and the breadth of the record we can look at to see how to perform as a judge, what was the decision she wrote on, what was the kind of announcement she put in those decisions, it really does inform us about what kind of judge who would be. and i agree with senator schumer that rule of law has informed all of her decisions, and i have every confidence about the type of judge she will be. >> on every question we asked, she knocked it out of the park. i think as my colleagues here her answers directly, and she will see over half of them this week to allay any of their concerns. we wanted to talk about new york. the bronx, brooklyn. we are bicycle riders. we talked about our roots.

she is a human person of the great legal mind, and that is to right kind of person to be on a legal bench of the supreme court. thank you, everybody. >> did you give her any advice on what to do in the hearing when it comes up? >> the most important thing is to be herself. she is such a powerful presence, a powerful person. it is not just her history, her amazing legal record, but when you meet her person-to-person, sitting across the table a couple of inches apart, her personality, shining, strong, comes through. it is great. >> my only advice to her was to let people get to know her, but then get to know her experience. they can understand what kind of justice she will be. i look forward to the next

series of conversations we are going to have with her. >> thank you, everybody. >> later, judge sotomayor met with mitch mcconnell of the u.s. capitol. >> [inaudible] >> later in the day, judge sotomayor your met with dianne feinstein. >> well, actually, i do not

think this many have been in my office or any prior justices. >> ok, thank you. >> been through is not the operative word. >> stand back from the door, please. thank you. >> we had a good meeting. warm, personal. i talked to her about her days as a prosecutor because i have read the opinion piece that the district attorney of new york city did in the new york daily news where he said he was looking for someone to hire. someone recommended judge sotomayor, how he hired her,

what great work she did as an assistant district attorney, and she has an enormous personal commitment, and that came through at the conversation. she has worked her way all the way up, never had a summer, except one, when she passed the bar. and she has worked all her life, and i do not think of that in the last hundred years there has been a supreme court nominee that has better credentials. federal district court, where you sit in trials and listen to people. the circuit court of appeal, the appellate court, where you interpret the law, the district attorney, prosecutor, corporate attorney -- she has done it all.

it is quite amazing. >> did you ask her how she might look at cases involving abortion? >> i'm not corn to go into it right now. the answers will be public. but we really talk more in general about trying to get a feeling of who she is, what kind of just a short walk to the, what she would want to be remembered for. and it was interesting. she said a justice who heard, who listened, but who really knew the law and carry it out. and i thought that was as did a statement as one could make.

-- as good a statement as one could make. >> she is well steeped in the wall -- law and has respect for precedent. >> some people think a were latino woman would make a better kind of conclusion that a white male -- some say that that statement is racist. what is your response? >> nothing makes me as angry as to say that judge sotomayor is racist. she is very inclusive as a

person, and i think if she explains her life and how she lives the life, her inclusion of everybody, her respect for people will become very clear. she is a problem solver, rather than a problem maker. that becomes very, very clear. so no way, know how if your racist. -- know how lycia a racist. that is an unfortunate, the relics statement. no way, knono how is she a racist. that is an unfortunate, vitriolic statement. a poor choice of words. >> isn't the making of policy up to the president and you and your colleagues in the legislature? >> we talked a lot about the size of precedents, which she

totally believes in. there are cases in appellate court or even the supreme court, though there is no precedent, and i talked about one in a certain weekend about a young sport searched in school caring ibuprofen. it was without precedent. if it is without precedent, the supreme court will make policy. if it is before appellate court, they will make policy. so if there is no precedent and there is a case of first impressions, your opinion would stay if the policy was there. >> when we like to see the hearings start? >> i am ready any time. i think we should get them over before the august break and have her on the floor to be

confirmed. i believe she will be confirmed. >> will it be tough to tackle both health care and this nomination at the same time? it seems like a lot for congress to handle. >> we should do this before health care and get it done. health care could take months. this has a beginning and an end. we ought to get it done just as fast as we possibly can. thank you. >> [inaudible] can you elaborate? >> what i found was there were certain stock words that if you traced history, other people before the judiciary committee

had used, like to ask them something, i have no quarrel with that. it does not say what they really think. ok? thank you, everybody. >> i met in the morning with senators. i just met with senator boxer.

>> what do you think of what newt gingrich said? >> we will talk about that. >> ok. thank you. thank you, senator.

>> thank you for coming. good meeting. a very nice person. i was as direct as i knew how to be. the judicial temperament will be covered in more details when we get more information at that time. she has accomplished a lot in her life, and i was very direct. i said i have got to decide how to play this game, quite frankly. if i used to senator obama's standard, i would never vote for her. he basically said, and you can look it up, that something to believe is what the president wins the election, they should

have great authority to appoint the nominee, and the only thing you look for is whether rights will be taken off. he went on to say you have to do more. you have to look at the judge's record. and when i look at the ideology, when i look at her record and philosophy, i am deeply troubled. that is my standard. a talented person, no way that a conservative republicans would have picked her to be on the supreme court. and i think that is what senator obama was trying to say. my base does not like roberts, and i am not running for higher office, so i will not vote for them. the people i'm trying to please here do not like the nominee. he used a standard making it impossible, i think, for a person of the opposite party to

be able to confirm a nominee of someone of the other party. there was a different day, when we did not do it that way. justice ginsberg. 96-3. the general counsel. 96-3. justice scalia, very conservative. 98-0. what happened to those days? that is not the senate i have been part of. i would like to go back to that. but i've lived in a world where it may be very difficult to do that. and if i use the ginsberg-scalia standard, she has a chance of getting my vote.

if i use the senator obama's standard, there is no way she will get my vote. the hurdle she would have to overcome if i used the scalia standard is this temperament problem, overstated, overblown, or is it fundamental? and if she more than just a liberal judge, an activist advocate wearing a robe using the bench as a way to abdicate her causes? she said all the things that i would like to hear. she said the things that a lito and roberts said. but i am bound by law. i will see if she can stand scrutiny. at the end of the day, the program has chosen someone who has accomplished a lot, is very

educated, and has informed judicial record. at the end of the day, he is asking me to do something he could not do himself. and that is to look at a complete person and understand elections matter. quite frankly, i think when senator obama voted against alito and roberts, he lost sight that elections really do matter. now he is in a different spot. i am in a different spot. we will see what happens. >> when you look at her ideologies and record, we are troubled. were you quoting senator obama? >> i talked about the obama

standard. i believe it calls for a meaningful event, including the examination of philosophy, ideology, and record. when i examined them, i am finding myself trouble. if i apply the standard to her, i am troubled. she does not share my judicial philosophy or ideology. in her case decisions, it will probably come out differently. does that mean she is not qualified to be on the supreme court? there was a day when nobody knew that. no republican could have voted for her, for justice ginsberg, leaving share their philosophy. and there is no mystery as to where she will come out. every now and then, there is a mystery. souter was a bit of a mystery.

but not with her, and not with scalia. no one could have doubted one bit as to where justice scalia would come out in the 5% of the cases. and how did he vote against roberts, one of the most qualified people in the history of the united states? senator obama said that judicial experience, understanding the law, character, temperament, intellect will get 25 miles of a 26 mile marathon. the last mile is how you will decide that 5% of the cases, where scalia and ginsberg differ. here's what he said. that last mile can only be determined on the basis of one of the value, one score concerns -- 1's core concerns, a broader perspective on how the

world works and the depth and breadth of empathy. if i used that standard, she will might get my vote. -- she will not get my vote. >> what you think -- newt gingrich wrote an op-ed today. >> by criticism about her comment in the speech she gave was not that i think this lady is a racist -- i do not. the reason i do not is because of the people who left work with her throughout her life, who agree and disagree with her, no one has ever said that. this is evidence of that. but the statement is troubling. i did say that if i said that, it would be over for me. no matter how well-intentioned i was or how much i tried to put it in context, that would be

it, and you all know that, and american knows that. i think she was somewhat moved. we need to ask her about this. i will not put words in her mouth, but i do not think it is fair to call her a racist. i do think she needs to explain herself, she needs to understand that she has offended some people, and i will let her speak as to what the proper response is. i think anytime that you get words like that, they do hit hard. she does not deserve that. she deserves to be challenged. she needs to hear from anybody out there looking for an independent judge that if they found themselves in litigation, there will be a fair question.

>> [inaudible] >> she made a statement, trying to articulate that all the things she went through in life, shared, a long way and had a hard struggle, making her better than the average everyday white guy. being an average white guy, does that make her better than roberts? that does not exactly make me feel good to if you're a sitting judge say that. but do i think that in her heart she hates white people? no. i think it was a misstatement and needs to be corrected.

there is no doubt in my mind, she was a good person. i will leave it to her. i will not put words in her mouth about this. you need to ask him -- her. you need to ask her. i did not ask for an apology. you need to ask her. >> can you give us a sense of what conversations are like now between yourself and the judiciary? >> what i've got to decide is what standard and i going to apply, and i think that is laid out pretty clearly. >> [inaudible] >> she has still got some mountains to climb.

one, like looking at her cases and having five men and about her record. she has been in this world when, and so alive -- a whirlwind, and so have i.. the only reason you would not vote for someone who lost -- who was voted for by someone you lost too, was because she was not qualified or did not have intellectual capacity. i think there is a character and a temperament problem. during the time that they have had to be a judge, they were more than advocates and impartial the seiders of the law, and i have got to find out in my own mind, i'm not comfortable saying that her temperament problem is not a basis, not to persius -- not who she is. these evaluations represent a small slice.

generally speaking, six or eight people. but the fact that they all said the same vein, there are other judges on the court as well, and no one seemed to come out from a lawyer's perspective. i do not like bullied judges. i did not mind being challenged. the judge can hammer me. but some judges have an edge, and do not wear the rogue well. i do not like her. and she seems to be an ice person. scalia is no shrinking person. he is tough. there's a difference between being tough and a bully. i do not know what those evaluations mean in her legal career, and that is part of the process. what do other people say who have been on the other side of

her as an advocate? what did the other judges say? >> is a tit-for-tat, because obama voted against the other judges? >> i will not do any good looking back trying to play a game, but i'm not on to tell my party that it is a disadvantage. if this is the way we're going to do it, then this is going to be the way you go forward, and i will have to consider that. this is a -- she is basically asking me to do something he did not do himself, the vice- president did not vote for these people, and i am astonished that we come from scalia and ginsberg getting 98 votes to roberts, who lose a lot of votes.

alito only got 58 and got filibustered. >> hearing from other people, do you hope for a confirmation hearing? >> we know what the almanac says. just meeting her, obviously she is going to be nice to me. she is not point to come in there and give me a hard time. but from what i can tell, from the people i know that know her, she seems to be a decent person. i just wonder why all lawyers said the same thing. the one thing i can tell you, this is going to be a big deal. this is more than just a confirmation. we have big issues to resolve. this speech she did. this needs to come to a conclusion in a way that makes it a better friendship.

this is what eric holder was talking about. she needs to put these things on the table. it is not fair to say that one speech with and her hopes and dreams of being on the supreme court. but someone else's? i think so. and now she has an opportunity to explain that and maybe we can come out of this thing stronger as a nation. i think the hearing ought to happen in september and she ought to be voted upon. i cannot find any extraordinary circumstance that justifying filibuster. all i can tell you is that there's a lot to look at. three dozen cases, 4000 cases. you get one shot at this. justice roberts was voted on september 29, and if you use the timetable, that puts us into

september. i have no desire to make this hard. i have no desire to make it quick for the sake of making it quick. and she deserves to be challenged firmly and fairly and also she needs people to acknowledge that she has come a long way and has a lot to be proud of. thank you, all. >> if you can watch this program and all of the senate -- you can watch this program and all the visits at c-span.org. or you can what other recent programming by clicking on " america and the courts." join us for more at 7:00 p.m. eastern on saturday, on c-span. >> if president obama earlier this week delivered a speech from cairo, egypt. we will show you at 10:30

eastern on sunday, on c-span. >> our party needs a lot of work. >> sunday, mitch daniels on revitalizing the gop. >> look inward, think about how it can speak more meaningfully to the problems of today, to the americans of today, to the young people. maybe i can be a part of that. you did not have to be a candidate to do that. >> sunday night on c-span. also on satellite radio, or download the podcast. >> tonight, on booktv, dispatches from the war room. advising bill