republican representative michael burgess and bill cassidy, but medical doctors, on health care legislation currently making its way through congress and what to expect before the august recess. . .

>> sunday. on president harry truman and his position to recognize the state of israel. nobody knew until may 14 what truman would do. there was a press conference the day before, no one knew what he was going to do. would they acquire a stake, as they said he was going to do? but he had already decided. he said, " i am going to support a jewish state." >> sunday at 8:00 p.m., eastern and pacific. you can also listen to the program on c-span radio on satellite radio, an online as a c-span podcast.

>> on monday, the senate judiciary committee began its confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. coming up, a roundtable discussion about her decisions during her tenure on the federal bench. first, we start with three former clerks about her work ethic, her personality, and what it was like to work for the judge. >> with her confirmation hearings begin to happen monday july 13, we thought we would take this opportunity to talk to folks who know her best, some of her former law clerks. joining us are three of them. her clerk from 2000-2001, when

she sat on the second circuit court of appeals. david moskowitz, a desk clerk 2007-2008, and juliet mason, clerk while she was on the district court in 1996. when did you first meet her? >> welcome at the time i met the judge, interviews for clerk ships happened ridiculously early, in your first or second year of law school. i probably met her in thank you for or 95 and have stayed in touch with her ever since -- in 1994 or 1995 and i have stayed in touch with her ever since. >> do you apply with a specific judge? what is the process like? >> it has changed over time. when i applied, it was early in your career, and people applied to judges who were of interest

to them. you had a chance to apply with multiple judges. i interviewed with several judges, and judge sotomayor really struck out as someone who is very different. during our interview, not only did she look at my present day and asked me some very important questions about my background and experience and some of my riding, but to try to figure who i was as a person, and i think that in choosing clerks, it was important to find someone she connected with a personal way and found that she could trust. >> david moskowitz, what about your experience? >> i have a similar experience. it is telling the first question she asked in interviews is about you, your family, your background. she cares a lot and has done a lot of research before you go in. she wants to feel comfortable

that you will be comfortable in her chambers. you need for people who are going to be able to work well together, so she searches to find that mix. the interview was about half an hour. and you often interview with current clerks who actually would just be there. the current way it is done is that the third year of law school at the beginning. the clerk she will be replacing an interview you as well. >> i also remember, you could see someone with a stellar resonate walk on water academically, and if anybody was rude, thinking that the judge is not aware, it did not matter who the person was. it is a fundamental part of who she is as a person, very

important to her about her clerks treat everyone with respect and the people fundamentally. it is not just about academic excellence or brain power, it is about the age. >> what was it like working for her? >> she is no throughout the system for taking every case seriously and thinking about the fact that individual people are involved. and the fact that i work for the court of appeals, when the circuit makes a decision, it is making precedent actions. she prepares for cases in a way beyond what many judges do. she literally read every page,

she reads through bench memos, she asks for more information. she works evenings and weekends. there is that aspect. but working for a judge is also being part of her personal life. she was also saying, let's go out to dinner, let's go to a movie, let's grab lunch. she really adopts her clerks as part of her family when you work for her. >> i agree with everything that alison has said. we worked extremely hard, but the judge was always there with us. uncomplicated -- on complicated cases, we went through many iterations, trying to figure out right answer in the case, saying, "you have conflicting laws on various issues, and we

would talk things through, and a lot of judges will simply wait to get a bench memo, but she actually receives through all of the breeds first, she says, "here are my impressions, is your -- years when concerned about -- here is what i am concerned about." and she delves and a second time with a bench memo and tries to decide the outcome. she cares a lot about her clerks. we have lunch with her almost every day except when she is entertaining guests from within york or elsewhere. you got to really know her as a person, as well. >> on the district court, she really delve into wall and a way

that -- delves into the lot and a breathtaking manner. she would take newly published opinions away on vacation with her on the weekend. she would come back with a stack that she had read. she demonstrated a work ethic, but she was not only about work. she was always careful to ask how we were doing, how our families were. working in chambers was part of a very close family. it was hard to leave because it was such a great environment to work and participate in. >> you worked in deep 1990's. do you stay in touch? >> yes, i do. the judge takes a strong role in her clerks lives. and it is not like being a

mentor when you are literally in her chambers. she continues that. there were so many former clerks when i was in chambers, and they were a part of her daily life. she is in touch with professional and personal decisions and she knows our children and regularly has events where all the clerks get together. she sees once you have worked for heard that you are part of her family, and she keeps that up. >> not necessarily the outcome, but the proper way to write the opinion -- there are many ways to get the answer. we had a lot of back-and-forth discussion. we would sit down and her office as many times as necessary and hammer through the issues, and even if she decided

to go with the way she wanted to go, thinking it was better than the way i suggested, i thought that she thought she really thought through the issue carefully and was making the right decision. >> yes. she does not just want to dictate a result ritual to your honest feedback. there were occasions where i would push in one direction, and obviously, she is the judge. she is going to make the call. >> it is a thing. did it affect her work in any way? >> in a positive way. when i was working for her, she very much could do all of her work and made sure to fit and things like exercising, eating

right. as clerks who work so many hours, she would push that on you, too. i remember during the court of appeals, i have a workload, and she said we are training for running race. you do not have a choice. i and it is a really positive thing. and she uses that as an outlet to keep her focus and make sure people around her stay same, too. >> i would agree completely. during lunch, she often does have lunch with her clerks every day and it is a salad with cottage cheese or whatever. i think that she gives the clerks a notion of what you need to be unbalanced person. you can work hard and have success but still be a good, healthy person. >> as probably the least healthy eaters here, i received many

comments about -- do you really need those fries? >> what was the office like? >> id has changed. when i clerk in the district court, at that time she had moved over from the former courthouse and from what i hear, that was torture. but at the time i did it, the clerks worked together, there were two working together in one large office with two desks facing each other and the judge had her own office. her secretary, who was also a mother to us all, had her office. it was one close-knit family. >> it continues. i shared an office, because we were not set up to have offices for different clerks, so i shared an office for another clerk and there were two other clerks.

what we were a lively chambers and you could hear people yelling across various questions. >> did she encourage that type of back and forth? >> certainly. she wanted everybody to be involved in the important decisions we had, to talk through. the more ideas we had, i think she thought a better outcome we would have. >> in her chambers, did she keep a lot of personal items? what she did. she had a lot of pictures of her family, she had different awards she had gotten, awards, pictures from weddings. when i worked for her, each of us had our own offices, but everyone who clerked for her new the race.

poke your heads in. she would be working away, and whether she wanted to ask people question or get their thoughts, she would sit in her chair, telling us to poke their heads in, and they would come in. it was very open and collegial, and the relationship she had with her secretary, who happened to be an old friend, really set the tone. we are a family in here, we do things together, work together professionally, eat lunch together, and do things together socially. that was the feeling throughout chambers. >> david moskowitz, what was your reaction when obama nominated her? >> i was extremely excited. it was an unbelievable

experience that day. i think all of the clerks were so excited but proud of the judge and she was so impressive in her speech at the white house that i think we were just on top of the world. >> have any of you talked to her since the nomination? >> not directly. she has been very busy, so i think we have all felt like imposing on her time at this point would be a bluff. i spoke to her very soon before the nomination. >> the week of her nomination, my co-clerk was married, and she officiated the wedding. this was right before meeting with senators. she took time out to come back to new york to officiate the wedding. i got to see her there very briefly. >> i email heard a few times.

-- i email her with her a few times. we have all been assigned to do things. we share information and articles and talk about the judge, is there anyway we can help. it has made all those reconnect a way that is very substantial. >> as soon as cometary started happening in the media by different groups, what is one criticism you felt was not fair? >> i thought that the whole opera or about the reach a decision -- uproar about the ricci decision, about the white firefighters in connecticut -- i

thought that all whole issue was -- you know, rush limbaugh throughout the words racist, reverse discrimination -- i thought that that was truly absurd. i am used to hearing of certain things in politics, but that was beyond the pale. >> i think the initial jeffrey rosen article before the nomination for the most part was a whisper campaign of her not being petsmart or a bully and it is just completely untrue, but something that it really takes a huge group of people to read but -- rebut -- and it was clearly intended to cheaper from being nominated. -- cheaper from being nominated. >> one thing that has not taken a lot of hold is questions about her temperament. we all talk about the way she prepares for all arguments in a

way that many judges do not. she is searching from the bench, she asks difficult questions and has very high standards for lawyers to answer the questions. she feels like she really needs to know the answer. i have never seen her bully in any way, though, and i think her colleagues have sat with her on the court have really responded to that and said that that is not at all who judge sotomayor is. >> in a letter by her law clerks to the senate leadership in terms of a nomination, one of the phrases used was that you said that the judge keeps an eye on the real-world impact of her decisions. why was that important for you? >> i think she brings a perspective that will be new to the supreme court. she is not an ivory tower speaker and thinking about angels dancing on the head of a

pin or something. she really understands the real- world impact of a lot and hal -- some of that comes from her experience as a lawyer. she has done every type of law there is to do, from criminal to civil to being a prosecutor to been a judge and so on. i think she knows at every level how the impact of her decision affects all the different players in the system. because she is such a fundamentally egalitarian person, she really cares about making sure everyone gets a fair shake. >> david moskowitz, what is her relationship with other judges? >> very collegial. we would schedule watches with them -- lunches with them. she would organize events for them. each quarter that would have a court meeting, she would

schedule dinners or events. she tried to keep it collegial even through differences of opinion on the court. have >> i think that collegiality she had went to everyone in the courthouse. she is really famous in the courthouse for holiday parties. a lot of chambers to have small holiday parties and invite other judges, but she is different. not only did she invite all the judges from the court and district court and the magistrate, but she invited every single person in the courthouse. she knew the names of every cafeteria worker. to her, those people were as much a part and as important as her colleagues on the second circuit, and that really goes to what kind of person she is, and how she views people in life. she is very humble.

she never forgets where she came from. when you asked about the day of her nomination, i think her humble this really came out in those comments. it is truly the kind of person she is. >> juliet, you have been out of law school longest. what is the benefit of all locklear trip? -- a law clerk ship? >> it is a great opportunity. you clerk for a judge before practicing law, so you are involved in the process of making a lot before you practice it. it gives you great insight into what judges really care about, how they focus on the various issues in your briefing or trial, and it gives you an insight on my -- unlike any other. i'm currently a litigator.

>> david moskowitz, you are just starting a law practice. what is it like? >> it is a very different experience than clerking, for sure. it is much more intense involvement in a few cases. when you clerk, you have 40 cases every citizen and every month he would have to go through more. it is a difference. i am litigation, as well. general litigation. >> the value is two fold. one is what you learn about how the system works and the persuasiveness. it is a rare opportunity to have a mentor.

she was truly a mentor in helping people figure out how to be happy as a lawyer. there are so many unhappy lawyers out there, and i think that she can't stand that. what i was getting ready to finish my clerkship, i had always had a strong interest in civil rights and disability. she not only would talk me through the department of justice or public interest work, but she would put me in touch with her friends and tell me to talk to them. she is a mentor for me. i am always touched. i talked to her, and she remembered exactly what i did. she is touched with clerks who are passionate about particular areas.

she really influenced my direction. >> we have been talking to three clerks for judge sotomayor as for hearings are due to begin july 13. thank you very much. >> judge sotomayor will begin on monday. i. review analysis key cases during her tenure on the federal bench, including over a decade on the second circuit court of appeals. >> we will on the firefighter case. give us a background and what was decided. >> a quick background of that decision or what led to that decision is that the city of new haven decided to administer a test to firefighters who want promotion to lieutenant or captain. did mr. the test and discovered that the black and hispanic test takers did significantly more poorly, and the city was

concerned, reasonably so. they would be sued under a provision about racial minorities, so they decided not to use the promotion process. white test takers that followed a lawsuit, saying that was not fair. and they agreed they did not have to use it under title 7, it was not required. >> what to the supreme court addressed in the decision? >> they were trying to figure out how to reconcile two competing provisions for title seven to make sure that both were given proper effect.

and what the majority ruled is that the firefighters were entitled to summary judgment on their claims, as they had been discriminated against. summary judgment against them gave them a chance to go to trial, and the justices ruled the plaintiffs won their case. the dissent's took a different reading of title 7. they also concluded that the circuit had applied the second standard in rejecting the firefighters. >> in terms of the supreme court overturned the decision of the second circuit, an opinion in part written by justice sotomayor, what does that say about that opinion in particular at the second circuit level? >> the opinion had no one's name sides to it. the judge, along with her

colleagues, joined the opinion. i think the concern that many of us have had that puts us there is that the second circuit opinion failed to deal properly with a very substantial claim raised by the fire fighter. it was literally a one-paragraph opinion, six sentences, i think, about 130 words. they did not even really present the questions that the firefighters had opposed. so he said the case requires better treatment, and he decided the claims not only needed more. >> does this fit into a pattern in terms of her previous views

on discrimination? >> two points. it was just a short opinion. that is very typical when a court is affirming a district court. in their opinions, they say they agree with the reasoning of the district court. they did not bother to write it out, but made clear they work affirming a long and detailed opinion. i think that the rationale was not under developed. it was that she agreed with the district court, she and the other members of the panel. i think the decision is consistent with the way they will in a lot of places, which is that they want to overturn democratically-elected government. so new haven had decided to discard the test. since we are not lawyers, i want to make clear she was not saying that it was a good idea as a

matter of policy to get rid of the test or what she would have done if she was a decision maker. her point was that this violates title 7, and her conclusion, which was agreed with, was that the supreme court reversed that. but i think in there we see a pattern mercia's saying she will be hesitant to overturn decisions. >> what might this decision on the second circuit level and the court reversal said two senators who are looking at her in the hearing? what might they want to ask? >> they certainly should inquire as to what her thinking was in that case. there had not been a lot of case law on these provisions of title 7. it was a tough issue, which is why the supreme court took it. they have every right to inquire about her thinking in that case, but i hope it look at the body of her discrimination opinions.

she has had about 100 cases where people have come to her claiming discrimination, and i think that in these cases, her rulings have been extremely moderate. the majority of the time, she is not someone reaching out to find discrimination in every place, and i think that the vast majority of the time she is joined by other members of the panel and by republican appointees on the second circuit. >> i think the case triggers many concerns that people have about her commitment to impartiality. president obama talks about his so-called empathy standards, that he seems to want judges that will not hold their own biases in deciding cases, and when you look at this case again and how the panel handled it, you look at other statement that she has made about the role of judges, and you see this

broader concern, an ugly flip side of empathy, which might be antipathy towards certain litigants. >> she was involved in an abortion case with the center for reproductive law. what was the background? >> this was a challenge to the so-called mexico city policy, which and i can summarize accurately as requiring that foreign organizations receiving u.s. government funds not promote or practice abortion. the challenge was bought not by foreign organizations bought by domestic ones. and what judge sotomayor and her panel ruled was that that exact same issue, the first amendment issue, had come before the second circuit 12 years previously, the press had discovered how the case should be decided, and it was a simple matter of application.

>> so the case ended at the second circuit? >> yes. and this is a pattern in jurisprudence. >> if you look at this, they noticed that one consistent pattern in her jurisprudences that she follows precedents, a sign that she understands the role of a judge and is not looking to overstep the roll. and the case we have been discussing about the mexico city guide rule is a perfect example of that. she said president -- set a precedent. that is the case. >> that is always an issue. so looking at what might be on the docket or cases out there at the circuit level, are there areas of concern for groups on both sides, cases that might come before the court that she might take up as a justice? >> what is interesting is that because she has great respect

for precedent, i think that will guide her decisions in that area, as well. and you can see it guided by the fact that reverses way to a wall of a land. >> you talk to little bit about her empathy here. would you can occur about on the whole of her opinions? >> i would say that a circuit judge is held down more with circuit precedent and supreme court precedent. the best window into how a justice will rule is not necessarily the court of appeals record, but i think a better windows provided by her statements about the role of judging, about the judicial activism.

looking at justice ginsberg, aclu passed in the court, rather than the slice of time to was on the d.c. circuit. i think amanda is right. >> they have used this term, calling balls and strikes. in your point of view, as she called as an umpire of the law, balls and strikes? >> yes. what is interesting, looking at her opinions -- i have not read the mall, but some have -- is that i think she has a great awareness of the limits of her role. i agree with that. but several changes someone at the supreme court. certainly the second president will not bind her in the future,

but i think she is someone who will respect precedent, whether she personally agrees with better not. that has been hurt and yellow -- and no -- modus operandi. i think she respects her institutional role, and you see that with the decisions made by a democratically elected decisionmakers. >> she will also see precedent in terms of cases on the second amendment. in the case of maloney versus cuomo, she was dealing with the second amendment but it did not involve guns. it involves some other weapon which i cannot pronounced. >> yes, and in that decision, the court faced a challenge is to the constitutionality of a new york law prohibiting one of these in your home.

and the appellate decision had come down already. it was a case in which the supreme court said -- it changed a lot of people's understanding of the second amendment and found a new understanding which was that the second amendment gives individuals the right to keep a gun. so the recommendation was to make the new york law unconstitutional. the issue in that case is a technical legal point. it is, as a second amendment right prohibiting gun ownership also prohibit state government from boring gun or weapon ownership? and that is a question the supreme court entered a long time ago, 1876, and says that they do not apply to the state. state governments are not bound or restricted by it.

judge sotomayor said in the opinion and it overruled that the heller decision did not apply. >> that is a broader issue. was the second circuit right, was just a sotomayor in the opinion, and does it leave thorny issues ahead to settle on the whole issue of whether the second amendment applies to the state? >> those are good questions. as amanda indicated, the supreme court had ruled in the 19th century that the second amendment does not apply against the states, but back then they have also ruled that the entire bill of rights did not apply against the states. you had an incorporation revolution that occurred from the 1930's on word of the 20th- century by which all of the provisions of the bill of rights were deemed to apply against states from the to process

clause. so the question becomes, once heller recognizes that there is not -- there is an individual right of bearing arms against the government, does that right applies against the states? there are three courts of appeals addressing this issue so far. the seventh circuit ruled on similar grounds. the ninth circuit ruled that there are individual rights. so you have this conflict that the court is likely to take up. no reason to sit around and wait for more rulings. my guess is that that issue will be decided next term. >> what do you think they will interested in related to second amendment law? what do they want to pin down?

>> i am guessing that her answer to how the second amendment will apply 2 states is that most nominees said they cannot comment on a case likely to come before the court. so i think that she may not answer that question because it puts her in an awkward position if she does. as to her views on gun ownership, again, just look at her record. whenever she thinks about the second amendment, she recognizes that there is a supreme court precedent that heller, as a supreme court justice, will not be binding, but the doctrine is very decisive. it tells judges to follow past president of their own court, and i guess that if she has asked the question, she will say she will follow the law. just as other justices have said about roe versus wade. >> i think given the obama and the standard it will be whether she disfavors fetch the rights of gun owners and will act on

that bias. of just one comment on the question of application of precedent by the supreme court justice. no justice has ever exercised some wouldn't rule were you always respect every precedent. so i do not expect the judge, if she becomes a justice, would be the first to do that. i think that the senators would be interested in probing her judicial philosophy and particularly in whether the indulgence and bias that obama has invited plays a role. >> she used a term and the maloney case that the president makes its second law, this one from the 1800's. then the court returned and said nothing about the second amendment meaning beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private,

military organizations. so in terms of, if she is saying it is a wall, does that give an indication as to her temperament going into the court? wanting to than of pulled decisions from lower circuits? -- then i pulled the decisions from lower circuits? >> they said it was settled law. but it was not up to her and her other panel of judges to decide if the precedent had been overruled by other cases suggesting that it may be was no longer good law because it had not held squarely. this is something the supreme court has previously had monished lower courts for. they are not supposed to overrule.

they are not supposed to protect with the court will do -- predict what the court will do. i think that shows she is someone who respects the doctrine more than most judges. not every judge will follow every past precedents, and every so often you see a deviation. but she seems to address more than much -- most. >> i think this illustrates the question of following precedence not being able to guide. you have this precedent in the 19th century saying that the second amendment does not apply against the state's oscar -- the state's -- states. and then you have heller and or a corporation -- a corporation cases from the 1940's forward. it is not a mechanical way that

they say this precedent governs here. i think that it shows she is not going to say she will follow precedent and it will not dictate an answer. one minor point of what to highlight -- i know it is laid out. the press issue arguably did not involve the same question the supreme court will address. it was arguably just looking at whether there was president -- privilege and community, not whether due process clause protected it. so that is an argument for distinguishing the case. >> the guiliani case. what is that about. >> it is fascinating. they show -- the cases reveal a lot about the justice. it is about a new york police

officer who anonymously sent racist, bigoted material out into the world from his home through the mail. and when the nypd discovered this, they fired him. and he brought a suit against the city, against the police department, giuliani, saying that his first amendment rights were violated because he should be free as a republican ploy to speak his mind, especially when he is doing so from his own home anonymously. the majority of the panel said, of import -- "no, you do not have a claim." they mentioned a case where they said you have to weigh the value of the speech against to the needs of government or the department of government, like a police department, to operate and have effected employees. and they say having a bigoted cops is not a good thing, so

they fired him and his rights do not come back. the judge dissented, and what is interesting about this is that there has been a lot of talk about her own background, her ethnic background, gender, influence and her in her decision. what concerns her is, it is she going to take her back and see everything through that lens and never have said that before people who do not look like her? in this case, she said, "i think this police officer, as repulses me by his speech, has a first amendment right." that speaks to her ability to see cases from a different perspective. >> what do you think? >> i think that there was a difficult question for the panel members in applying this balancing test, a highly -- she

was protected in the context that was ugly and vicious, so i think that is encouraging in and of itself. i simply look more broadly at the judge's first amendment cases and her record and have concerns about whether she has a broader defense. right away, with her strong endorsement of finance restrictions and limitations imposed on core political speech around election time -- maybe it will turn out that her policy views their differ from her legal views. but i see this case highlight it, putting it in an interesting light. there was a court of appeals nominee by president bush who had a somewhat similar ruling in a similar case. he had joined the opinion of a

court that upheld a ruling saying that an employee should not have been fired because of some ugly, racist act. and this man was vilified by the left as a judge. he was vilified as a racist. and now, the same folks who defended him are championing his opinion from her. there is an irony in how manipulable the arguments can be. but, look, i think their descent there is an encouraging sign. >> how does this bear with her other first amendment cases? is this in line with decisions or majority opinions she has been in on? >> i think she shows respect for the amendment, but what is more interesting is that there have been concerns, and i understand them, from folks who think that this judge will come into the

court and see everything for her own background and gender, and maybe it means she will be over this a pathetic in cases of discrimination claim by race. that is one concern. i think that is where it is really important. it shows that she does not really always see cases from blind perspectives. she has great empathy and sympathy for a man who even though she dislikes his views, she thought he has the right to express himself. >> i hope she does not have empathy and sympathy and that instead she acted on what she thought was the best reading of the precedent. i do not think that this case somehow invalidates president obama's end of the standard. i will point out that the court of appeals nominee so vilified, senator obama was going after him for joining a ruling in that

case. >> you mentioned the ricci case, the first amendment. explain your answer further. >> i think that ed and other people had expressed concerns that she is too willing to overlook the concerns, the concerns of white firefighters who were extremely frustrated to have taken a test and have it thrown out and were concerned about her decision. they thought that she might not every case see in their perspective. and i think that is dead wrong. i agree completely -- the point that i was trying to make is that they are the first amendment to hurt -- to her, and she saw clearly that the first amendment protected them.

>> i do not think it disproves or dispels the concern about her impartiality, but i will acknowledge it. >> for most famously, she is known as the savior of baseball, for the 1999 -- 1995 injunction into the major league baseball dispute. what can you say about her activism or temperament for philosophy with baseball? >> i am a red sox fan. it is finally paying off. i really know their little about the decision, because i do not think it has helped us a lot. >> i'm also a big baseball fan, although i am an nationals fan now, so it is tough. i think that the discussion of her role in that case is part of the politics that rule out what will be in for the white house to say, oh, here is someone who

saved baseball. it could be the right or wrong ruling. if it is right, a sheet could be credited for that, expected to do her job. if wrong, she should be criticized. >> as hearings get under way before the senate judiciary committee, what should viewers look for and listeners listen for four questions from senators in terms of indications of judge sotomayor's judicial temperament and philosophy as they watch these hearings? >> well, the hearings have a theater to them, with questions bouncing back and forth from one side of the aisle to the other. i think you will see in the opening statements by the senators, which probably take up the first afternoon, these teams are developed by each side, by various senators. so i think that you will see democratic senators doing what they can to try and doubt the

strong points from her record and the concerns republicans have, and republicans will finally get answers from her relative to what is the role of the courts, and what will she do to be impartial and embrace the traditional view of the judge. >> what is one case you would like to ask her about? >> one thing about her i find disturbing is in a case called brown versus the city of oneonta. there's a long background, the question basically involves whether police officers can be sued for violation of equal protection how they go about acting on a racial identification of criminal suspects. she joined in dissent from the

denial of the hearing, an opinion that seems to go pretty far them having the second- guessing of liability in a way that would really impair protecting the neediest folks. some concern about that -- it seems to me that she is using equal protection as a bludgeon. it is in a way that is inconsistent with the voicing of deference to the political process. >> i want to wrap up with you and your thoughts about the hearings coming up and what cases would like to ask her about the most. >> there is a little bit of theater. but there's also an opportunity for her supporters to bring out what is terrific about her, and there is a lot there. she was amazing credentials and amazingly detailed -- a long

history of serving, so there is a lot to talk about. but i think it is also a chance for those who disagree with her to express disagreement and talk about what they should do. that is an important moment for the whole country and i'm always glad to see it. as for the case i think is worth discussing, there is a death penalty case. she did not issue a decision, but the new york times wrote a story about a 100 pages of transcripts in its death penalty case. as a personal matter, it is clear she is opposed or at least she took that position with an advocacy organization. maybe that was just for their benefit, but she took that position in her private life. as a judge, discussing the death penalty, she made it clear once again that she would follow precedent, that the death penalty could be constitutional, that the process had gone forward in york to provide for

it, and while she would be careful about how it was administered, to follow the law. >> amanda frost american university law school. thank you for turning us. >> supreme court nominee sotomayor's confirmation hearings begin monday. to see this program again or learn more about judge sotomayor, go to c-span.org and click on "america and the courts." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> live coverage of the sotomayor confirmation starts monday on c-span, c-span radio, and on the web at c-span.org. we will replay proceedings we can on c-span 2. and to the supreme court, on c- span.

>> booktv continues on c-span 2. sunday, books on the economy. financial editor david smith says the international financial collapse was predictable and is far from being over. finance year allan ross tells us how second grader beats wall street. a panel office talks about the economic crisis and what to do. and henry waxman on his 35 years in the u.s. house. afterwards, former congressman and msn b.c. host george scarborough -- joe scarborough. he is interviewed by peggy noonan. lots more books and authors of booktv. go to our website. >> sunday, a republican representatives michael burgess and bill cassidy, both medical

doctors, on health care legislation making its way through congress and what to expect before the august recess. >> the whole the deadline is driven by political purposes. tom daschle says that the reason the health plan of the clinton administration failed is because everyone listens to their constituents. a political process is driving something that cover 17%. i cannot look at a crystal ball, but i think the american people are smarter than they are presumed to be and planning representatives know now, which is why we have seen this faction nation. they want something different. so they are putting pressure up. >> sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. >> sunday, on president harry

truman and his decision to recognize israel. >> no one knew until may 14 what would happen. i do not know, we will have to see. but he said he would support a jewish state. >> sunday at 8:00 p.m.. listen online as a c-span podcast and on c-span satellite radio. >> this is public affairs programming. up next, the discussion on journalism and the impact of bloggers.