her, i hurt you all, i hurt my wife, i hurt my boys, i heard friends like tom davis. i heard a lot of different folks. and all i can say is i apologize ..

the people in south carolina and saying where do we go from here. i would simply say i go back to that simple word of asking for forgiveness. just as a decorative statement before we open up for a couple questions that i will move on -- i have tried to think of first missteps is clearing out more time as a good this process of of reconciliation and figuring out what comes next. i am going to resign as chairman of the republican governors association and tendered my resignation because i think it is their purpose thing to do

given other governors across this nation and my role as chairman of the rnd a, and it frankly from the standpoint of time. if i think about this process not only the beginning i family level but the family of south carolinian so that means me going one by one and town by town to talk to a lot of old friends across the state and what i have done her embarrassing for their forgiveness, that will take time and that i probably can't devote. questions? >> [inaudible] are you separated from the first lady? >> i don't know how you want to define that. i am here and she is there. i guess in a moral sense we are not, but what we are trying to do not is worked through

something that we have been working through for a number of months. >> did your wife and family know about the affair before the trip to argentina? >> yes, we have been working through this thing for about the last five months. i have been to a lot of and -- c street one hours in washington believe it or not a christian and bible study, some folks s of members of congress part questions and i think there were very important. i have been working with them. in in the back of the room, i would consider him a spiritual giant. hang on in an incredibly dear friend. he has been helping us work to

this subject over these last five months and i want to say thank you for being there as a friend. >> [inaudible] the first and only time you have been fatal? >> yes. >> did you break off the relationship? >> interesting how this thing has gone down the, john. to give you a more detail and then you will ever want, i met this person little over eight years ago. again very innocently and struck up a conversation and i don't want go back to the bubble of politics, this is not justified because what i did was wrong. wait, one question at a time.

and there is a certain irony to this, but this person at the time was separated and ended up in this incredibly serious conversation about why she ought to get back with her husband for the sake of her two boys, that not only was it a part of god's law but also in those two boys would be better off for it. and we had this incredibly earnest conversation and at the end of it tibet -- week swapped females and it began on a very casual basis, i got this issue, or vice versa, what you think because when you live in the zone of politics you can't ever let charge down. you can't ever say what do thing because it could be a front-page story with this story or that story and so there was this

element of protectiveness and she lives thousands of miles away and i was up here. in you could throw an idea out or vice versa and we developed a remarkable friendship over those eight years. and then as i said about a year ago its birth into something more than that. i have seen her it three times since then it during that whole sparking thing. and it was discovered in -- let me finish -- five months ago and at that point we went into serious overdrive in trying to say where you go from. and that is where the others in the world began to help, how you get all of this right? how do you be honest klaxon? rinceau have been a back and

forth and back and forth and the one thing that you really find is that you absolutely want resolution and so oddly enough rest of the last five days of my life crying in argentina so i could be here, saying a mile in deed and from a heart level there was something real with. it was a place based on the fiduciary relationship i had to the people of south carolina, based on my boys and my wife and where i was alive and she was a life and places i could not go and she could not go. and that is i suspect a continual process of to live up getting one's heart right and so i would never stand before you this morning and say i am completely wrecked with regard to my heart on all things but when i would say is i'm committed to get my heart's right because what others have tony is the odyssey that be are

all on in life is with regard to heart. not what i want or you want but in deed this larger notion of trying to punt other people first and i suspect that i really put this other people first i would have jeopardized her life as i have, certainly wouldn't have done it to my wife or my boys or to the hon -- tom davis of the world, this was selfishness and for that i apologize. >> [inaudible] >> the last question of their. >> [inaudible] did you intentionally mislead your staff and about where you were a practice one. >> they called and i called back on monday. >> but when you left -- >> we talked about that. let me be clear, i said that was a possibility. that is my fault and travis

larger truth, that is my fault. >> that you were hiking the appalachian trail? >> i said this is where i think i am going to go so they would have deducted from that. >> [inaudible] >> no, i did not. they went on the original information that i have given it mary o'neill who handles the schedule for us. >> inaudible maxwell. want your reaction to those in your party and the tenant governor called irresponsible and are disappointed in your decision to this. >> at this point in would be obvious that they and others would be disappointed and i have

disappointed them. >> will you resign as governor practicing. is the governor going to resign? now republican senators on supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor. members of the senate judiciary committee which is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings on july 13th. from the u.s. capitol this is 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, it is good to be with you in. we thought we would share of a few thoughts about the sonia sotomayor nomination. that i think that judge sotomayor deserves fair treatment and we are going to ensure that that happens. the nomination to the supreme court always raises quite a number of it in force questions and some of those questions have been discussed in recent days. i think it is quite appropriate the senate is two have concerns,

who are concerned at about matters that they come to the floor and raise those before the hearing even. garrison nominee a chance to be ready for the expressed concerns of senators and also in france as a national discussion of issues of great importance. today we talked about the second amendment. i would just say that a lot of people think that the heller case was the finding -- defining the decision that i guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms and it was. however, it explicitly applied only to the federal law and federal government of the district of columbia and so the day in a footnote to noted that they were not deciding whether second amendment was incorporated to the 14th and would actually applied to the

states. in fact, been the case, you can have a non federal city, new york or richmond or philadelphia , bar handguns completely if the second amendment is not incorporated so that remains a tremendous issue and in her decision making process in cases that she decided judge sotomayor earlier this year led to an opinion that held the back of the second amendment is not a fundamental right. that is a decisive an important question in whether the second amendment should apply to the cities and states so this fundamental right question is a matter of some real significance in truth there is a supreme court decision in the 1800's i believe that is consistent with that and she said in her panel that they were acting consistent with that opinion and in the

seventh circuit agreed with her opinion on that issue in the ninth circuit, however has seen it differently. they concluded that the second amendment does apply to the states and the cities and counties of there is a difference of opinion. i was a person of this is a very significant case that will come before the supreme court. just earlier this year she rented that opinion is that if it were to become law with the eviscerate the second amendment in many parts of this country because a lot of cities are hostile to weapons and guns of any kind and like the district of columbia are liable to go to very severe restrictions if not demands the right to keep and bear arms. so i would say that that's what we discussed today. the nominee i know will be billing to talk about that and i

am sure it in individual meetings. i did not raise that with her, but i am sure some senators have and i think senator demint did it. it senator hatch is senior republican, a fabulous senator, a constitutional scholar, a man who has been to conformations time and again and i know he made a very eloquent speech just earlier today and i was recognizing senator hatch. >> thank you, senator, good two have your leadership on the senate judiciary committee. i think it is impressed to raise the questions in a trance of that judge sotomayor and this has some ideas of what the questions will be and this is a very important question to most of us -- the second amendment means a great deal to us. it's a long time to get this heller case finally decided that the second amendment is a personal right and i think the distinguished senator from

alabama has explained it quite adequately. the seventh has to look at judge sotomayor's entire record and to evaluate her judicial philosophy including her speeches as well as the cases. now her second amendment decisions appear to have unnecessarily minimized and confine the scope and vitality of the second amendment constitutional right. it even after the supreme court in heller case in not only on an individual right to keep and bear arms but a pre-existing of fundamental right. judge sotomayor continue to say the right is not a fundamental right and is so when it was not necessary to decide the case before her. and this appears to be an approach focused on politically correct results rather than on the judicial the correct process. in other circuits looking at the issue as the distinguished senator from alabama give much more attention and analysis then

did judge sotomayor, and they did not address it unnecessary issues were. and yet i will put it this way, i wish judge sotomayor had been similarly restrained in on these issues. and these are among the most important issues and questions that her record raises and which must be addressed with the hearing and so this is a pair way of letting her know and in france this is an important issue i think the majority of senators and the united states and its answer in the majority of the people in this country here anwr we will expect her to tell us what her opinions are on this and really what she believes the law relations say. down we will give her every opportunity to represent herself one to bring us up to speed on what the personal feelings are and what her belief in the long

delay is in this particular. >> the questions spring of the question of whether the constitution still applies to all americans. president obama before he was president suggested in interviews that he saw the constitution as incomplete, as a charter of -- liberty is, that it told the government what it could not do but it did not tell the government when it had to do on behalf of the people who. the president apparently doesn't see the constitution as a document that limits the role of government and we have seen in many areas of his administration and attempt to expand the government's the many areas of our society into our economy. and that brings us to discussion about his supreme court nominee who also appears to be part of

this pattern. when i had a chance to meet with judge sotomayor and asked her if the second amendment applies to every american, i was not asking her to prejudge any particular case, but to just give me her interpretation of the second amendment which is pretty clear the right of the people of it says people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. if this is one applies to every american and the question is clear whether or not the constitution still applies, that is my concern with this nominee. it appears to reflect the pattern of this president that he does not respect to the limits of our constitution intends to have himself, his administration and his judges re-enter but it on our behalf. if the second amendment does not apply to every american as it very clearly does the, than the

constitution no longer has any bearing on controlling the role of federal ever meant. it is a very important question that as much drama question of bearing arms but whether or not we are still a constitutional republic and. will. >> 200 plus years ago we had a debate in this country about what the constitution should consist of and you remember the fight between and the federalists and anti-lock federalists and as a result of that the compromise was achieved with the rest tenements the bill of rights was adopted and that includes some of the rights that as jim demint said that the basic freedoms against government, constrains and control would that americans now believe it constitutes the most fundamental rights -- the right to free speech and the first amendment's and we have hinted to some questions we would like to ask judge sotomayor about her commitment to freedom of

political speech and activity in. in the second amendment which again is part of the bill of rights, the with the amendment which, of course, bedecks private property rights, the 14th amendment which deals with equal protection of the las. all of these will be areas of concern that this is a first time i know of in our nation's history or is supreme court nomination will really focus on in many ways the wall are bound within the nominees' commitment to the bill of rights and the most popular will and in this case you have for a very high. even though the supreme court of the u.s. decided this last year in the heller case that the the right to keep and bear arms of individuals in the district of columbia there are other cases that i believe senator hatch and sessions mentioned on their way to the united states supreme court so this is not a chance of all or rape issue. this is a real issue that will

be addressed by this be one of the united states and sp 10 is confirmed with her part of that court, the concern i have is when given the opportunity to interpret the second amendment of the constitution should essentially denying the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment was an individual right and was the fundamental right of americans and that was in the case that perhaps you are familiar with, the milan versus cuomo in case where she basically held that the right to keep and bear arms that amendment to them apply to cities and states that merely to the federal government. limiting in a way that really is impossible now safer in a law student much less a federal judge who 18 years to take that kind of cramp and restrictive view a basic civil liberty and our bill of rights is troubling,

indeed. soq these are again i'd agree with senator hatch that in fairness to the nominee of we are highlighting issues of concern to us to give her the time to prepare for the questions we expect to ask for and we look forward to that hearing on the 13th and her candid responses to the questions about these important issues. would >> wasn't that an opinion occurring on the side, the judge merely standing with the proposition of the supreme court in the heller case does not overrule they'd seen any case with which the second amendment did not apply to the state and that is in it heller case this specifically said they were doing that in this court was just following the supreme court seven the circus came in. >> i would say that even lacked

the rights of the second amendment applied to each and every american in guaranteeing individual right to keep and bear arms then her decision was inconsistent with that proposition. we can talk about an incorporation doctrine never their alliance and 19th century presidents after the supreme court decided the heller case. i would say it takes unnecessarily cramped and restricted view of an individual right becomes too the right to keep and bear arms were would. >> as you mentioned this has come up of three circuits likely to come to the supreme court, how qinsheng address that it is likely to come before her? had a sheehan said that question? >> i think that is a good question of. and not sure that we thought that through yet another ready as a would-be. she certainly can be asked about the case she decided. as you know judge roberts and

judge alito were asked about cases they decided in their reasoning was examined in that, but i don't think it is a appropriate for us to try to insist that she stayed how she might rule on a case in the future because of that would be and i think in improper act by the congress, and i would also suggest that there may be a question of whether or not she should sit on a case in the future and if it is one she is personally already ruled on a per case could be perhaps one coming up there and who knows what someone. >> the heller case did say this is an individual right. eschenbach think she should have to respond to the question do you believe is an individual right to. that should not have a heck of a

lot to do with the cases although an -- it has a lot to do this. i think she can be as in that? >> many of you after that want? >> i did not giving senators sessions, [inaudible] is somehow more fertile territory want is? >> well, i think there has been a lot of discussion about the speeches she has named and the president has even said she misspoke minute she did she misspoke about half a dozen times because she repeated that statement. i know that she would say she misspoke so it'll be interesting to see how she is is that in the question about the court of appeals our policy-making bodies

and those are important issues that i'm sure will be examined at the hearing and have trouble the people would talk to me. i would just say that there will be other issues and this is one of them that had not been taught much about and i think it is time we began to discuss this issue because i believe the second amendment is a vile constitutional amendment. a lot of people don't think they have to enforce the constitution as is written. they like to enforce and as they would like to have been written and i think it's a question as to whether she is committed to it. it will be an interesting discussion can i can i respond and say i'm not picking new bridge use the word attack. you are not the only one i have seen characterize what we're doing is attacking the nominee. this is the opposite of attacking the nominee. this is raising questions and a thing performing our constitutional duty and an advice and consent clause so i

think is unfair to characterize what we're doing is an attack. we're saying these are legitimate questions and we want to have the nominee respond to them. i would, once again point however, this stance and park contrast to the way miguel estrada who would have been the first hispanic nominee to be on the united states supreme court if you haven't been to filibuster it seven times and denied an up or down vote by democrats when they were in opposition now and in contrast to this disrespectful and unfair process whereby which previous nominees have been considered i think the stands in stark contrast and we are committed to a fair and a process raising these issues but then doing our job under the constitution. >> i am still confused why you think that she will fight upon whether the second amendment was fundamental when the heller case accord specifically said it will

not necessarily apply to the state and that is what in refusing to overturn -- >> may vary due to sentences on page three, alexis copy of the case which uses the word to the amendment similar provides no relief for a punt and privileges of the max that do not in to appear with fundamental rights or a single i suspect classifications karen with a strong presumption of constitutionality and must be upheld related to legitimate state interest. i think barely read and she says this does not interfere with it on the mantel right which we believe, i believe among that every american and of the second amendment has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms unless the have been convicted. >> wasn't that the issue of whether or not conservative sort of this amendment and as with the supreme court said and run the signing to manicure right to