would give way to a kind of judge-made law that would provide a lot of unpredictability and, really, put judges in the position of legislatures that happen to wear black robes and, oh, by the way, you deon't get to vote on life tenured judges and that would result and our rights as the american people to determine what laws govern us. so, we have not yet, i think, had satisfactory answers to how do you reconcile those approaches and those two things. i hopes as the hearing proceeds we'll hear more about that. let me just say it finally, i'm glad that some of the new haven firefighters, who are the plaintiffs in the ricci case are here in the audience today. i hope the american people get to hear their story, frank

ricci, dyslexic man who underwent great hardship and sacrifice in order to do well on this promotion examination, it was ultimately disregarded by the new haven city council, as well as benjamin vargas, a 40-year-old man of puerto rican extraction who likewise was denied a promotion based on the color of his skin. i was shocked that the judge handled that case so dismissively on the court of appeals and in a way that it was virtually hidden from any of the other judges on the d.c. circuit. >> so, let's talk about this case a little bit. the ricci case, the firefighters case from new haven, connecticut. while the judiciary committee is in a break right now and you saw some of the firefighters from new haven posing for pictures in the senate judiciary committee hearing room, we're going to ask john king and jeff toobin to

walk over to the magic wall right now and help us with some background on this sensitive case in which she was part of the three-member panel that decided one thing that was later overturned by the u.s. supreme court in a 5-4 decision. john, why, why is this so sensitive and set the stage for this testimony tomorrow for some of these firefighters.

the courts rejection of the firefighters' lawsuit and jeff essentially said, you know what, send this back to the city, you did not come up with a test that african-americans and other minorities passed, so write a new test. and because of that, these white firefighters who took it and passed it were denied promotions. >> the city had a right to start a new test if they wanted to. an issue that has come up in the testimony today, it is really generally inside baseball, but more and more courts of appeals are issuing what they call these short procurium rulings, not published widely. they have the same force of effective law as an effective opinion but they're called different things in different circuits and memo opinions they're called. and the way the sotomayor panel dealt with this case, it wasn't just her decision, a three-judge panel they issued the short one paragraph opinion and judge cabranas who is another judge on

the second circuit wrote a long opinion saying we deserve to give this case more treatment. but that's one thing that came up when you hear senator cornyn saying they treated the case dismissively, he meant writing a short opinion. >> two views that made it such a political firestorm. judge sotomayor said a lower court ruling and we looked at it, it was precedent and that's our job, it was within the law and we sent it back. we said, no, there's no case here. others say, this is an example. what the conservatives are trying to say, is this an example where a woman and a latina said i'm going to exercise my view that minorities deserve a chance. is this an example of her bringing her life, history and background on to the bench? >> absolutely. there is the question of why did they write such a short opinion? whatever you think of the ricci case, it's a complicated, difficult issue and it deserved better than a one-paragraph opinion. but, you know, the heart of the

ricci case is may a city take steps to make sure its fire department is racially integrated. may it move african-americans up in the pecking order and that's the key question about affi affirmative action whether it's university admissions or a public employer and that's the question and that's why it remains so controversial. >> i'll let you turn it back over to wolf in a quick sentence, judge saying judge sotomayor and her colleagues were wrong. >> justice souter, whom justice sotomayor would replace in the minori minority, anthony kennedy's opinion said, simply fearing that the black firefighters might file a lawsuit, that's not a good enough reason to overturn a test that was administered to everybody. so, 5-4, the white firefighters

led by frank ricci who will be testifying later, probably tomorrow, they won their case and sotomayor's position was overturned. >> 17 years on the bench, wolf, but this is the case we have heard the most about. >> a real substantive case, indeed. probably more discussion of that. guys, come back here to the table. candy, you know, you think about it. not only affirmative action, but abortion rights, gun control, property rights, international law whether foreign law being described whether that should have any say on the united states supreme court, decisions by the justice, the supreme court, we're learning a lot in the course of these three days about some of the more explosive issues out there and the rule of law. >> absolutely. it doesn't have much to do with how she would rule on any of these things, but if you're watching, it's sort of a fascinating reader's digest look for those of us who aren't lawyers at what the issues are out there on how you can make a decision on abortion or gun

rights and it really wasn't a decision on abortion or gun rights but something much narrower like the fear of a lawsuit isn't enough. that doesn't speak to, in general, whether this is, that's not a challenge to having the test itself. i think, again, to sort of speak to jeffrey's point, wouldn't it be nice if we could discuss how she felt about these things. in fact, we always say because they want to make sure that he or she gets confirms. but this is not a question here. this might have been a good test case. it doesn't really matter what, how she feels personally on abortion because she's going to go through. >> all right, guys. >> might be a good time to do it. >> after robert bork and his unsuccessful confirmation, all these justices, potential justices have come before the committee saying, you know what, these are sensitive issues, they're going to come before the court, we can't really get into that kind of detail right now, which is a relatively safe position to take. we're getting ready, they're

still in recess right now. amy, one of only two women on the committee, 19 members on the committee, she's getting ready to ask some questions. our coverage will continue. ddd

we're continuing our coverage of the confirmation hearings for the supreme court nominee, sonia sotomayor, she's walking back in. they've just taken a break. the ranking republican, a top republican, on the committee, senator jeff sessions, of alabama, is joining us. seeing the chairman, senator sessions, your friend, patrick leahy, the photographer, taking pictures inside as well. whenever he can, he likes to snap some pictures. have you heard anything that

will cause you to either vote to confirm or reject her nomination? >> no. but i am disappointed that we still have a lot of muddled testimony and lack of clarity. really, a person going on the supreme court should be clearer, in my view. and i do think roberts and alito are far superior in terms of answering questions crisply and with clarity and having very little inconsistencies in what they said. for example, i think the judge continues to ob fufuscate her opinion about the second amendment right to keep and bear arms do the not apply to the states, that means they and their cities can totally eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. that decision she rendered would have to be reversed by the supreme court. she had some formal precedent back in the 1800s. but the net result, that that's not reversed, then we'll have a complete evisceration of the second amendment. >> are you saying -- you're still undecided, though, as far

as how you're going to vote, senator sessions? >> i think i'm committed to working through this whole hearing, to examine her testimony comprehensively and see how i feel about her answers. but i am troubled. and that has not been allayed today. >> so far, i take it from what i'm hearing, you're leaning not to confirm? >> well, wolf, i don't think it's appropriate to -- for me to say now, and i'm just wrestling with these issues. i think most of us would love to vote for her. we didn't make these speeches. we haven't had these difficulties that she had. i mean, we didn't make them. if they weren't there, i think she'd be in a lot better position. if she'd tested -- if she'd spoken the last ten years like she testified about fidelity to the law yesterday, i think we'd be in a better shape. >> on the wise latina woman comment that she explained yesterday, repeated that explanation today, saying it fell flat. it was a rhetorical flourish, what she was trying to do, inspire young people, simply

failed, are you, i guess, bluntly, to ask the question, do you buy it? >> not completely. because the whole thrust of that speech was an intellectual critique of the ideal that each judge should put aside all their biases, prejudices, and backgrounds and render fair judgment of the parties before them. and not be biased, and they take an oath to impartial ity, and hr speech was really a critique of that belief. she said, it's just not possible. i readily accept the fact that my background chooses -- or allows me to choose the facts i wish to see. so, that's a -- i mean, this is just a dramatic statement she made, and i'm sorry she made it. and i'm not sure her statements today overcome that. >> i know you got to go back inside. they've just reconvened. >> yeah, i got to go back. >> and we're going to try to talk to you again later. senator sessions, thanks very much. >> thank you, wolf. >> amy klobuchar, the democratic

senator from minnesota, is now asking questions of sonia sotomayor. >> brilliant. what are you going to do? okay. so, let's -- let's move on. i had some -- >> we should introduce our mothers, okay? >> exactly. i have some quick questions here at the beginning just to follow-up on some of the issues raised my colleagues. senator coburn was asking you about the heller case, and second amendment issues. and i am personally agree with the heller case. but i remember yesterday, you said in maloney, your second circuit case, that wru bound by precedent in your circuit, but that you would keep an open mind if the supreme court takes up the question whether the second amendment can be incorporated against the states, is that right? >> yes. senator, i take every case, case by case, and my mind is always open. and i make no prejudgments as to conclusions. >> okay. then a follow-up question that senator whitehouse was asking you about the puerto rican legal

defense fund, you were on that board. and one just minor follow-up, but isn't it true that the aba, that their code of conduct, the american bar association, code of conduct bars board members from engaging in litigation because of a lack of an actual lawyer/client relationship? >> yes. >> okay. and then, finally, just one point. we've heard so much about your speech in which you use the phrase "wise latina," and i'm not going to go over that again, but i did want to note for the record that you made a similar comment in another speech that you gave back in 1994, which you have provided not only in this proceeding, but you also provided it when you came before the senate for confirmation to the circuit court in 1997, in 1998, and no senator at that time, do you remember them asking you about it or making any issue about it at the time? >> no. >> all right. thank you. now we can move on to what i want to talk about, which is your work as a criminal

prosecutor. and senator whitehouse initially asked a few questions about that. you were quoted in "the new york times" a while back about your time there. and you said the one thing i have found is if you come into the criminal justice system on a prosecutorial or defense level thinking that you can change the ills of society, you're going to be sorely disappointed. this is not where those kinds of changes have to be made. do you want to elaborate on that a little bit? >> by the time a criminal defendant ends up in court, they've been shaped by their lives. if you want to give people the best opportunity at success at life, it's a message i deliver frequently to my community. it has to be through early childhood forward.

if you're waiting to do that once they're before a judge in court, your chances of success have diminished dramatically. and so one of my messages in many of my speeches to my community groups is, pay attention to education. it's the value mom taught me, but her lesson was not lost on me when i became a prosecutor. and it's a lesson that i continue to promote, because i so fervently believe it. the success of our communities depends on us improving the quality of our education of our children and of parental participation in ensuring that that happens in our society. >> it also reminded me of that comment about some of the comments you've made about the limited role that a prosecutor has one role and the limited role that a judge may have to respect that judicial role of not making the laws, but inte interpreting the laws. would that be a correct

summarization? >> it is, in the statement i made to the newspaper article, i was focusing on a different pros -- part of that. but it is. as a prosecutor, my role was not to look at what i thought the punishment should have been. because that was set in law, sentences are set by congress, within statutory ranges. and my role was to prosecute on behalf of the people of the state of new york. and that role is different than one that i would do if i were a defense attorney, whose charge is to do something else, to ensure that a defendant is given a fair trial and that the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. but we cannot remedy the ills of society in a courtroom. we can only apply the law to the facts before us. >> yeah, i think justice ginsburg made a similar comment in an article this weekend in an interview she did, as she was

talking about -- this was her exact quote. "the legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the family medical leave act," she was talking about family arrangements. "but it's not something a court can decree. a court can't tell the man," she said, "you've got to do more than carry out the garbage." i thought that was another way of making -- you don't have to comment on that, but it's another way of making the same point. the other thing that i wanted to focus on was just that role as a prosecutor, some of the difficult decisions you have to make about charging the cases, for instance. sometimes you have to make a difficult decision to charge a family member maybe in a drunk-driving case where someone kills their own child because they were drunk. or you have to make a decision when the court of public opinion has already decided someone's guilty, but you realize you don't have enough evidence to charge the case. do you want to talk about any -- maybe a specific example of that

in your own career as a prosecutor or what goes in to your thinking on charging? >> i was influenced so greatly by a television show in igniting the passion i had as being a prosecutor, and it was "perry mason" for the young people behind all of you, they may not even know who perry mason was. but perry mason was one of the first lawyers portrayed on television. and his story line is that in all of the cases he tried, except one, he -- he proved his client innocent and got the actual murderer to confess. in one of the episodes at the end of the episode, perry mason, with the character who played the prosecutor in the case, were meeting up after the case. and perry said to the prosecu r

prosecutor, it must cause you some pain having expended all that effort in your case to have the charges dismissed. and the prosecutor looked up and said, no, my job as a prosecutor is to do justice, and justice is served when a guilty man is convicted and when an innocent man is not. and i thought to myself, that's quite amazing, to be able to serve that role, to be given a job, as i was by mr. morgenthau, a job i'm eternally grateful for, that i can do what justice required in an individual case.

and it was not without bounds, because i served a role for society. and that role was to ensure that the public safety and public interests were fully represented. but prosecutors in each individual case, at least in my experience, particularly under the tutelage of mr. morgenthau was, we did what the law required within the bounds of understanding that our job was not to play to the home crowd, not to look for public approval, but to look at each case, in some respects like a judge does, individually. that meant in some cases, bringing the top charge, and i was actually known in my office for doing that often. but that's because i determined it was appropriate often. but periodically, i would look at the quality of evidence and say, there's just not enough. i had one case with a individual

who was charged with committing a larceny from a woman. and his defense attorney came to me and said, i never, ever do this, but this kid is innocent. please look at his background. he's a kid with a disability. talk to his teachers. look at his life. look at his record. here it is. he gave me the file. everything he said was absolutely true. this was a kid with not a blemish in his life. and he said, please look at this case more closely. and i went and talked to the victim. and she -- i had not spoken to her when the case was indicted. this was -- this was one of those cases that was transferred to me, so it was my first time

in talking to her. and i let her tell me the story, and it turned out she had never seen who took her pocketbook. in that case she saw a young man that the police had stopped in a subway station with a black jacket, and she thought she had seen a black jacket. and identified the young man as the one who had stolen her property. the young man, when he was stopped, didn't run away. he was just sitting there. her property wasn't on him, and he had the background that he did. and i looked at that case and took it to my supervisor and said, i don't think we can prove this case. and my supervisor agreed, and we dismissed the charges. and yet there are others that i prosecuted, very close cases, where i thought a jury just decide if someone was guilty.

and i prosecuted those cases, and more often than not got convictions. my point is that that is such a wonderful part of being a prosecutor. that tv character said something that motivated my choices in life and something that holds true. and that's not to say, by the way, and i firmly, firmly believe this, defense attorneys serve a noble role as well. all participants in this process do, judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. we are all implementing the protections of the constitution. >> thank you. that was very well said. and i -- i want to take that pragmatic experience that you've had, not just as a civil litigator, but also as a prosecutor. a lot has been said about whether judges' biases or their gender or their race should enter into decision making. and i actually thought that

senator schumer did a good job of asking you questions where, in fact, you might have been sympathetic to a particular victim or to a particular plaintiff, but you ruled against them. and i actually made -- gave me some answers to give to this baggage carrier that came up to me at the airport in minneapolis. it was about a month ago, after you'd just been announced, and he came up, and he said, are you going to vote for that woman? at first i didn't even know what he was talking about. i said, what? he said, are you going to vote for that woman. i said, i think so, but i want to ask her some questions. he said, aren't you worried that her emotions get in front of the law? i thought if anyone heard what the cases -- the twa case, where you decided against -- had to make a decision from some very sympathetic victims, the families of people who had been killed in a plane crash, a host of other cases, where you put the law in front of where your sympathies lie, i think that would have been a very good answer to him. but another piece of this, that's a very different part of

it, is the practical experiences you've had, the pragmatic work that you've done. and i just wanted to go through some of the cases that you've had. the criminal cases that you've handled as a judge, and talk to you a little bit about how that pragmatic experience might be helpful on the courts, not leading you to always side with the prosecution obviously or -- but helping you to maybe ferret through the facts as you've been known to be someone to really focus on the facts. one of them is this united states vfalso case. this was a case where child pornography was found in a guy's home and on his computer. you ruled that although the police officers didn't have probably caue cause for the sea warrant, the evidence obtained in the search, the child pornography on the computer, should still be considered under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, because the judge had not knowingly been misled. in other words, it was a mistake. can you talk about that case,

and perhaps having that experience on the front line helped you to reach that decision? because there was someone, i believe, that dissented in that case. >> that case presented a very complicated question in second circuit law. there have been two cases addressing how much information a warrant had to contain and what kind in order for the police to search a defendant's home -- or i shouldn't say a home, a computer, to see if the computer contained images of child pornography. the two cases -- i should say, the two panels. i wasn't a member of either of those panels. had very extensive discussion about the implications of the cases, because they involved the use of the internet and how much

information the police should or should not have before they look to get a warrant to search someone's computer, because the computer does provide people with freedom of speech, at least with respect to accessing information and reading it and thinking about it. in the case before me, i was looking at it in the backdrop of the conflict that it appeared to contain in our case law. and what our case law said was important for a police officer to share with a judge and examine the facts before my case, looking at that's the information that the police have before them and considering whether, in light of existing second circuit law as it addressed this issue, had the police actually violated the

constitution. i hope i can continue. >> you can continue. that was not -- that was not a comment from above. >> thank you. >> i have certain powers as chairman, but not that much. >> please go on. >> whether they should get a warrant or not. and i -- and one member of the court said yes, and they had violated the constitution, and i joined that part of the opinion, because i determined, examining all of the facts of that case, that -- and the law, that that was the way the law -- the result the law required. but then i looked at what the principles underlying the unreasonable search and seizures are without a warrant and looked at the question of what was the doctrine that underlay there, and what doctrine it underlays

is that you don't want the police violating your constitutional rights without a good-faith basis, without probable cause. and that's why you have a judge make that determination. that's why you require them to go to a judge. and so what i had to look at was whether we should make the police responsible for what would have been otherwise a judge's error, not their error. >> uh-huh. >> they gave everything they had to the judge, and they said to the judge, i don't know. even if they thought they knew, that isn't what commands the warrant. it's the judge's review. so, i was the judge in the middle. one judge joined one part of my opinion, the other judge joined the other part of the opinion. and so i held that the acts violated the constitution, but that the evidence could still be used because the officers had -- there was in law a good-faith exception to the error in the warrant.

>> and i think you -- >> all right. we're going to continue our coverage. amy klobuchar is continuing to ask questions. the democratic senator from minnesota, of the supreme court nominee, sonia sotomayor. by the way, she's the senior senator from minnesota. the new junior senator from minnesota, al franken, he's slated to ask questions later today as well, so we'll have extensive coverage of all of that. cnn.com is where you can see all of this uninterrupted, if you want. we'll take a quick break. i never thought it could happen to me... a heart attack at 53. i had felt fine. but turns out... my cholesterol and other risk factors... increased my chance of a heart attack. i should've done something. now, i trust my heart to lipitor. when diet and exercise are not enough, adding lipitor may help. unlike some other cholesterol lowering medications, lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk... of heart attack, stroke,

and certain kinds of heart surgeries... in patients with several common risk factors... or heart disease. lipitor has been extensively studied... with over 16 years of research. lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. i was caught off-guard. but maybe you can learn from my story. have a heart to heart with your doctor... about your risk. and about lipitor.

so what do you think?

i think i'll go with the basic package. good choice. only meineke lets you choose the brake service that's right for you. and save 50% on pads and shoes. meineke. the united states capitol united states the senate judiciary committee hearing

room, the senate hart office building. they're continuing questioning of sonia sotomayor. amy klobuchar is asking some of those questions. we'll continue our coverage in a moment. but there's other important news unfolding right now. cnn's tony harris is joining us with that. tony? >> yeah, good to see you, wolf. thank you. here's what's happening right now in the news -- the senate health committee has just passed legislation to overhaul health care. the $600 billion measure would expand coverage to almost all americans by requiring individuals get insurance and employers to help foot the bill. as expected, the vote was along party lines. republicans, unanimous in opposition. >> all of us republicans are committed to the prospect that we need to reform health care in america. but our principle and our fundamental belief is that health care has to be available and affordable, and the problem with health care is not the quality of health care in america, it is the cost of health care. let me point out that this legislation has not one single

provision that is aimed at reducing the cost of health care. >> president obama plans to address health care at 1:00 p.m. eastern in the rose garden. cnn, of course, will bring it to you live. iraq's prime minister is coming to washington. the white house says president obama's looking forward to welcoming prime minister nuri al maliki next wednesday. this will not be the first meeting between the two leaders. they had talks in april when president barack obama made a quick visit to iraq. a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of new zealand. no major damage reported. the pennsylvania swim club that canceled memberships to dozens of kay care children faces a possible lawsuit. they revoked privileges for mostly black and hispanic children. some children say club members made racist comments. the club says its decision was based on safety concerns and not racism. we are keeping you informed. now, back to wolf and cnn's

special coverage of the sonia sotomayor confirmation hearings. wolf? >> tony, thank you very much. we'll check back with you as well. we're going to take another quick break. after the break, we'll resume our coverage inside the judiciary committee hearing, where sonia sotomayor is being questioned. gggggggggggggggg

united states capitol, that's where the activity is going on right now, inside the senate judiciary committee hearing room. the senior senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar, is continuing her questioning of sonia sotomayor. they're talking about sentencing guidelines. >> and so to the extent that in

all my cases i balanced the individual sentence with -- as i was directed to -- the interests that society sought to protect, then i applied that evenhandedly to all cases. it's important to remember the guidelines were mandatory. and so i took my charge as a district court judge seriously at the time to only deviate in the very unusual case, which was permitted by the guideline. >> and what do you think about the change now that they are guidelines and suggested guidelines and not mandatory? >> as you know, there's been great -- a great number of cases in the supreme court. the booker fam fam case determined there were guidelines. my own personal experience with

that as an appellate judge is because the supreme court has told the district courts to give serious consideration to the guidelines, there's been a little bit -- not a little bit. there's been discretion given to district courts, but they are basically still staying within the guidelines. and i think that's because the guidelines proved useful as a starting point to consider what an appropriate sentence may be. >> just one last question, mr. chairman. all these guys have been asking about your baseball case, and they've been talking about umpires and judges as umpires. did you have a chance to watch the all-star game last night? because most of america didn't watch the replay of your hearing. they might have been watching it. >> i haven't seen television for a very long time. i will admit that i turned it on for a little while. >> okay. because there was -- i will say, and maybe you didn't turn it on on this moment, but your

yankee, derek jeter, tied it up. but you most know that he scored only because there was a hit by joe mauer of the minnesota twins. i just want to point that out. all right, thanks very much, judge. >> that's what team work comes to it. >> thank you. >> i'm resisting. >> all right, amy klobuchar, one of two women on the committee, asking questions. getting through some substantive issues. having a little fun at the end talking about the major league baseball all-star game last night. a lot of us did watch that all-star game, when we saw the president of the united states throw out that first pitch. there is a baseball factor in all of this, jeff toobin, our senior legal analyst. is it fair to say that sonia sotomayor allowed that major league all-star game to take place last night? >> well, indirectly, that is true. going back to 1995, when judge

sotomayor was on the district court, before she was promoted to the court of appeals, she had a case involving the infamous baseball lock-out of that year. it wasn't a strike. it was a lock-out. and what had happened was, the owners wanted to change the contract unilaterally and force the players back to work. the nlrb joined the players union -- >> the national labor relations board. >> the national labor relations board, owners, said you can't change the contract unilaterally and lock out the players. and sonia sotomayor, who is a yankees fan, which isn't relevant -- >> she's from the bronx. >> she just lost senator king's vote orhere. she voted that the owners were wrong, that they couldn't do it. that the unilateral change in the contract was imper missible and that is what led to the end of the lock-out and began the 1995 season. so, president obama mentioned this case in -- in announcing her nomination six weeks ago,

it's a big deal. >> it's a huge deal. because a lot of people say that decision she made saved major league baseball. he sided with the players instead of the owners and major league baseball continued last night. did you like the pitch the president threw? >> i only saw the replay, because i was out at a charity event before that, which he made it, he reached -- >> can we discuss one thing? >> now you're going to -- >> it doesn't have to do with your red sox. it has to do with our come petters at fox. the coverage, you couldn't see the ball cross the plate or not cross the plate. come on. this is what everybody wanted to know and they -- >> but he reached home plate and the catcher -- >> i didn't actually see it. did he? >> yes, he did. >> the best thing about this, the president admits he didn't play baseball as a kid, which he was happy to reach home plate. which he did twice, he reached home plate. the best thing is the all-star game matters. the boston red sox will be the home team. >> you remember he was wearing a

chicago white sox. >> he got some boos. let's move on from baseball, because other substantive issues were certainly discussed today, and we're going to go through some of the most important issues that came up today on this, the third day, of her confirmation hearings. our coverage will continue right after this. and they'll match any advertised price. so instead of searching for "deals" out there... you get everyday low prices, right here. vo: ave money. live better. walmart.

all right, there he is. the president of the united states last night in st. louis. busch stadium going out to throw out the first pitch. all right, i want everybody to study this pitch. this is the way it went down. are you watching, john? you see that? did you see that? he threw that first pitch, a little soft, and not too hard. let's play it again right now. then we'll get another little assessment. watch this. well, we didn't see it. that was the wrong angle. let's show that first angle. that's what we saw live if you were watching the game last night, but let's take a look now, you'll see a better shot.

you'll see that he actually manages to throw the ball and reach the catcher. watch. all right. so, here -- here's -- >> he was sitting on the plate, too. >> somebody said there was a little bit of a girly throw, john. what do you think? >> excuse me, wolf. >> look, it takes guts for a politician, even a popular president, to go out and do it. and let's put partisanship acid and objectivity and give him credit, he put on his jeans and his jacket. 50 feet, 6 inches, albert pujols gave him the little couple of feet. >> a good republican could hit it. >> george bush used to do a pretty good job of hitting home plate. >> a former team owner. >> the reason we're talking about with, would sonia sotomayor save major league baseball with the decision she

had in the lower courts when she ruled in favor of the players as opposed to the owners. they came back from their lock-out and they played ball, which was very, very important for all of us. >> the new busch stadium, it's a beautiful place. >> it is a beautiful stadium in st. louis, missouri. that was a state that he barely lost to john mccain, if you remember, about 3,000 votes. >> you don't think that played in to going out there, do you? >> they are thinking ahead, down the road. because they always are. let's talk a little bit about what we've learned today, and we spoke earlier with jeff sessions, the ranking republican on the judiciary committee, and he raised the issue of guns. he isn't sure where she stands on the second amendment to the constitution. in fact, i think we have a little clip of an exchange that occurred on guns earlier in the week. >> where was she about my statement that i have, i claim to have a fundamental guarantee, spelled-out right under the constitution that is individual and applies to me the right to

own a gun. am i right or am i wrong? >> i can't answer the question of incorporation, other than to refer to precedent. precedent says, as the second circuit interpreted the supreme court -- >> i understand. >> -- the precedent, that it's not -- it's not incorporated. >> all right. that was an exchange with tom coburn, another supporter of the second amendment, supporter of guns. coburn, the republican senator from oklahoma. he's also concerned about guns. jeff toobin, help us explain, her position specifically on the federal obligation to support the second amendment as opposed to local communities or states. >> you know, it's funny, the way that this hearing goes, you would think that supreme court precedent is some unchanging thing, that is just the law, that is changed. but if you look at the second amendment, that's something that's changed dramatically over the last -- 50 years. including when i was in law

school, which was more recently than 50 years ago. the idea that you had a second amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. the text of the second amendment, i believe we have it -- we have it in our system, you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms. well, courts used to say, well, this only affects the rights of state militias, but the supreme court two years ago in the famous heller decision said, when it comes to the federal government, we -- individuals have a personal right to bear arms. and the d.c. gun-control law was thus unconstitutional. the question that came before judge sotomayor in the second circuit was, what about states, do individuals have a right against states. state law to a personal right to bear arms. and she said, according to her reading of the precedents, is that that's not decided yet, that it only applies to the federal government. now, it's up to the supreme court to make that decision. by the way, the seventh circuit agrees with her. >> it might be useful for you and john to go back to the magic

wall, there's a key case, maloney versus cuomo that deals with this issue specifically. and let's walk through some of those issues, because i suspect that we haven't heard the last of the second amendment and guns. you did hear senator sessions earlier in the day, cite a release put out by the national rifle association, saying they've got some serious problems with this nominee, wayne laperriere, the leader of the nra, saying, you know what, we're not convinced she would be a good supreme court justice. >> that, wolf, as we look at the case file, that is based on the thought the nra believes that she is in favor, that this case puts her on the record in favor of state regulations of gun use. now, this is the second amendment case, maloney versus cuomo, the attorney general of the state of, just decided in 2009, an issue was a new york man challenged the state law prohibiting possession not of a gun, a martial arts tool, a nunchaku, that violated his second amendment right to bear arms. the ruling of the second circuit was that new york's law did not

violate the second amendment, which, again, according to this circuit court, only restricts the federal government, not the state. the outcome there is that judge sotomayor was part of a panel that dismissed the gentleman's challenge. now, she is saying that there's nothing in the law that prohibited new york state, nothing in the federal constitution that prohibited new york state, from regulating firearms. >> right. one of the controversies in constitutional law over the past 50, 100 years, has been the bill of rights. the first ten amendments. which parts of it apply against the states, because most of the bill of rights, like the first amendment, says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. but what about the states, may they make a law abridging the freedom of states? justice hugo black was a great advocate of what was called incorporation. >> right. >> you heard justice -- judge sotomayor mention it. do you incorporate the bill of rights against the states? now, most of the bill of rights has been incorporated, but not everything, and the supreme court has never said whether the second amendment applies against

the states. that's the issue that this case was about. >> i want to follow-up by making this point using the telestrator. this case was just decided. if she makes it to the supreme court, this case. others like it, are likely to be before the court. and republicans have been pressing her for two days now trying to say, well, you would recuse yourself if this case made it. and she has said, yes. if a case that she decided, the exact case, she would, of course, say i have a conflict, i have to step aside. they are trying to say, well, if there are other state cases similar to this, could you also recuse yourself. very clear what the conservatives, republicans are saying, they're trying to get her to commit on the record now that she would not speak to gun cases. >> that she would recuse herself for cases that raise the same issue. very interesting about recusal. the rules on recusal in the supreme court are different than they are on the lower courts. because in the lower courts, they really encourage you to recuse yourself if there's any hint of conflict, because it's easy to replace judges with one who doesn't have a continue

flict. you can't replace the supreme court justices, justice. so the justices try, within ethical rules, but they're not really spelled out, not to recuse themselves. so, it will be interest iing to see, as these cases come down the line, and they definitely will, whether she decides to recuse herself. i bet she won't. >> jeff toobin. wolf, we go back to you. it's interesting, senator coburn was making the case why should it be so difficult when the right to bear arms is at least in the constitution. he said the word abortion never appears and that was a legal right. that was one of the inquiries where he was trying to get judge sotomayor to express herself more openly, and she was very, very careful, as we've seen throughout the hearings. >> yeah, yesterday she made the point that one of her family members was a member of the nra and she believes in the right to bear arms and hunting and all of that. candy crowley, this is not just a sensitive issue for republicans. there are plenty of moderate, or conservative, democrats out there who see this as a key issue for them as well. >> absolutely.

the interior west. in the south. many -- in the north, there's lots of hunters who always fear when some gun issue comes up, that they are coming after their shotguns and their rifles, whatever it is they're hunting with. so, it is. the problem, of course, is, once again, we are -- we are stuck with the same answer, as we were, by the way, on abortion, which is i can't really talk about how i feel about those issues. >> but, you know, guns is an issue that plays with both parties. it plays with conservative democrats. it plays with republicans. it's in red states. it's in purple states. and alex is nodding here, but this is clearly an issue that you can see being used in the midterm elections, look at all these people who voted for a justice who does not support the right to bear arms, right? >> it is a big issue. there's a reason john kerry goes and buys the brand new hunting jacket and goes hunting in a presidential election. some people think it's one of

the reasons al gore is not president is because he -- concerns about his support of the right to bear arms. it's a powerful political issue in the heartland, in swing states. i think for democratic senators in 2010. >> yesterday russ feingold who is a liberal democrat on almost all issues, was pressing sotomayor from the right on gun control, because he's from a swing state with a lot of hunters. >> wisconsin. >> in wisconsin. and he believes in -- in strong second amendment protections. >> and since the heller decision, i believe this is correct, that the only federal court that has ruled that the fundamental right is not implicated is sotomayor's court. >> no, no. the seventh circuit of chicago has agreed with her. >> he knows the circuit courts. >> i'm not a lawyer. it's not easy being me. >> he knows all of it. all right, guys, stand by. because we'll continue our coverage. history unfolding in washington, d.c., right now. the senate judiciary hearing is

continuing. remember cnn.com, you can see all of this, uninterrupted. we're standing by. later today, al franken, the new junior senator from minnesota, he's going to have a chance to ask the nominee his questions. our coverage continues after this. t, it's not like we're kicking back, now, havin' a cuppa tea. gecko vo: takes lots of sweat to become that big. gecko vo: 'course, geckos don't literally sweat... it's just not our thing... gecko vo: ...but i do work hard, mind you. gecko vo: first rule of "hard work equals success." gecko vo: that's why geico is consistently rated excellent or better in terms of financial strength. gecko vo: second rule: "don't steal a coworker's egg salad, 'specially if it's marked "the gecko." come on people. yoplait has a sweetly satisfying taste and creamy texture that you can't resist. yoplait. in 25 delicious flavors. it is so good.

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.

i'm sorry. i can't hear you very well. announcer: does someone you know have trouble hearing on the phone? dad. dad, let me help you with that, okay?

announcer: now, a free phone service shows captions of everything a caller says. i'd like to make an appointment to see the doctor. announcer: to learn more about captioned telephone, call 1-800-552-7724 or go to our website. i'll see you at 3:00! announcer: captioned telephone - enjoy the phone again! we're continuing our coverage of the senate judiciary committee hearings for the confirmation of sonia sotomayor, to become an associate justice of the united states supreme court. the questioning is continuing -- by the way, al franken is going to be asking questions later in the day, when our coverage of that, that's coming up. the president of the united states, meanwhile, he's getting

ready to deliver a statement over in the rose garden at the white house on health care, his major domestic priority right now. that's coming up. we'll have live coverage of the president in the rose garden. let's check in, though, once again with tony harris. he's monitoring some other important stories unfolding right now. what's the latest, tony? >> hey, good to see you wolf. we'll get it back to you in a second. an iranian airliner has crashed killing 168 people on board. the caspian airlines jet was flying from tehran to armenia when it went down. the russian-made plane simply disintegrated. a huge crater, you see it here, scattered with charred pieces of plane, marks the spot where it slammed into the ground. military forces are searching for the flight data and cockpit recorders, to help determine the cause of the crash. we should learn more in the next hour about the shooting deaths of a florida couple known for adopting special needs children. the shea riff has scheduled a news conference for 1:00 p.m. eastern time. sheriff officials say the six adult suspects and an

unidentified juvenile will all face murder charges. the couple's daughter reacted to the news and reflected on the families loss -- >> we are relieved that the people involved in this crime have been apprehended, and we are certain that justice will be served. in the events that have unfolded in the last week, in the last couple of days, have devastated our family. as you know, our mom and dad were loving, caring, giving people. they have simply been taken from our lives too soon. >> the family is establishing a trust fund for the couple's nine younger children. secretary of state, hillary clinton, steps back into the foreign policy spotlight today. she delivers what aides are calling a major policy speech at the top of the hour. clinton, as you know, has been sidelined by a fractured elbow and there's been speculation about whether her influence has diminished. her speech expected to focus on combining defense, diplomacy and development as well as the threats posed by iran and north korea.

shuttle launch, take six. nasa tries again today to get the space shuttle "endeavour" into orbit. the launch has been delayed five times since mid-june. the last three times were because of weather. and we'll carry the final piece of japan's kivo science lab. the launch is set for 6:03 p.m., weather permitting. let's send you back now to wolf blitzer and the special coverage of the judge sonia sotomayor confirmation hearings, wolf, back to you. >> thanks, tony. we'll see if the sixth time is the time for the shuttle "endeavour" launch. if it goes off at 6:05 p.m. eastern, we'll have live coverage in "the situation room." they are getting ready to take a lunch break there. our congressional court, dana bash, is inside that room right now. walk us through the sort of schedule that we can anticipate for the rest of today and then tomorrow, dana. >> reporter: right now, wolf, ed

kaufman, the delaware senator, when joe biden left the seat, is wrapping up his questioning of judge sonia sotomayor in the last few minutes. they will be questioning and talking to judge sotomayor and they'll be talking about her background check, her fbi background check. they're going to do that because some of it has -- you know, there's security issues, so that's why they won't poe in public. but when they come back, there will be two more democrats to watch who will be questioning the judge. one is al franken. we heard sim just a couple of days ago for the very first time really as the united states senator when he gave his opening statement. and it was very interesting to hear the fact that he said he's not a lawyer. he's obviously a brand new senator, but he wants to bring the perspective of regular americans, because most americans aren't lawyers either. i can tell you just from watching al franken over the past couple of days, it's been noteworthy that he hasn't been doing much at all except watching intently. watching the judge. watching the other senators, the

way they question and really trying to take it all in. even really not spending a lot of time taking notes and writing down questions he might like to ask like many other senators are doing. and another one that will be interesting is arlen specter, of course, the republican turned democrat. he at one time was the chairman of this commit tee, even chaired the alito hearings back in george bush's days and he's going to be second to last in the questioning, because he became a democrat. i think we can expect some -- perhaps some arcane questioning from arlen specter, as he is known to do, and maybe -- and maybe we'll get a sense of the reputation he did gain on this committee. snarling arlen, but we'll see what he comes through with. he is certainly somebody who likes to give us surprises, so that could be interesting. >> he's not always predictable. arlen specter once was the chairman of the judiciary committee, now he's one of the junior members, the secondmost junior member of this committee. only al franken who was sworn in a few days ago as a united states senator, more junior as

arlen specter. so, we'll have coverage of both of those senators asking questions from sonia sotomayor. dana, stand by. we're going to get back to you. there was an interesting question that john cornyn, the republican senator from texas, asked sonia sotomayor a little while ago. let me play this exchange. >> do you agree with his statement that you had a -- >> if he was talking about the fact that i served on a particular board that promoted equal opportunity for people, the puerto rican legal defense and education fund, then you could talk about that being a liberal instinct in the sense that i promote equal opportunity in america and the attempts to ensure that. but he has not read my jurisprudence for 17 years, i can assure you. he's a corporate litigator, and my experience with corporate litigators is that they only look at the law when it affects

the case before them. >> the "he" in this case referring to one of her former partners when she was in private practice in a law firm in new york. he had been quoted in one of the news accounts saying that she had generally liberal instincts. and senator cornyn wanted to press her on that. alex castellanos, what's wrong, if anything, if she has generally liberal instincts? no one really thought the president of the united states would nominate a conservative or even necessarily a moderate to the united states supreme court. >> well, that's the man we haven't really talked about much in these hearings at all, and that's president barack obama. this is his nominee. you would expect, of course, his nominee to reflect his political instincts. and -- but that's what we seem to be all denying in these hearings, why there are no political instincts here at all -- >> the republicans have pointed out, like senator lindsey graham, you know, if president bush were president or if john

mccain had been elected, no one doubts they would have nominated someone with generally conservative instincts. >> you -- you would have thought that's the case. but we're all acting here as if somehow president obama has nominated justice roberts. i think the questioning we're trying to reveal that, but we haven't seen that. maybe in the fbi hearings they'll find the other sonia sotomayor. the one that sounds more like president obama. >> you know, what's really interesting, wolf, we have here summaries that we've been given by our great research staff, of all her speeches, of all her cases. what you don't hear to this point, you don't hear her saying you're an activist, you're a liberal, you proved it in this case. you know, you went beyond the reach of the law, you proved it in this case. the 17 years on the bench and they are focusing mostly on the ricci case and the gun-control case, but what you don't hear from the democrats or the republicans is much specifics about all the cases. i think there are 3,000 cases that she's been involved with

over the years, and that's surprising to the sense that if they could find a thematic point to make, a connect-the-dots theory in her legal rulings, you would think you would hear it point by point. >> maria echaveste, former deputy chief of staff, weigh in. >> the research has shown that she's consistent, moderate. the only focused on those two cases. plus speeches. because there's nothing else. >> no, there or they are cases. >> we've talked about her. she supported the right of felons who are currently in prison, including murderers, for example, to vote. >> no. >> she's -- >> if there really were those cases, those senators would have been using them, but they haven't. they've focused on the speeches, because there's nothing else there. and -- >> there's the properties rights case where, again, what is the public interest versus the private. >> we talked about those. >> so, yes, there are other cases. it's not solely those cases that you're mentioning here. >> hold your thoughts. hold your thoughts for a moment.

because i want to take another quick break. the president of the united states is getting ready to speak over at the white house on health care reform. we'll have live coverage of that, and we'll continue our coverage of the senate judiciary committee's confirmation hearings of sonia sotomayor right after this. if you're like a lot of people, you have high blood pressure... and you have high cholesterol. you've taken steps to try and lower both your numbers. but how close are you to your goals? there may be more you can do. only caduet combines two proven medicines... in a single pill to significantly lower... high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

in a clinical study of patients... with slightly elevated blood pressure and cholesterol, caduet helped 48% reach both goals in just 4 weeks. caduet is one of many treatment options, in addition to diet and exercise... that you can discuss with your doctor. caduet is not for everyone. it's not for people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. to check for liver problems, you need simple blood tests. tell your doctor about any heart problems... and all other medications you are taking... or if you experience muscle pain or weakness, as they may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. how close are you to where you want to be? ask your doctor if caduet can help you go... for both your goals.

ies who need assistance getting around their homes. there is a medicare benefit that may qualify you for a new power chair or scooter at little or no cost to you. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen ... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm doug harrison. we're experts at getting you the power chair or scooter you need. in fact, if we qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all.

call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information. all right, they've just recessed for lunch. there you see sonia sotomayor, she's walking around in the senate judiciary committee. i think that's amy klobuchar she's speaking with, the senator from minnesota right now. they're going to take a one-hour break. the chairman, patrick leahy, just announced they'll have a one-hour lunch break, 2:00 p.m. eastern. they'll be coming back. and there will be two more senators who have a chance to ask questions, arlen specter, the republican turned democrat, the former chairman of this committee. he'll have 30 minutes to ask his questions, and the final senator asking questions will be the newest senator, al franken. he's only been a senator for a week. al franken, the democratic senator from minnesota. after that, after those two