>> it's a bromance. you can follow the initiatives, two ways. twitter or read more on our show blog. >> and it's a beautiful thing. let's go to atlanta and heidi collins. good morning. it is july 16th and you are in the "cnn newsroom." an awful lot going on this morning. more on the killing that shocked the country. new details and another arrest. we're going to have the very latest on the murders of the florida couple who adopted several children with special needs. also, it's a crash that ignited a massive fire ball. it caused the entire overpass to collapse and this morning, everybody is talking about what didn't happen. also this morning, the political dance on capitol hill.

could it be called the supreme court sidestep? sonia sotomayor facing big questions. in fact, some say she is offering little in return. but first, new details in the killing of a prominent florida couple. police now say they are going to interview two more people shortly. investigators stress they are not suspects, but one may be tied to the crime. this comes after the arrest of an eighth suspect yesterday. police found pamela long wiggins in alabama. she is being charged as an accessory after the fact. seven men are charged in the murder of byrd and melanie billings. a safe and other item rs missing from the home. earlier, a sheriff appeared on "american morning" talking about the progress. >> we have two additional persons of interest and they are

persons of interest. of the two, we think one could have a tie to the case, but again, we've got extensive interviews to conduct, both with this individual and those that had association with them. hopefully, we can conclude this quickly. we believe that this case has had so many odd twists and turns, that this may be a last piece of our puzzle. to put this in better perspective, we're talking about a case that is so complex, the only one that i can recall in my studies would be back in late 1949 in california and the number of participants they had in those murders. >> boy, what a story. we will have more information about the case when the sheriff's office holds a news conference at 11:00 eastern this morning. go up, i just went over, at the red light, just went up in

flames and i just left my car and took off running. >> a massive blast shaking the ground near detroit. the explosion and fire destroys an overpass. it happened on i-75 in hazel park, michigan. three drivers escaped with minor injuries and no one was on the overpass at the time. a collision involving a fuel truck and car. today, around 160,000 drivers are looking for a new route. investigators are checking the damages this morning and say repairs could take several weeks. the u.s. military now asking for help in finding a missing soldier in afghanistan. the u.s. military now asking civilians for help to find a

soldier missing there. they are dropping fliers in eastern afghanistan and offering a reward. the taliban claims responsibility in the kidnapping of the soldier. it's believed he was being held by a prominent warlord in the area and has been moved into pakistan. judging sonia sotomayor. just a few minutes from now, the supreme court nominee begins her third and final day of questioning before a senate committee. so far, the issues have ranged from the volatile to the frivolous. brianna keilar explains. >> reporter: republican senator and abortion opponent, john cornyn, asked sonia sotomayor whether abortion came in in conversations with president obama during her selection process. >> i was asked no question by anyone including the president about my views on any specific legal issue. >> reporter: but members of the judiciary committee certainly tried to pin her down on the

topic. first, republicans, to no avail. >> let's say i'm 38 weeks pregnant and we discover a small spina bifida sack. would it be legal to terminate that? >> i can't answer and look at it as an abstract without knowing what state laws issued. >> reporter: al franken also wanted to know her position on the issue. >> do you believe this right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion? >> the court has said in many cases, that there is a right to privacy that women have with respect to the termination of their pregnancies in certain situations. >> reporter: republicans persisted with questions about sotomayor's wise latina comment. >> my rhetorical device failed.

it was a bad choice of words by me. >> reporter: but it wasn't all serious. there was a lighter moment when franken asked her about a subject they both loved. "perry mason." >> what was one case in "perry mason" that berger -- >> i wish i remembered the name of the episode, but i don't. >> doesn't the white house prepare you for that? >> you're right, but i was spending a lot of time on reviewing cases. >> and brianna keilar is joining us live from capitol hill on what we can expect. obviously, we're going to hear more about the new haven firefighters case. >> we expect to hear more about that, the wise latina comments. we're going to see sonia sotomayor answering questions for another few hours. the senators are on their second

round of questions, then we're going to hear testimony against her. that's going to include two of those firefighters. they're the ones who claimed discrimination when the city threw out a promotional exam that no african-american firefighters passed. this of course, went up the chain. when it came to sotomayor's three-judge appeals panel, they upheld a court ruling and ultimately, those supreme court overturned that decision. republicans say this shows perhaps that sonia sotomayor will show bias in some of her decisions. it's going to be interesting to hear from the people. frank ricci and ben vargas, two of the firefighters behind this. >> is there any word yet, brianna? i think there had been some discussion about whether judge sotomayor would be in the room when that was happening? >> as i understand it, she does

not need to be in the room. >> thanks, brianna. of course, we will have live coverage of the hearing on capitol hill. it will begin at the bottom of the hour right here on cnn. today is a big day in the president's effort to get health care reform passed. three key house committees are meeting to discuss the democrats $1.5 trillion plan. we are expecting to see vote ins two of those committees. in the senate, the budget committee meets today. president obama is taking a personal approach and is meeting today with a couple of key senators who could swing the vote. so far, the battle is divided along party lines, but one woman is hoping her story cuts through the bickering. jim acosta has more. >> reporter: before washington takes another step on health care reform, one woman wants the politicians to hear her story. >> if we don't change this now,

my story is going to be their story. >> reporter: her 17-year-old cancer stricken daughter made headlines when the family was denied a liver transplant in 2007. they raised a ruk kus and the company reversed its decision. the moment caught on camera. >> you got it -- >> reporter: but it was too late. that same evening, she died. >> now, she's in heaven. she was brought to washington by democratic activists pushing for a reform bill giving americans the option of a government-run program. the option, they say, will keep the industry honest. >> this is my message to everyone. insurance companies cannot decide who's going to live and who's going to die. >> reporter: but she will have to win over an army of skeptics. >> they're spending too much, they're taxing too much to get u

us there and they're writing legislation that is totally partisan that isn't going to work. >> reporter: to special interest groups. beverage companies are running an ad opposing a proposal that would pay with a soft drink tax. >> this is no time for congress to be adding taxes on the simple things we enjoy. >> reporter: the president is ready to play hardball. >> those who would oppose our efforts. >> reporter: the democratic party has a new ad out. >> it's time. >> it's time for health care reform. >> reporter: and the message war over health care, hilda voes -- >> i don't know i'm going to meet the president, eye to eye, i'm going to tell me, he's got the responsibility and we need something in return. >> he says he wants the house

and senate to wrap up the reform before the break. the halls may get crowded as supporters plan to fill the hallways. jim acosta, cnn, washington. take a look at these pictures out of minnesota. it's what's left after a tornado touches down. we'll have your weather forecast up next. taking its rightful place in a long line of amazing performance machines. this is the new e-coupe. this is mercedes-benz.

want to take you to the

severe weather center. look at those pictures out of minnesota. >> they just got hit hard yesterday. widespread destruction. the video here, you can see widespread damage. some locations, look like it may have been caused by straight line winds. they're going to be having ariel recog sans. that will give us a better idea of what caused this. let me show you something else. a live image out of oklahoma city. into the afternoon hours, there will be a potential that we could see development, especially in the central plains, tennessee valley, in the afternoon hours. this morning, we have nothing severe at this time, but strong storms developing near memphis. going into huntsville, nashville, you might have a few

delays. other things, the extreme heat in dallas. something else you will be seeing is some welcome relief. it is amazing to see the temperature change we're going to see in places like oklahoma city, where it's been in the triple digits. dropping today to 98 degrees. then into saturday, going to 86 degrees. same deal for dallas. dropping into the low 80s. looking at mid-80s as we get into the weekend. so dramatic changes coming and a big sigh of relief from parts of the nation's heart land. >> thank you. "endeavour" finally in space this morning. >> four, three, two, one. booster ignition and lift off of "endeavour." >> all right. the shuttle launch was actually delayed six times. but finally, there you see it.

it was delayed by weather and a hydrogen leak. gorgeous shot there. we did see some debri coming off the external fuel tank during the launch, but it was foam insulation. today, the astronauts will be using the shuttle's cameras to check for damage. expected to reach the international space station by tomorrow. president obama and a speech 100 years in the making. tonight, the nation's first black president appears before the country's oldest civil rights group. 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.

the naacp turns 100 and takes stock. one striking measure appears in the flesh tonight. the group will hear from the country's first african-american president and the focus will be on the future. we get the details now from suzanne malveaux. >> reporter: a major address by the first african-american president. >> you know, it is always humbling to speak before the naacp. because powerful reminder of the debt that we all owe to those

who marched for us and fought for us and stood up on our behalf. >> reporter: just last year as a candidate, barack obama was both deferential and defiant before the civil rights group. >> i know there are some who said i've been too tough talking about responsibility. naacp, i'm here to report, i'm not going to stop talking about it. >> reporter: taking on some of the african-american critics, mr. obama delivered a message of tough love echoed last weekend in ghana. >> we all know that the future of africa is in the hands of africa. >> reporter: the historic election highlights the naacp's role in fighting for opportunity. >> this is the big step we're taking, having a black family in the white house, ending the

color barrier. >> reporter: this after former president bush kept the naacp at arm's length, declining invitations to address them for five years. >> bruce is the polite guy. i thought he was going to say, it's about time you showed up. and i'm glad i did. >> reporter: now, a new president, a new dynamic. >> i think his challenge is going to be about issues that have concerned him in the past like problems with teen pregnancy and black on black crime. that the naacp hasn't been that eager to deal with. >> in talking to members, they admit the organization is redefining its mission, trying to bring in more young members. it is something they believe president obama can help them

do. i'm heidi collins, live pictures from capitol hill where the hearing of sonia sotomayor will resume in just a few minutes. taking its rightful place

in a long line of amazing performance machines. this is the new e-coupe. this is mercedes-benz.

welcome to washington. this is day four of the confirmation hearings for sonia sotomayor to become the supreme court justice. the senate judiciary committee is getting ready to continue questioning her. they're expected to come in in a moment. you see her mother, sonia sotomayor's mother coming in right now, with her friends, their family members. they've been sitting behind her ever since monday on day one. the formal questioning began tuesday, they continued yesterday. supposedly, they'll wind up

today and there will be outside witnesses brought in for and against her confirmation. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer, reporting here in washington with the best political team on television. let's set the stage for what we might be able to learn today. dana bash, in that committee, tell us what we can expect this morning. >> we expect the 20-minute round of questioning to continue. we are going to begin with jon kyl, one of the members of the republican leadership in the senate. leaders were hoping that would be it in terms of questioning the witness, but i got word from republicans that they're going to ask for more time, another round of shorter questions. so it could go into the afternoon. wolf, you might ask, why are

republicans asking for more time when you talk to republican sources, pretty much everyone admits that they have no chance at stopping this nomination right now. well, the answer in talking to republican strategist on and off the hill, is they see this as an opportunity to raise political issues that might make some democrats uncomfortable. gun control, privacy rights, abortion, these are issues they hope will be politically tough for some democrats who are up for re-election in conservative states. there is another reason and that is to some of the republicans who may vote for judge sotomayor. republicans like lindsey graham. he has suggested that if he gets answers he's looking for that perhaps he and other republicans may vote for her.

>> orrin hatch is another and chuck grassley. they might in the end vote for her confirmation. let's bring in some of our analysts and reporters to assess what else to expect. gloria borger, john king, former clinton white house official bill bennett, candy crowley is here as is jeff toobin. gloria, when we look at today specifically, the republicans who are going to be asking questions starting with kyl. later lindsey graham, cornyn, coburn, so far, they haven't scored a lot of points in undermining her credibility. >> they haven't. she's done very well in not answering directly. but what they're trying to do is now is draw the lines in the sand about what's acceptable and

not acceptable for them as republicans. this is a president who's probably going to have other supreme court nominations. as dana just said issues like gun control, land rights, abortion. also on this big question of empathy. the president said he wants a judge with empathy and in their questioning, these senators sort of forced her to say empathy is not a basis upon which you judge. that's putting the president on notice. >> there's jo. >> jon: where there's a large hispanic population as all of our viewers know, so jon, a lot of these republicans, they have to be really sensitive to the fact that this is history potentially unfolding, the first hispanic on the supreme court. only the third woman to be on the supreme court.

>> which is why there have been very polite questions. judge sotomayor to her credit, she's a pretty good politician. her legal record, just about every break, she goes to the back and spends more time with the republicans than democrats. it's interesting to watch the political environment. the republicans are being careful. i talked to our outside strategists today who say our goal is to get her on camera, but to talk more about her views on gun control, property rights and abortion. interesting in this age where we get constant e-mails and all those electronic communications, the republican national committee this week during these hearings has not once issued a press release about judge sotomayor. they are focused almost exclusively on jobs and the economy and the health care debate. from a big picture, republicans know that is where the battle is

shifting. this is -- as graham said it best the first day, unless there's a major meltdown and we have not seen that. >> there's patrick leahy. you see him with his back to the cameras, talking to dianne feinstein. she's the chair of the senate intelligence committee and has her hands full over there. you're going to be sitting down, probably right now, but they're waiting for sonia sotomayor to walk in. now, she has walked in and is standing near lindsey graham, spoking to jon kyl. she's hobbling a little bit. she has a cast on her ankle which she fractured only a week after president obama nominated her. when she sits down, you'll see she has a little -- you won't see it because the desk is draped, but she has a little stool in there so she c

can elevate her ankle. she's saying hi to her mom. other family members and friends. they've been very supportive. sitting there behind her and basking in the pride. maria, this is a source of great pride to a lot of latino, hispanics out there. >> absolutely. it's been very polite inside the room, but one thing our viewers may not know, all the waves, broadcast waves, there are ads running, accusing her of supporting puerto rico terrorists. it may not be the rnc, but there are some very nasty, conservative voices out there attacking her. >> republicans had been doing well. i say had. candy, going into this most

resent election cycle, then things began to crumble among hispanic voters. >> yes, they know they have to do better, but they don't think it's going to come down to this hearing. it really has to do with outreach in the communities. they understand that and there has to be a way. and putting their latino members out there. they don't think it boils down to this, but were careful to make it sure they didn't look like a bunch of mean republicans. >> jeff toobin, is there anything specific you're looking for this morning? >> the thing that has struck me throughout these hearings, the republicans have picked issues which they think are winners. it's very much a focus on affirmative action and gun control and less of a focus on abortion and same-sex marriage, which has been all but invisible. >> let's go to the chairman, patrick leahy, of vermont.

>> you seem to have weathered it well and i hope the senators have, too. yesterday, to the extent of first round of questions for an additional eight senators. halfway through, this morning, we can continue and hopefully conclude. senator kyl is recognized next for 20 minutes or as i say with hopes ringing eternal. keep saying up to 20 minutes. nobody's required to use the full 20 minutes, but they, i would hasten to add everybody is certainly entitled to it. >> before i begin, for those watching on television, i would just note that i don't think we put judge sotomayor on the hot seat with our questions, but we certainly did with the temperature in this room yesterday and for that, i apologize. and i note that it could get a

little steamy this morning, too. i know it's cold back there, but not where we are. if there were a question about judge sotomayor's stamina in a very hot room, that question has been dispelled without any doubt whatsoever. >> i have to set the clock back, this doesn't go to your time, it is really an interesting thing because anybody's gone up where the press are, it's like an icebox up there. i'm hoping -- the microphone is working. i want to thank senator sessions for offering me his microphone yesterday, but that didn't work. thank senator franken for letting me use his. we start the clock back over. senator kyl, please go ahead. >> good morning, judge. >> good morning. >> in response to one of senator session's questions tuesday about the ricci case, you stated

your actions were established by supreme court precedent. and you said that the supreme court was the only body that had the discretion and power to decide how these tough issues should be decided. those are quotations from you. i've carefully reviewed the decision and i think the reality is different. no supreme court case had decided whether rejecting an employment test because of racial results would violate the civil rights laws. neither the supreme court's majority in ricci nor the four decenting judges discussed or cited any cases that addressed the question. in fact, the court in its opinion even noted, i'm quoting here, that this action presents two provisions of title 7 to be reconciled with few if any precedents in the court of appeals discussing the issue.

in other words, not only did the supreme court not identify any supreme court cases on point, it found few, if any, lower court opinions that even addressed the issue. isn't it true that you were incorrect in our earlier statement that you were bound by established supreme court precedent when you voted each time to reject the firefighters' civil complaint? >> senator, i was -- let me place the ricci decision back in context. the issue was whether or not employees who had were member of the desperately impacted group had a right under existing precedent to bring a lawsuit. did they have a right to bring a lawsuit on the basis of the case and what would that consist of. that would established in second

circuit press and had been at least up to that point, been concluded from supreme court precedent describing the initial burden that employees had. >> are you speaking here -- you said the right to bring the lawsuit. it's not a question of standing. there was a question of summary judgment. >> exactly. which is when you speak at a right to bring a lawsuit, i mean, what's the minimum amount of good faith evidence do they have to actually file the complaint. and establish precedent said you can make out an employee or case with a violation of title 7 under just merely by, not merely. that's dem grated it. by showing a disparate impact. then the city was faced with the choice of, okay, we're now facing two claims. >> we only have 20 minutes here.

i know what the claims were. the question i asked was very simple. you said you were bound by supreme court and second circuit precedent. what was it? there is no supreme court precedent and they could find few if any, second circuit precedents. >> the question was the precedent that existed and whether viewing it, one would view this as the city discriminating on the basis of race or the city concluding that because it was unsure that its test actually avoided disparate impact, but still tested for necessary qualifications. was it discriminating on the basis of race by not certifying the test. >> so you disagree with the supreme court's characterization of the precedents available to decide the case? >> it's not that i disagree.

the question was a more focused one that the court was looking at which was saying not more focused. it was a different look. it was saying, okay, you got these precedents. it says employees can sue the city. the city is now facing liability. it's unsure whether it can defeat that liability. and so it decides not to certify the test and see if it could come up with one that would still measure the necessary qualifications. >> let me interrupt again because you're not getting to the point of my question and i know as a good judge, if i were arguing a case before you, you would say that's all fine and dandy, but answer my question. isn't it true that the result of your decision was to grant summary judgment against these parties? in other words, it wasn't just a question of a right to sue. you actually granted summary

judgment against the parties. secondly, that there was no supreme court precedent and i'm not sure the second circuit result. i don't know what the precedent would be. not necessarily going to ask you to cite the case. >> it was the one we discussed yesterday, the bushy line of cases that talked about the case and the city in terms of defending lawsuits. and so the question then became how do you view the city's action. was it a -- and that's what the district court did, opinion to say, you've got a city facing liability. >> so you contend that there was second circuit precedent. now on the review of course, the question there is different because you're not bound by any

three-judge panel decision in our circuit. so what precedent would have bound and yet you took the same position in the review. for those who aren't familiar, a three-judge court decided the case in the first instance. in some situations, if the case is important enough, judges on the other judges on the circuit, there may be nine or ten or 20. and you can request an inbound review. the entire circuit would sit. in that case, they're not bound. so what precedent then would have bound the court in the review? >> the panel acted in accordance with its views by setting forth and incorporating the district court's analysis of the case.

those who disagreed with the opinion made their arguments. those who agree that inbound certification wasn't necessary voted their way and the majority of the court decided not to hear the case. i can't speak for why the others did or did not take the positions they did. om issued opinions. >> but you felt you were bound by precedent? >> that was what we did in termss of the decision, which was to accept, not accept, but incorporate the district court's decision, analyzing the case and saying we agreed with it. >> understood, but the district court's decision is not binding on the circuit court and the review means that the court should look at it in terms of precedents stronger than a three-judge decision. i'm still baffled as to what precedent you're speaking of.

>> perhaps it's just one bit of background needs to be explained. when a court incorporates a decision balloon, it does become the court's precedent. >> the three judges. >> yes, but when i was on the district court, i issued also a lengthy decision on a issue, a constitutional issue, direct constitutional issue, that the circuit had not addressed and very other few courts had addressed on the question of whether statute of limitations. >> i apologize for interrupting, but i've now used half of my time and you will not acknowledge that even though the supreme court said there was no precedent, even though the district court judgment and three-judge panel judgment cannot be considered precedent

binding the panel of the court, you still insist that somehow there was precedent you were bound by. >> as i explained, when the circuit court incorporated the district court's opinion, that became the court's holding. >> of course. >> so it did become circuit holding. >> by three judges? >> with respect, yes, sir. with respect to the question of precedent, it must be remembered that what the supreme court did in ricci was say, there isn't much law on how to approach this should we adopt the standard different than the circuit because it is a question that we must decide. how to approach this issue to ensure that two provisions of title 7 are consistent with each other. that argument of adopting a different test was not the one that was raised before us, but

that was raised clearly before the supreme court and so that approach is different than saying that the outcome that we came to was not based on our understanding of what made out. >> if it's a matter of first impressions -- >> all right, they're having a rather significant, but rather technical discussion on that firefighters case. later today, some of those firefighters will be testifying against her confirmation. they didn't like the fact that she ruled against them on that test that caused all that controversy. we're going to continue our coverage of these historic confirmation hearings. it's day four before the senate judiciary committee here in washington. remember, cnn.com is where we're streaming this uninterrupted. our coverage with the best political team on television will continue after this.

where will you find the stability and resources to keep you ahead of this rapidly evolving world? these are tough questions. that's why we brought together two of the most powerful names in the industry. introducing morgan stanley smith barney. here to rethink wealth management. here to answer... your questions. morgan stanley smith barney. a new wealth management firm with over 130 years of experience. having thehehtht tools is cru

to being able to manage your diabetes properly. it's very important for me to uh check my blood sugar before i go on stage. being on when i'm feeling low can be like a rollercoaster. it does at times feel like my body is telling me to do one thing... and, my mind, my heart is telling me to do something else. managing my highs and lows is super important. with my contour meter i can personalize my high/lo settings so it really does micromanage where my blood sugar needs to be. i'm nick jonas and never slowing down is my simple win.

united states that's the destination, we think, for sonia sotomayor. she's continuing her confirmation hearings today. day four and we also think this is the last day she will be answering questions before this panel. we want to point out that cnn espanol is televising these hearings. i want you to see how our sister network is translating. >> so there you see it. we're translating into spanish on cnn espanol. if you want to hear it in english, good idea to watch it right here. jon kyl continuing his questioning of sonia sotomayor. >> we have good faith for

believing that we should not certify and now the supreme court has made clear what standard they should apply. that those are different issues. >> well, i'm just quoting from the supreme court about the rule that was, that you endorsed in your decision and, again, it said, the supreme court said about your rule that such a rule would amount to a de facto quoto system in which a focus on statistics could put undue pressure on employers to make decisions on the basis of race or even worse and an employer could disregard test results. i guess we both agree that that is not a good result. let me ask you about a comment you made about the descent in the case. a lot of legal commentators have noted that while the basic decision was 5-4, that all nine of the justices disagreed with your panel's decision to grant

summary judgment, that all nine of the judges believed that the court should have been, that the district court should have found the facts in the case that would allow it to apply a test, your panel had one test, the supreme court had a different test, the descent had yet a different test, but in any case, whatever the test was, all nine of the justices believed that the lower court should have heard the facts of the case before summary judgment was granted. i heard you to say that you disagreed with that assessment. do you agree that the way i stated it is essentially correct? >> it's difficult because there were a lot of opinions in that case. but the engagement among the judges was varied on different levels and the first engagement that the descent did with the

majority was saying if you apply this new test, this new standard, then you should give the circuit court an opportunity to evaluate the evidence. >> judge, i have to interrupt you there. the court didn't say if you apply a new standard, you have to send it back, all nine justices said that summary judgment was inappropriate that the case should have been decided on the facts. three different tests, the tests from your court, the tests of the majority of the supreme court and the test of the descent. irrespective of what test it was, they said the case should not have been decided on summary justice. all nine justicess agreed with that, did they not? >> it might have to speak for itself, but, justice ginsburg took the position that the panel's opinion should be affirmed and she took it by saying that no matter how you looked at this case, it should be affirmed. so, i don't believe that that

was my conclusion reading the descent, but, obviously, it will speak for itself. >> it will, and i guess commentators can opine on it. i could read commentary from people like stewart taylor, for example, that have an opinion different than yours. let me ask you one final question in the final minute and a half i have remaining. i was struck by your response to a question that senator orrin hatch gave in which you made the difference between the justice of a circuit court and a district court. a district court provides justice for the society and the circuit court provides justice for -- you believe that not only do district and circuit courts have to follow precedent, but that the supreme court should follow precedent. so, it's striking to me that you would suggest, this goes back to

another comment you made, perhaps flippantly about the courts of appeals making law, but it would lead one to believe that you think that the circuit court has some higher calling to create precedent for society. in all of my experience, you have smith versus jones in the district court, the court says, the way we read the law, smith wins. it goes to the court of appeals. the court has only one job to decide. does smith win or does jones win? it doesn't matter what the effect of the case is on society, hats for legislatures to decide. you have one job, who wins, smith or jones. lower court was right, smith wins. you're applying pressdant and deciding the case between those parties. you're not creating justice for society, except in the most indirect sense except that any court that follows precedent and follows the rule of law helps to

build on this country's reliance on the rule of law. >> i think we're in full agreement when precedent is set, it follows the rule of law. and in all of the speeches where i've discussed this issue, i've described the differences between the two courts as one where precedents are set. that those precedents have policy ramifications but not in the meaning that the legislature gives to it. the legislature gives it a meaning in terms of making law. when i'm using that term, it's very clear that i'm talking about having a holding, it becomes precedent and it finds other courts. you're following the rule of law when you do that. >> mr. chairman, i'm over the time, but just a final follow-up question, if i could. you have created precedent as a district court judge. both district courts and circuit

court create precedents simply by deciding a case, but they're both required to follow precedent, isn't that correct? >> yes. >> only because the senator went over, i would note the district court in that case did cite the case, 2000 supreme court, the year 2000 security case as, as precedent and binding second circuit court case, the hayden case as precedent and as the judge has noted -- >> we're going to continue our coverage and take a little break and they're going to move on to the next democratic senator and they'll start asking questions. democrat from rhode island and he'll be followed by lindsey graham, the republican senator from south carolina. his earlier questioning in the first round was a dramatic highlight of these hearings. our coverage continues after this. of the world's most revered luxury sedan.

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

welcome back to the confirmation hearings of sonia sotomayor. dianne feinstein, the democratic senator from california just starting to ask some questions. we'll go there in a moment. jon kyl, the republican senator from arizona, they went through a long technical discussion of precedent and some of the decisions she made on the federal appeals court, the district court. explain in lay terms the differences that these two individuals have. >> okay, the gist of the conflict seemed to be that kyl was accusing judge sotomayor of not following precedent. of going off on her own with a social agenda. and sotomayor was saying, no, no, no, i was following precedent. i was following the rules. if i could just inject what i think is a note of the real world here, is a lot of this hearing has been conducted as if following precedent is something

that can be done easily or automatically. these cases are before these courts because they're hard. because they're difficult and because precedent doesn't necessarily tell you what to do. some judges like some precedents more than others. this is a lot more of an art than a science, but a lot of the hearing has been conducted as if judging is a science, which it's not. >> it's obviously, if it was a science, they wouldn't need nine supreme court justices, they would have a machine that would be able to do it and get the job done. obviously, but they have nine and very often strong disagreements. 5-4 decisions because of the differences in what the precedents are and what the history is and what the facts are, as well. candy crowley, as we look forward, i want to look ahead because i think it's going to be significant, the lindsey graham questioning, jon kyl took his strategy, but lindsey graham has a different approach in terms of asking questions and trying to

pin her down and he's someone that may yet vote to confirm her. >> yes, and he's also told her what he's going to ask her coming up. when he did his initial questioning of her, i will get into this later, i'll get into this later. here's where lindsay gram stands between his conservative base that have real problems with her and his feeling that a president should get what he wants if he thinks they're qualified. we'll see more leg here. i think he will signal again that he is inclined to vote for her and he, his style is, obviously, real compelling. it was to us the first time he did it. he has a sort of country lawyer feel to him that makes him accessible in a way that some of these other lawyers are. it doesn't make him any less, any less talented on this because he really went right to the point and his manner almost masks the toughness of his

questioning. >> it does n deed. there was an exchange yesterday that john cornyn the republican senator from texas had with sonia sotomayor and her famous wise latina comment. listen to this. >> are you standing by that statement or are you saying that it was a bad idea and you are disavowing that statement? >> it is clear from the attention that my words have gotten and the manner in which it has been understood by some people that my words fail. they didn't work. >> and she repeated that several times, gloria. the republicans aren't necessarily buying it all, and i suspect that lindsey graham will continue to press the issue, but she's saying, you know what, i basically screwed up. >> he will continue to press the issue and in a little press availability he gave yesterday he said, look, you have to look at her speeches wise latina was

made in a speech and he said those things are kind of edgy and you have to compare them with the narrowly focused judge who says she relies on precedent. he sort of is trying to make the point, who is she? is the real sonia sotomayor the person of the speeches or is it the one that rules very narrowly on precedent, which one are we to believe? >> you know her, do you know her, maria? >> i don't know. >> you never met her. >> i met her once but long ago. >> when you teach at the university of california berkeley law school, you worked in the white house, are there two sonia sotomayor's? >> i don't think there are. i think all of us have our professional life, if you will. we often give speeches in which we're trying to talk to different audiences. i think that what lindsey graham is trying to put in the public's

mind is that she's dangerous -- not just lindsay, the other republicans, as well, that she is a dangerous person to put on the bunch because she might bring her feelings and her background. and what is really upsetting is that why is it that when it's a minority, somehow the fact that you have that ethnic background is called into question. that somehow you're supposed to be neutral where we heard from other supreme court justices like alito and clearance thomas that he was going to be able to walk in other people's shoes. but there's just, i think what's being played here is race, unfortunately. and it's old politics of divisions. >> the republicans point out, john king, the republicans say, look, they just want to make sure that an activist judge doesn't legislate from the bench. >> she's been on the bench for 17 years and, in part, this is a

bit of a generalization, but the basic republican argument against her comes down to one word, better. in that wise latina speech, a wise latina could reach a conclusion that is better. you if she said you need wise latinas on the bench because of our experience, my family has experienced prejudice and of course i'm aware of that and that shapes my opinions and i'm a judge and i do my job. the word betser what stands out. what we are seeing here and what senator kyl was getting on, this is a connect the dots. they want to say, when there is no obvious, glaring light precede precedent, she brings her bis to the bench. >> lindsey graham is asking questions of judge sonia sotomayor. >> society being changed by nine elected people who have a lifetime appointment. do you understand the difference in how those two systems work?

>> absolutely, sir. i understand the constitution. >> and the one thing i can tell you, this will probably be the last time we get to talk in this fashion. i hope to have a chance to get to know you better and we'll see what your future holds, but i think it's going to be pretty bright. the bottom line is, one of the problems the court has now is that mr. ricci has a story to tell, too. all kind of stories to tell in this country and the court has an opinion of many of us gone not based in the constitution, but based on motivations that could never be checked at the ballot box. brown versus board of education is instructive in the sense that the court pushed the country to do something the politicians were not brave enough to do.

certainly we're not brave enough in my state and if i had been elected, i would have been amazed if i would have had the courage of a judge johnson in the political arena. but the court went through an analysis that separate was not equal. it had a basises in the constitution after fact finding to implement that decision and society had the wisdom to accept the court's opinion, even though it was contentious and literally people died. we'll talk about some very difficult societial changes that are percolating in society today like who should get married and what boundaries are on the definition of marriage and who's best able or the most capable of

making those fundament decisions. the full faith and credit clause, in essence, says that when a valid enactment of one state is entered into, the sister states have to accept it. but there's a public policy saepgz. are you aware of that? >> i am. >> some states have different age limits for marriage. some states treat marriage differently than others and the courts deferred base on public policy. the reason these speeches matter and the reasons elections matter is because people now understand the role of the court in modern society when it comes to social change. that's why we fight so hard to put on the court people who see the world like us. that's true from the left, that's true from the right.

and let me give you an example of why that's important. we've talked a lot about the second amendment, whether or not it is a fundamental right. we all now agree it is an individual right. is that correct? >> correct. >> well, that's groundbreaking precedent in the sense that just unfill a few months ago or last year, i guess, that was not case, but it is today. it is the law of the land by the supreme court that second amendment is an individual right and you acknowledge that, that's correct? >> that was -- >> the heller case. >> it is what the court has held and so it is unquestionably an individual right. >> but here's the next step for the court. you will have to, if you get on the court with your fellow justices, sit down and discuss whether or not it is a fundamental right.

to the point that it is incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th amendment and applied to every state. isn't it fair to say, judge, that when you do that, not only will you listen to your colleagues, you will read whatever case law is available. you're going to come down based on what you think america is all about. >> no, sir. >> so what binds you when it comes to a fundamental right? >> rule of law. >> in the rule of a law when it comes to what you consider to be a fundamental right, your opinion as to what is fundamental among all of us. >> no. in fact, the question that you raise is it fundamental in the sense of the law. >> right. >> that's a legal term. it's very different. and it is important to remember that the supreme court's

precedent on the second amendment predated its more -- >> i hate to interrupt. is there sort of a legal cookbook you can go to and say, this is a fundamental right "a" and "b" there is not. >> not a cookbook but a precedent established after the older precedent that has talked and described that doctrine of incorporation. that's a set of precedents that -- >> are you talking about the 1890 case? >> no, the 1890 case was the supreme court's holding on this issue. but since that time there has been a number of decisions, they're discussing the incorporation doctrine applying it to different provisions of the constitution. >> is there any personal judgment to be relied upon by a supreme court justice in

deciding whether or not the second amendment is a fundamental right? >> well, you hire judges for their judgment, not their personal views or what their sense of what the outcome should be. you hire, you appoint judges for the purpose of understanding whether they respect law, whether they respect precedents and apply it -- >> i don't doubt that you respect the law, but you'll be asked along with eight other colleagues that you get on the court to render a decision as to whether or not the second amendment is a fundamental right shared by the american people. there is no subjective in judgment there? >> the issue will be controlled by the court's analysis of that question in the case,

fundamental is defined by incorporation in likely will be looked at by the court in a case that challenges a state regulation. at that -- >> i'm sorry. >> at that point, i would presume that the court will look at its older precedent and the way it did in heller consider whether it controls the issue or not. it will decide, even if it controls it, whether it should be revisited under the doctrine of stare decisis. it could decide it doesn't control it and that would be its decision. it could decide it does control, but it should revisit it. in revisiting it, it will look at a variety of different factors among them have there been changes in related areas of law that would council questioning. as i've indicated, there was a lot of law after the older cases

on incorporation, i suspect, but i don't know because i can't prejudge the issue that the court would consider that with all the other arguments that the parties will make. >> maybe i've got it wrong then. maybe i'm off base here. maybe you've got the seventh circuit talking about the heller case did not decide the issue of whether it should be incorporated to the states because it's only dealt with the district of columbia. you've got the ninth circuit and i never thought i'd live to hear myself say this. look at the ninth circuit. they have a pretty good rationale as to why the second amendment should be considered a fundamental right. and they talked about the long-standing relationship of the english man and they should have put women, at least in south carolina, that would have applied. to gun ownership, they talked about it was this right to bear

arms that led to our independence. it was this right to bear arms that put down a rebellion in this country. and they talked about who we are as a people. and our history as a people and, judge, that's why the supreme court matters. i do believe at the end of the day you're not going to find a law book that tells you whether or not a fundamental right exists vis-a-vis the second amendment that you have to rely on your view of america, how far we are, how far we've come and where we're going to go and our relationship to gun ownownershi. that's why these choices are so important. and here's what i'll say about you. you may not agree with that. but i believe that's what you're going to do and i believe that's what every other justice is going to do. here's what i will say about you. i don't know how you're going to

come out on that case because i think fundamentally, judge, you're able, after all these years of being a judge, to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself. to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you, but for the group they're necessary. that is my hope for you. that is what makes you, to me, more acceptable as a judge and not an activist because an activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change america through the supreme court by taking their view of life and imposing on the rest of us. i think and believe, based on what i know about you, so far, that you're broad minded enough to understand that america is bigger than the bronx, is bigger

than south carolina. now, during your time as an advocate, do you understand identity politics? what is identity politics? >> politics based simply on a person's characteristics. generally referred to either race or ethnicity or gender, religion. it is politics based on -- >> do you embrace identity politics, personally? >> personally, i don't, as a judge in any way embrace it with respect to judging. as a person, i do believe that certain groups have and should express their views on whatever social issues may be out there. but as i understand the word politics, it's usually dent grated because it suggests that

individuals are not considering what is best for america. and that i don't believe in. i think that whatever a group advocates, obviously, it advocates on behalf of its interests and what the group thinks it needs, but i would never endorse a group advocating something that was contrary to some basic constitutional right as it was known at the time. although people advocate changes in the law all the time. >> do you believe that your speeches properly read embrace identity politics? >> i think my speeches embrace the concept that i just described, which is roots you have interest that you should seek to promote what you're doing is important in helping the community develop, participate. participate in the process of

your community. participate in the process of helping to change the conditions you live in. i don't describe it as identity policies because politics because it's not that i'm advocating the groups through something illegal. >> well, judge, to be honest with you, your record, as a judge, has not been radical by any means. to me, it's left at center. but your speeches are disturbing, particularly to conservatives, quite frankly, because they don't talk about get involved, go to the ballot box, make sure you understand that america can be whatever you'd like it to be. there's a place for all of us. it really did, to suggest those speeches to me suggested gender and racial affiliations in a way that a lot of ous wonder, will you take that line of thinking

to the supreme court in these cases of first precedent. you have been very reassuring here today and throughout this hearing that you're going to try to understand the difference between judges and whatever political feelings you have about groups or gender. now, when you were a lawyer, what was the mission statement of the puerto rican legal defense fund? >> to promote the civil rights and equal opportunity of hispanics in the united states. >> during your time on the board and you had about every job a board member could have, is it a fair statement to say that all of the cases embrace ed by this group on abortion advocated a woman's right to choose and argued against restrictions by state and federal government on abortion rights?

>> i didn't answer that question because i didn't review the briefs. i did know that the funds had a health care docket that included challenges to certain limitations on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under certain circumstances. >> judge, i may be wrong, but every case i've seen by the puerto rican legal defense fund advocated against restrictions on abortion. advocated federal taxpayer funding of abortion for low-income women. across the board when it came to the death penalty, it advocated against the death penalty. when it came to employment law, it advocated against testing and quo quotas. that's just the record of this organization.

and the point i'm trying to make is that whether or not you advocate those positions and how you will judge can be two different things. i haven't seen in your judging this advocate that i saw or this board member, but when it came to the death penalty, you filed a memorandum with a puerto rican legal defense fund in 1991 and i'd like to submit this to the record where you signed this memorandum and you basically said that the death penalty should not be allowed in america because it create a racial bias and it was undue burden on the perpetrator and their family. what led you to that conclusion in 1991? >> the question in 1991? >> '81. >> i misspoke of the year. advocacy by the fund and taking a position on whether the legislation of the state of new york outlawing or permitting the

death penalty should be permitted by the state. i thank you for recognizing that my decisions have not shown me to be an advocate on behalf of any group. that's a different, dramatically different question than what, whether i follow the law and in the one case i had as a district court judge, i followed the law completely. >> the only reason i mention this is when alito and roberts were before this panel, they were asked about memos they wrote in the reagan administration, clients they represented, a lot to try to suggest that you, if you wrote a memo about this area of the law to your boss ronald reagan, you must not be fit to judge. they were able to explain the difference between being a lawyer in the reagan administration and being a judge and to the credit of many of my democratic colleagues, they understood that. i'm just trying to make the

point that when you are an advocate, when you are on this board, the board took positions that i think are left of center and you have every right to do it. have you ever known a low-income latino woman that was devotely prowife? >> yes. >> have you known a low-income latino family that supported the death family? >> yes. >> so, the point is there are many point of view within groups based on income. you have, i think, consistently as an advocate took a point of view that was left of center. you have a judge than generally in the main stream. the ricc ice case you missed one of the biggest issues in the country or you took a pass. i don't know what it is. but i am going to say this, but

as senator feinstein said, you have come a long way, you have worked very hard and you have earned the respect of ken starr and i would like to put his statement in the record. and you have said some things that just bugged the hell out of me. last question on the wise latina woman comment. to those who may be bothered by that, what do you say? >> i regret that i have offended some people. i believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent to leave the impression that some have taken from my words. >> you know what, judge, i agree with you. good luck.

>> thank you. senator durbin has actually responded. >> a dramatic exchange between lindsey graham of south carolina and the supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. a lot to digest there. he's giving a strong, a very strong, powerful signal that he's certainly open-minded and may, in fact, still vote to confirm her as a supreme court associate justice. we're going to assess what we just heard and continue our just heard and continue our coverage right after this. not playing with the kids?

judge sotomayor and we'll replay that and cover what we just heard. the best political team on television, but other important news unfolding right now i want to check in with cnn's tony harris for a complete update. tony, what's going on?

>> good to see you, wolf. plenty going on. let's get you caught up with other stories in the news. mayhem on the streets of jersey city this morning. five police officers wounded and two seriously wounded in an early morning shooting. police shot and killed two suspects in the ensuing gunfight. >> five police officers shot. this was an active investigat n investigation, these individuals were being sought by our department for major crime. we know what that crime is, i'm not willing at this point to release it. this individual came fully ready to go to war with us. this is not a normal shotgun, this is not a street weapon, this is one that is meant to hunt nothing other than man and he took it out on these police officers. so, all things being equal, we can control everything we did, we just could not control the actions of this individual and his accomsesesplace and he

decided to put these cops under fire. again, we're going to release a lot more later on. we're not 100% sure that every member of these police officers families have been notified so i'm not going to stand up here and release any of their names. i'm not going to release the names of the individuals that we have shot and killed as a result of what transpired this morning. i'll go back over the incident with my staff from square one and at some point in the early afternoon we will have a lot more information to give you. but at this particular moment in time anything that i give you other than the details that we are five police officers shot, and two individuals have been shot and killed by our department or the port authority because we were working jointly. i'm not sure we will determine that until all the evidence is in. we'll go into its proper conclusion and we'll go to try to find out where this rifle came from, how it got into his hands doing a lot of things right now. >> they wanted to run an

extended sound bite from the chief. that story developing just hours ago. an amazing and devastating scene north of detroit this morning. a car collided with two big rigs last night and one a tanker and the resulting explosion and fire caused the interstate 75 overpass to collapse ten miles north of downtown. >> when i was at the red light it just went up in flames and i left my car and took off running. >> the drivers of the vehicles involved had only minor injuries and no one else was hurt. some of the stories in the news this mo this hour. wolf, back to you. >> dramatic stories in new jersey, especially that mayor was, obviously, outraged for good reason. all right, we'll continue to follow all those stories, tony, check back with you. we'll take another quick break. when we come back, we'll digest what lindsey graham, the republican senator from south

carolina, said to sonia sotomayor and how she responded. - hello! - ha! why don't you try a home cooked meal... with yummy hamburger helper? oh! tada! fantastically tasty, huh? ummm, it's good. what would you guys like? hamburger helper. what?! one pound... one pan... one tasty meal!

right now, all over the country, discover card customers are getting 5% cashback bonus at the pump. now more than ever, it pays to discover.

confirmation hearings continuing for sonia sotomayor to become an associate justice of the united states supreme court. one of nine justices on the supreme court. david souter is retiring. she is set to succeed him. the hearings are continuing. more questions going on right now. but you saw it live here just a few moments ago. dramatic exchange between judge sotomayor and senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina. let me play this little clip. >> but i am going to say this,

that as senator feinstein said, you have come a long way, you have worked very hard, you have earned the respect of ken starr and i would like to put his statement in the record. and you have said some things that just bugged the hell out of me. last question on the wise latina woman comment. to those who may be bothered by that, what do you say? >> i regret that i have offended some people. i believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent to leave the impression that some have taken from my words. >> you know what, judge, i agree with you. >> strong words from lindsey

graham indicating he's still very much open minded and when the dust settles he may still vote to confirm sonia sotomayor as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. bill bennett is joining us, our cnn contributor. bill, what did you think? >> well, very interesting. lindsey graham is an interesting character and has a way of asking questions. look, i want to say this. i'm still troubled by some of the things that she has said. also troubled by the ricci case, but, you know, let me tell you what i think. i genuinely think this woman may have gotten into princeton on affirmative action and i think she would say she did. but she didn't graduate suma con lade. some extent in her personal life, a lot of people are, but i think she is quite genuine by saying she wouldn't apply it to her judging and i would predict right now if i am on cnn in two

years, and i hope i am by your grace, wolf, and others, that i would be able to say to you, you know, this is a more interesting and complicated judge and the record would show a more interesting judge and complicated judge as david souter. i don't think she will be as complicated a judge as david souter. her life is much larger than her idology and backing off the latina woman statements are appropriate, but i think she meant them when she said them. >> you can -- >> i think she -- >> i was going to say, bill, you can really see some of these republican members like lindsey graham, orrin hatch and even chuck grassley they're really struggling to decide how they're going to vote. this is not easy for them at all. >> it isn't. and there's two other things there that i'm proud of. they didn't patronize her. they were pretty tough. they were tougher, actually, than i thought they would be.

they were afraid and asked her tough questions. she needs to be treated like everyone needs to be treated. second, one gets a sense among a number of these senators and i have to say some of our best team members are on this committee that they're really trying to be thoughtful and kaun conscientious. how i'd vote, i don't know. but i'd tell you in two years from now she would be confirmed. two years from now, a lot of conservatives and folks on my team would say she turneditute be a lot better than souter. >> let me bring maria into this conversation, she teaches at the university of california berkeley law school, former clinton white house deputy chief of staff. maria, i'll play for you what then senator barack obama said back in 2006 when he explained why he was going to vote against samuel alito to become a supreme court justice of the supreme

court. >> there are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy. once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. i disagree with this view. i believe firmly that the constitution calls for the senate to advise and consent. i believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology and record. >> that was the standard that he put forward, philosophy, ideology and record. if you go by what some are now calling the obama standard, no americans would probably vote for sonia sotomayor giving her

philosophy, ideology and record. >> no question that those words are going to haunt democrats should the day come that a republican takes the white house again. but i think what the questioning shows, talked about temperament and philosophy and as we've heard that sonia sotomayor may, in fact, be more moderate than some people on the left. and it gives them a reason on not to vote against her on a strictically ideological. but those are words that will be problematic. >> lindsey graham in his questioning of her said something very interesting and i think it applies to what bill bennett was just saying, which is, i don't know how you're going to come out on certain things in your judging because i believe you're able to embrace a right you may not want for

yourself. so, what he is saying is that while your ideology may be liberal, as he says it was when she was a board member of the puerto rican legal defense fund, i have seen in your ruling that you have given people rights that you might not like. >> i think he was referring, candy, to this notion that she probably isn't a hunter and doesn't want to have a whole lot of guns or anything like that, but he was suggesting, you know what, she is someone who could understand why there are others out there, millions of americans who do like to hunt and do want to have guns. >> that's what he's hoping and that is what he is saying is, your judicial record is not the same as what you're saying publicly, so he finds that reassuring. i also like the way that he sort of laid out what this is all about in a simple sentence. people now understand the role of the court when it comes to social change, that's why we try

so hard to put on the court people that think like us. so it sort of frames the entire, what's been going on here. but, but what he said was, i think you can understand whoever us is, even if you don't disagree. >> right. >> this is why this has been hard in many ways for the republicans. you have the questions like lindsey graham because as an advocate that stood for taxpayer funding of abortion, stood against the death penalty. on the bench, however, she issued rulings that uphold the death penalty and be out in public demonstrating their views against abortion. that is why you have not heard a steady drum beat of activist judge. >> show us some of the waffling republicans, some of the republicans who may or may not decide in the end to join what i believe will be almost all, if not all of the democrats in supporting this confirmation. >> well, look at the committee here by going into it.

this is a democrat here. let's start with the man we were just talking about, lindsey graham. first elected to the senate in 2002. he's in his second term and re-elect would 58%. he is safe in south carolina, at least at the moment his seat is up. what's interesting, if you look at his background. he was an impeachment helping lead the case against president clinton. but what's interesting is he is a reserve judge in the air force sitting on its court of criminal appeals and practiced attorney there and in the house of representatives, as i mentioned, impeachment manager and served in the south carolina state legislature and a judge advocate in the international guard and holds the rank of colonel in the air force reserves and he has not been in the senate for too many votes on nominations, only two. he voted in support of roberts and alito, but you heard him, wolf, saying before, much like senator orrin hatch, and i'll bring his picture up. senator hatch and lindsey graham have taken the position that elections have consequences.

that a president gets their pick so long that person proves they are qualified. that senator hatch and senator graham have been outspoken saying, you don't have to agree with me on everything. if you're qualified i might vote for you because the president won, this president won with a good majority and he gets his pick. senator hatch has voted on 11 previous supreme court nominees and supported all of them, including democratic nominees. those are the people we watch and this is what the white house hopes for. hatch, a senior republican whose views have influence. graham, a conservative southern republican whose views have influence among modrists and centrists and chuck grassley, another veteran, iowa. conservative, but a pragmatist in many ways. the white house hopes those three on the committee will vote yes and if they do, they believe they can probably get 15, maybe as high as 20 republican votes when the full senate considers this nomination down the road. >> a lot of eyes will be watching his yea or nay when the

dust settles on the senate floor in the coming weeks. bill bennett, wrap this part of the discussion up for us. the sort of internal battle that's going on among some of these republicans. what's good in terms of this immediate vote and long term down the road because this may not be the last of barack obama's supreme court nominees. >> yor not getting a knee jerk reaction kind of thing. you talked about she may not be a hunter, but when lindsey graham asked her to imagine the world beyond the bronx and beyond south carolina, but there are two kinds of empathy. the emotional empathy you might feel for members of the same ethnic group or whatever, but the ability to place yourself in the point of view of another human being is very different from you and that's what he hopes is there and that's what i hope he sees and a lot of republicans see in a number of her decisions. how about the indication of ken

starr, wolf. do you think that made any democrats have doubts maybe all of a sudden? ken starr as a witness. but i, but i think that's kind of interesting. and maria's point is very good and i think what republicans should do, maria's point about you can regret the senator obama comment about voting on idology but what republicans can do here is take the opportunity to say, we're not going to do that. we're going to assess her as a judge and as a judge, certainly, the president deserves. by the way, final point. for anybody that thinks the court has too much power and decides too much like a lot of my team, a lot of conservatives think, then you should have more respect for the results of elections rather than supreme court decisions. ironically, that means give more deference to presidents. i got grilled by a democrat chairman and he said why do you have so many reagan appointees in your department?

i said we won. and obama won. he's entitled to some respect. >> he will get that. there's no doubt about that. all right, guys, stand by, we'll continue our coverage. they're continuing to ask her questions. we'll go back to the hearing room and watch sonia room and watch sonia right after this. thththththththththththththththth

getting right back to the confirmation hearings. republican senator john cornyn is asking questions right now. >> what is your opinion between a contributor and a bribe. >> contributor seeking to buy someone's vote and there are situations in which elected officials have been convicted of taking a bribe because they have agreed in exchange for a sum of money to vote on a particular legislation in a particular way.

that is, violates the federal law. the question that was discussed there was a much broader question as to where do you draw that line as a society, what choices do you think about in terms of what, what congress will do, what politicians will do? i've often spoken about the difference between what the law permits and what individuals should use to guide their conduct. the fact that the law says you can do this doesn't always mean that you as a person should choose to do this. and, in fact, we operate within the law, you should not be a law breaker, but you should ask in situations, according to that sense of what's right and wrong. we have the recent case that the supreme court considered of the judge who was given an

extraordinary amount of money by a campaign contributor dwarfing everything else in his campaign in terms of contribution funding him a very expensive campaign. >> that was not a direct contribution to the judge, was it? >> it wasn't a direct contribution but a question there where the supreme court said, the appearance of impropriety in this case would have counciled the judge to get off. >> let's get back to my question, if i can, and let me ask you this, last year president obama set a record in fund-raising from private sources raising an unprecedented amount of campaign contributions. do you think given your article that president obama can say with credibility that he's carrying out the mandate of a democratic society? >> that wasn't what i was talking about in that speech.

>> i realize he wasn't elected in 1996, but what i'm getting at is, are you basically painting with such a broad brush when it comes to people's rights under the first amendment to participate in the political process, to either volunteer their time or make in-kind contributions and formal contributions you consider that a form of bribery or in any way improper? >> no, sir. >> thank you for your answer. in the short time we have remaining, let me return to the new haven firefighter case briefly. as you know, two witnesses will testify after you're through and i'm sure you will be welcomed with this period of questioning. a lot of attention given to the lead plaintiff, ricci who is

dyslexic only to see the competitive examination results thrown out, but i was struck on july 3rd in "the new york times" when they featured another firefighter who will testify here today and that was benjamin vargas. benjamin vargas is the son of puerto rican parents, as you probably know. he found himself in the odd position, to say the least, of being discriminated against based on his race, based on the decision by the circuit court panel that you sat on. the closing of the article because lieutenant vargases who hopes to be captain vargas as a result of the supreme court decision because he scored six on the competitive examination, at the very last paragraph of this article it says gesturing towards his three sons, lieutenant vargas explained why

he had no regrets. he said, i want to give them a fair shake. to get a job on the merits, not because they're hispanic or to fill a quota. he said what a lousy way to live. that's his testimony. so y want to ask you in conclusion, you agree with chief justice john roberts when he says the best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race. >> the best way to live in our society is to follow the command of the copseitution, provide equal opportunity for all and i follow what the constitution says that is how the law should be structured and how it should be applied to whatever individual circumstances come before the court.

>> with respect, judge, my question was, do you agree with chief roberts statement or do you disagree? >> the question of agreeing or disagreeing suggests an opinion on what the ruling was in the case he used it in. and i accept the court's ruling in that case. and that was a very recent case. there is no quoral that i have, no disagreement. i don't accept that in that situation that statement the court found applied. i just said the issue is a constitutional one, equal opportunity for all under the law. >> i understand that you might not want to comment on what chief justice john roberts wrote in an opinion, even though i don't think he was speaking of a specific case, but rather than approach to the law, which would treat us all as individuals with