♪ host: and day two of judge sonia sotomayor's commission hearing. the 12 democrats and seven republicans to sit on the committee will each get 30 minutes to question her. well, what do you want to see asked of her? that is the question for this morning. you can also send us a message by twitter, cspanwj.

we'll get to as many of those as we possibly can. today in the paper is this picture from the hearings. you can see her sitting here. here are some of the people sitting with her. here is your brother juan luis, her mother, her stepfather, her nephews, her sister-in-law, her niece and over here is this judge. this president of the leadership of civil rights is here. this is the former director of the fbi in next to him as the vice-president of goya foods, and right behind him senator me nendez, and over here is a congressman from new york, and congresswoman, chairman of the hispanic caucus in congress.

then the white house lawyers are seated right here. those are some of the people in the camp of judge sonia sotomayor. you can see her nephews here taking a little snooze. "the new york times" lead editorial, questioning judge sonya said. some of her inclinations can be read from her numerous judicial opinions, but others cannot. the senate should assure itself that she recognizes the constitutional right to privacy and the correctness of the line of cases that includes row vs. wade. it should insure power, an area in which the court has put a critical role in recent years, and that she is respectful of congress' authority. they should also inquire into

her thoughts about access to the courts. the conservative majority has been using dubious interpretations of standing statutes of limitations and a similar doctrines to close the courthouse to litigates with legitimate claims. the senate should do its best to determine that she will not join this crusade. some republicans have every right to question her about issues on which they place high priority, including affirmative action, abortion, and gun rights. unfortunately, several republican senators began by suggesting that she is biased because of her ethnicity, gender, and background. the charge was based largely on a single comment she made about a latina judges special insights and it is unfair and at odds with her records. that is the lead editorial from this paper questioning judge sunset. what would you like to see ask for? on the democrats' line, you are at first.

caller: i think it would be interesting to build into her comments about a latino woman been more understanding of issues that might come before her. i think that is clear. at every supreme court justice that has been questioned in recent years has said something about how their background gives them insights into helping them make decisions. but what is even more important is the question, the ability of the ranking member of the committee to dare to question her about how she feels about racial matters and those involving women and minorities. you're talking about the united states senator who was appointed to the supreme court and who was not confirmed because he is a racist, because it has been clear that he has been of get almost his entire career.

host: whom are you referring to? caller: the ranking member of the judiciary committee whose pitchers on the right now. yes, jeff sessions is a southern racist. if you look at his record in statements it is clear that he has always been a big hit, and to have been questioning her about this is the utmost in hypocrisy. -- he has always been a big bigot. host: gertrude in harlem, good morning. caller: good morning, i would like to say that at the age of dinosaurs i have lived to see a great president appointed who is

the president of all the people. i believe it is the first time in history we have had a president who is trying to be the president of all the people. now he has nominated a lady who is superb. she is superb in all categories to fill the qualification of the supreme court. and how dare anyone say that this is reverse discrimination when the firefighters were appointed -- overturned. now that must have been

discrimination all these years for you to say reverse discrimination. what they're asking the supreme court to overturn the judge's ruling -- bair saying i'm going to put a ball and chain around this person's leg and put it in the race with this person, and i'm going to allow this person to run for hundreds of years this race, and given this front runner all the aspects to education and everything while i keep the ball and chain around this person. host: gertrude? caller: wait just a minute.

when the white person has accomplished everything and has reaped all the harvest of the labor of a black man, then you cut the ball and chain loose and say i judge you if you cannot reach the qualification of this person. that is what you are asking. ok? now what you want to ask me? host: miss gertrude, you said you were 95 years old. could you tell us a little about you and your life? caller: well, i am 95 years old and was born in little rock, arkansas. i graduated from high school there in 1933. i just came back from a class reunion and only two of us are living.

we graduated in 1933. i came to new york. my father at the heights of depression wanted me to go to the universities somehow and managed to get me into fisk university. but i ran away and married in new yorker. and i came to new york. then i realized what my father was trying to tell me because i found that new york was the most prejudiced place in the world, the most hypocritical. but i found on 125th street you could not sit down at the counter. it was the same rules as in the south.

you got your hot dog there and had to walk down the street eating it. you could not go to the counter. all the big buildings, a nice buildings in harlem had signs on them saying vacancy -- white only. in the midst of harlem. i was shocked. at least in little rock and will be called the black belt if you put up a movie house of their you better not put up a sign white only, but that is what they had at the theater. we had to sit up in the balcony at the theater. host: all right, well i like to spend more time talking with you, but we have other callers. thank you very much for calling in and watching c-span. book to be will be at the harlem book festival next saturday, so please come to see us. hank in texas, democrat, what

would you like to ask judge sonia sotomayor? caller: thank you. first of all, i would like to tell the previous caller that i commend her and think she is awesome to be in her 90s, but i also like to tell her that i am a white man from the south and i am 46 years old and i promise you, ma'am, i had nothing to do with what happened with racism in this country. as far as -- what i would like to ask mrs. sonia sotomayor is about immigration and which you would do about that. -- what she would do about that.

i would like to know where she stands on my right to bear arms in this country. when people hear it put that way i know that people have a problem with it, but that is in the constitution and something i'm concerned about. thank you very much. host: glen tweets in -- caller: good morning, i have three comments here. i'm very upset that she is a member of la rasa which is a militant group of latinos called

"the race." our congress is a racist. it bothers me that this latino caucus is one of many such as the black caucus and the jewish caucus and i am sure there were a white caucus there would be hell to pay for it. about this man who spoke concerning immigration. i have called on senators. at my age i'm active in city politics. i am and r.n. and talk about coming from a background, i was born and raised on a farm in iowa without electric lights or running water. no telephone. i studied it through high school with a kerosene lamp and left home at 16 and work my way through my last year of high school. i married and my husband was a korean veteran. i became a registered nurse.

my husband went to five years of night law school to become an attorney. we have worked our way up from nothing. it is not just certain people or certain color. i am a white american. i'm very upset about these anchor babies. when i was nursing these illegal women would come to the doorstep to be delivered so that their baby could be an american citizen. host: what is your question for her? caller: what is she belonged to la rasa and this other put to rican group? i think it is being an activist against my race and this country. host: the ceo of la rasa will be on this program at 9:00 a.m. to take your calls and answer questions about the organization. here is a call from connecticut. caller: of love to introduce my

mother to gertrude. she was 89 years old and because of her polish culture sheet co- chaired a scholarship for polish-american youth. what i would like to ask sonia sotomayor is to clarify the context of the wise latina woman. i believe that it was made at a conference on latino youth opportunity. if you are on the panel and are asked that it is totally in sync with the response she gave. i would love for her to be asked that question so that the context which i think is extremely relevant that is dropped through the floorboards be given some fresh airing so that people hear it again. the context is never brought up. how else would you answer

questions concerning a latino youth opportunity? i think the answer was totally in sync, but you have to give the context. host: on the independent line, do you think that race matters? when it comes to the confirmation of the supreme court nominee? caller: yes, and in a positive way. as i said, my mother cut-chaired scholarships for polish youth. i can tell you by my raising, half italian, have polish, coming up during the baby boomer where all of a sudden all these opportunities began to come, but still not quite there for women, yes, and has a big insight. it is like trying to drown a

different pair of prescription glasses. some see the world through one lens and other sit through another. and it adds to your peripheral vision. it is like having a car that all the sudden you can see not just 180 degrees, but 1360 degrees, and makes a positive difference. host: here is a message from twitter. this is from "the hill" newspaper this one of the most prominent hispanic republican says that the gop is going in the wrong direction and most changes tone on a range of issues. the portrait rican government said that the tenor adopted by some republicans particularly on the topic of illegal immigration

is a turnoff to the hispanic committee. he says the republicans are going in the wrong direction and we should be the party of hispanics. he added that there are no tourists coming from south of the border and that is the bottom line. silver spring, md., jane, would you like to ask? caller: i do not think i have anything to ask her. but i am on her said. i have the experience of bringing up a bright, cerebral palsy daughter in the days we did not have mainstreaming and had to fight for almost everything in education for her. my experience is a very different point of view on justice. my view on the average white male is that i think judge sonia

sotomayor is quite capable of answering any questions on that. host: each senator gets 30 minutes to question the judge today. one of those questioned her is senator john kyle, the whip for republicans in the senate. he is from arizona. here is a little from his opening statement yesterday. >> i respectfully submit that president obama is outside the mainstream in his statement about how judges should decide cases. i have practiced law for almost 20 years before every level. it includes the supreme court. never once did i hear a lawyer argued that he had no legal basis to sustain his client's position so that he had to ask the judge to go with his gut or heart. if judges routinely began to rule on the basis of their personal feelings however well- intentioned the entire legitimacy of the the judicial system would be jeopardized.

the question for the committee is whether she agrees with president obama's. judging. or whether she will faithfully interpret the laws and constitution and take seriously the oath of her prospective office. host: here is an analysis from "the washington post" where republicans walked a fine line in questioning sinise other. -- in questioning sonia sotomayor.

good morning. caller: i would ask if she will uphold the law. it is this country so screwed up that week to allow babies to be murdered in a mother's womb and allow it illegals in here. even when we catch them we do nothing about it. we have that the hispanic uprising, marching in the streets. they're not even illegal and are protesting in our country. it makes me very angry. i worked hard all my life. i have to pay for everything again. these people come over here illegally and did everything they want and then you say something to them and they call you a racist. will she uphold the law? the losses if you are illegal you have to be gone and shipped back. thank you very much. host: malcolm, a republican from

north carolina, you are on. caller: i would ask her why she will not answer the question. all they do, not only her, they just answer within the the panel wants to hear. i wonder why many of the democrats have their mind made up already? it seems to me like i would hope the republicans would really grill her, showing her proper due respect, and really dig into things the way democrats do. they borged the one judge before he even got a chance. if a single republican votes for her i am changing my party to an opinion. i had already been leaning that way. but if one single republican votes for her i'm changing my affiliation to independent. host: "the washington post" says that she pledges stability to

the lot, that is the headline. here is your comment. >> throughout my 17 years on the bench i have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of anyone litigant. but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice. in the past month many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. simple. fidelity to the law. the task of the judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law. and it is clear, i believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, according statute's according to their terms, and congressional

intent, and holding faithfully to precedents established by the courts. in each case i have applied a lot to the facts at hand. host: "the washington times" has almost the same headline. district heights, md., a democrat. caller: listen, what is really upsetting me is that i'm listening to the democratic and republican senators who act like they're so concerned about the constitution and rule of law. we can look back of the last six or seven years in the constitution was used as a doormat for the white house. but now all of a sudden they're so concerned about the constitution. it is upsetting for me for them to think that we as the american people are really that stupid that they can play this kind of came on us.

when president obama said she would be a woman who would be empathetic, and most people would research on their computers the last seven years worth of decisions by the supreme court, they will see that the court really ruled on the side of the common american. it is as if the american people had no say so and only big business came out on top. if you look at those decisions, and when the president made the decision he was simply saying, here is a person with the ability not only to be human, but to understand how to apply the law and look at it from the perspective of the common american and how will affect their lives. that is why the statement she made is so apropos to what the president said. but these republicans are trying to say she would judge the court by her feelings. that is not what she will do she

just says she recognizes the small people of america need someone to speak for them on the supreme court because it has not been the case in the last 10 years. host: canton, ohio, good morning. caller: i would like to say that i think the judge would be a fair judge. her remark as a woman latina was done in a joking way because we have always had all whites on the judicial panel. i do not think that she meant it as a racist comment. i just think she meant it as she came up the hard way. not with a silver spoon in her mouth. that she can relate to some of the people and the decision she would have to make.

host: on the line for democrats from georgia, would you like to ask judge sonia sotomayor? caller: everyone has taken my question here. i think she should be able -- i'm sure there will ask her about that comment. i think it is just the nine. -- benign. she has been in all the senators' offices. they have all of her paperwork. they know what she is about already. so why we wasting taxpayer dollars having these hearings? they should just go into a boat and go turn in. host: do you think there should

have been the case with previous nominees? caller: yes, because they were all, there were all -- who knows how long they had to sit in these offices answering questions from senators privately? these hearings are just like grandstanding. that is what i think. not only on the side of democrats, but with republicans and independents. i think all these hearings any more are just grandstanding. host: thank you for calling in. a republican from illinois, good morning. caller: first of all, this is for the callers who said that the court has always been white/black.

judge thomas was not white. host: she was referring to the judiciary committee, i think. caller: the purpose of the hearings is so that we the american people can find out what is going on and contact our representatives. and we can let them know how we feel about that. host: what is your question for her? caller: i do not think she will be asked what she needs to be asked. nine it out of 10 of her rulings that have gone to the supreme court have been overturned. that is quite a few. host: senator sessions made opening comments yesterday. >> i will not vote for and the senator should, and individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, produces to persuade parties before the court.

in my view such a philosophy is disqualified. such an approach to judging means the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. collet empathy, prejudice, or sympathy, but whatever it is it is not law. and truth is more akin to politics and politics has no place in the courtroom. host: today's confirmation hearings begin at 9:30 a.m., two hours from now. at that time if you go to our website you can watch it there, but the house will come into session and we will switch live coverage to c-span 3. you can still listen to radio and you can also watch it on line. if you go to c-span.org, and the center of our home page is all littleicon that says

"confirmation hearing" and you will find it c-span is control room and can watch any of the four cameras we have going on in that hearing room. you can click on the camera. they are not up yet here on the red. but you will be able to click on one of those four and watch the head shot of the sonia sotomayor, the committee shot, or the c-span shots. good to c-span.org and click on the confirmation hearings and you can follow along. long island, a democrat, what would you ask? caller: first like to ask something of you. you just had jet sessions on, rattling on, and there was a lovely man who called in earlier telling what a racist he was. but he did not say any examples.

in the last two days there have been newspaper articles and stories on tv telling what i can only call filth that has come from that man's mouth in the past. the most awful kind of racist filth. i wish that with all of your research abilities that you would just play a little bit of it or reported on the air. because it is unbelievable that he is allowed to question anybody. he was definitely turned down for his previous appointments because of the awful, awful racism that had come from his mouth. that is my request for my beloved c-span. now i'm calling with a special comment. many callers have mentioned that she said "the wise latina" and i would like to put that in the most recent and profound context. when she said that several years ago she had no idea of a case

that would appear before the supreme court and the winter of 2009 when after years of winding its way through the lower courts the case of a girl now 19 -- 19 years old, but she was then 13 years old, and when they were checking who had gotten some kind of drugs and her little middle school the principle to occur in the office and closed the door alone and had two female staff members and an assistant principal and guidance counselor, they had this little girl strip at age 13. they did not call her mother. your republican viewers had said it better not. i want the government to stay out of our life. well, the government should stay out of your child's underwear. they made her pull her little training bra -- host: if you could come sylvia,

go to your question. caller: then made hurst walked with her underpants of the could see underpantsibuprofen popped up. host: we will have to move on. we will go to an independent in connecticut. caller: good morning. i would like to find out ijudge sonia sotomayor's feelings about the freedom of speech. the supreme court in the past has held the rights and privileges of everything from neo-fascist, nazi party, and even larry flint. yet, i heard that she had denied a bridge, completely shut down the case concerning the school

system here in connecticut. being very familiar with that case, i think this is a point of great concern. host: here is a message from twitter. center than 2 gram, a republican from south carolina sits on that committee. here is part of his opening statement. >> unless you have a complete meltdown you will get confirmed. [laughter] and i do not think you will, but the drama being treated here is interesting. my republican colleagues who vote against you, i assure you could vote for is manifor a hisc

nominee, but they feel unnerved by your speeches, some things you have said, and some of your cases. having said that, i do not know what i will do yet, but i do know that you as an advocate for the puerto rican defense fund, that you took on some cases that i would have loved to have been on the other side. that your organization advocated taxpayer-funded abortion and said in a brief that to deny a poor, black woman medicaid funding for abortion was equivalent to the dread scott case. that is pretty extreme to say, but i think it was heart fell. i would look the other way. to take my tax appeared dollars and provide an abortion to pay for one i disagree with is pretty extreme. host: a democrat from milwaukee, good morning. caller: good morning. i have two things i want to ask.

i want to know why we came from the puerto ricans, latina, has been a committee on her nomination. just to say congratulations. i think she will get the nomination. i would like to know if she would visit a longstanding issue of reparations for the african- american and united states. i want to know if you make a comment. how she feels about that? host: all right, thanks for calling in. and some other news, here are articles from this morning. this is a follow-up from a story yesterday. it concerns the cia.

a secret cia initiative and acts by leon panetta examine how to assassinate members of al qaeda with hit teams on the ground. the goal was to assemble teams of cia and special operations forces and put bullets in the heads of al qaeda leaders. the plan was never carried out and mr. leon panetta canceled that effort on the day he learned of it. the next day heeler the congress which did not know about the plan. the agency has not discuss publicly the nature of the effort which remains classified. the paper reported on monday that the effort stems from a presidential order dated september 2001 that directed the cia to find ways to kill or capture al qaeda leaders. that was the store yesterday and this was the follow-up. this morning in the politico, obama 6 boost in michigan manual attempt to spark renewed

confidence in his economic agenda tuesday in this state with widespread suffering. this trip to a community college provides the opportunity to regain footing, we focus his message, and restore momentum. it seems to have stalled amidst a flurry of competing issues. speaking of the cia investigation, this is from the hill newspaper. with the blessing of nancy pelosi, democrat push ahead with the probe of cia. house democrats are pushing ahead with plans to hold a series of hearings vista getting instances in which intelligence officials may have misled members of congress. the website is thehill.com. palm beach, fla. cannot what would you like to ask?

caller: of like to congratulate judge sessions for having the nerve to make a strong statement as he did yesterday. i'm not concerned that this woman is latina, or that she is a woman. where is she going to stand on the strong issues? our country is in trouble right now. it is in a horrible state. she is in her early 50s and will probably set on the supreme court for the next 25 years. if she does not make the right decisions, if she does not stand up for the constitution, if she begins to change the laws of the country because of her own personal political views, i believe it is one of the big nails and the coffin -- in the coffin of the united states.

what is her view on abortion? what is it on homosexual marriage? no one has yet asked this. host: john, on the independent line from richmond, virginia. caller: i would like to ask what she feels about the line of questions that the republicans will ask and my concern is that if she has been a justice for 17 years and they have not found anything they can actually bring up and ridicule her about, other than maybe the last issue that came up about a firemaen -- i do not see how they could possibly continue to attack her based on her personal issues.

she is for the most part in 17 years, has gone for many trials. if the republicans have something they would already have brought it up. i hear a lot of things pertaining to race and her personal opinion. it seems even though she has a strong opinion she has not used it to judge negatively against anyone. my question would be to her, why would these republicans continue to keep attacking her on personal issues? even if someone were to be a negative person, with a negative personality, they could still do the job required they still attacking her? host: in "the washington times"

the 2009 u.s. budget deficit surpasses $1 trillion. there are still three months ago in fiscal 2009. this is the report from the treasury to permit. during the first nine months of the fiscal year, the federal government are more than 40 cents for each dollar spent. here is some political news this morning from "roll-call" -- no. 1, rubio is being endorsed by former house majority leader dick armey and the race against gov. crist.

senator chris dodd raised more than $4 million. here concerning this candidate, van tran announced to raise about 2 minute $50,000 down in the orange county area of california. a republican from south carolina, good morning. caller: i like to ask her what her favorite color is. host: will go on to a democrat in austin, texas. what is your question ,vivian? caller: how would not let the republicans that the questioning. i want to know how she feels about corporate rights. how she feels on environmental issues. that is whypalin had to leave office because when the right wing supreme court said it was ok for that mine to dump sludge

into the pristine lake -- if alaskans are anything, they are environmentalists. if a governor will allow a a gold mine to done something in their pristine lakes, they will get rid of her. but abortion is a single issue, so our gaze. i want to know how she feels on the rights of corporations and on environmental issues. host: thanks for calling. an independent from cape canaveral, what is your opinion? caller: been at the defendant of founders with even a mayflower and my family tree, i wonder if because she was raised where she was her whole focus seems to be in new york city's style-type of things. i wonder how she interprets

southern people. are we slave owners to her? are we racist? like the other woman who call in about senator jeff sessions? i do not see the issue will represent my conservative views and how i feel about things. really i do not. host: obama prods lawmakers in a meeting on health bill. this is from "then york times" -- after a week-long overseas trip mr. obama moved aggressively to reclaim control. he summoned top democrats to the white house to urge them to stick to his legislative timetable. he wants them to pass bills before the august recess. he said "i just want everyone on notice because there was a lot of chatter during the week that i was gone," he said.

he said that they want to get this done and inaction is not an option. he said for the naysayers and cynics do not bet against us. we're going to make this happen because the american people desperately need it. good morning ,caller. caller: goodman. i want to know how the judge could rule -- good morning, how the judge could rule on the new haven firefighters' case so quickly and write such a short brief, a paragraph on such an important case. i would also like to say to thenut sylvia the call then about my center, judge sessions, what he is doing is spilling a lot of nonsense because when he was up in front the things he said were nowhere near racist. it was all taken of context. she needs to do more research. host: n.y., an independent.

caller: my question is, why it is she's so in her views based upon affirmative-action? the thing that upsets me is the fact that here we are at the dog and pony show with the questions when the senators know the confirmation is already settled. half of these guys do not read the bills that go before them like the tarp legislation. then they get so into her face when they do not even do their jobs, whether the congressional people or the senators. they are not doing their jobs. it is upsetting because this country is going down the tubes. this was just a show. it is disgraceful. i'm also upset that obama comes down and says this will get done

in this health care bill. host: this morning and "the new york times calls " the administration seeks to restrict antibiotics and livestock. the obama administration said it would seek to ban many routine uses and farm animals and hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans. the written testimony to the house rules committee had the principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs said feeding antibiotics to help the chickens, pigs and cattle done to encourage rapid growth should cease. they said farmers should not use them without the supervision of a veterinarian. catherine in dallas is a democrat. caller: my question would be to have her speaker mind. all these people are calling in. if you have never been black or hispanic you have never run the country.

now all of a sudden caucasian males feel a threat. they tell us to pick ourselves up by the book stops -- bootstraps. she should not be ashamed. if they want to harp on her, let them. well, our interests have been on the back burner for years. i do not see why she should be ashamed to speak about her experiences in the chino's how much and just as there is. why all of a sudden are they having a problem? -- she knows how much injustice there is. with affirmative action, and wouwe do anything anyone else ss they have a problem with. i think she should speak up and speak of. host: and july 20 probably watch the moon landing if you were

around at that time. families were crowded around black and white television sets in 1969 to watch the first steps on them. now they will be able to watch the apollo 11 mission recreated in real-time on the web and followed twitter feeds of transmissions between mission control and the spacecraft, and even get an e-mail alert when the lunar module touches down. those are part of a new web site from the john f. kennedy presidential library and museum commemorating the moon mission and mr. kennedy's push to lend americans their first. it goes live just after 8:00 a.m. on thursday, 90 minutes before the 40th anniversary of that launch. joshua, republican from kansas city, missouri. caller: my first comment would be that a racist is a racist.

some of her statements have made my skin crawl. i believe the entire senate needs to be put on to trial for racism. here in kansas city i seek reverse racial discrimination all the time. i would like to ask her where she stands on the term "illegal immigration clause " and what she plans to do. we have millions of dollars going abroad from here and we are in a major recession. it does not look better anytime soon. with a person from a suede decision on a racist view, she's supposed to be completely unbiased to the constitution and our lightrights.

these are not party things, but these are human rights we should uphold. how will she opel this if she has a biased opinion -- how will sheuphold this? host: speaking of landing on the moon, the second man on the moon ,buzz, will be a call-in guest on this program on sunday. here is a story concerning the auto task force leader stepping down in the wake of general motors and chrysler having exited bankruptcy protection. he will be replaced byron bloom who is a former investment banker. mississippi, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning.

thank you for having me. i am watching the show and sometimes it makes me upset, and sometimes they're good things. i'm from the south. this center called in from alabama -- we know what is happening here, but we cannot let race -- all the questions and comments have been raised concern race. anything that obama appoints the republicans will go against, and vice versa. it is time now for this. we have four wars going on.

the biggest one is in the white house. we're not going to get anything whether good. if you do not do anything and you are in the dungeon you will never get out. host: put that into a question for the judge? caller: i would tell her to just be yourself and be fair. no one is without fault. he who is without fault cast the first stone. the question coming from the people -- need to check themselves before they start to point fingers at sonia sotomayor. give her a chance. i think she would do a good job. host: obama's plan to close guantanamo faces legal and logistical hurdles. with six months left, the obama administration is struggling with problems that are casting a cloud over his pledge to close the detention center at guantanamo bay. as of this week, lawyers reviewing each case have completed the initial selling

process for only about half of the total went on a population. but officials said that by october they said they expect to complete the initial evaluations, determine who could be transferred, prosecuted, or detained without charges. at the same time they're trying to decide who should be sent to detention centers in the u.s. for prosecution, who would face charges in federal criminal courts. the rules have not yet been completed. in addition to the detainee task force two other administration groups are reviewing guantanamo issues. one consider legal changes and the other considers changes to interrogations policy, although mr. obama has already forbidden many of the harshest tactics authorized under the bush administration. the two policy groups are expected to submit their recommendations by july 21.

the next phone call comes from pensacola, fla. on the independent mind. caller: thank you and good morning. my question is for a particular case, the case fortrou troy anty davis who is being sent to the death chamber for crime i believe he did not commit. i just wanted to know how she would feel about this. also, i have a great deal of respect for judge sonia sotomayor and think many comments made by republicans this morning have revealed a

great deal of fear they have for change. i think it is getting in their own personal way of their own personal growth and they need to grow up. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate host: it obama's belfort veto it set aside for f- 22 stays. he placed political capital on the line and reiterated his threat to veto a military spending bill unless the senate removed 1.7 $5 billion set aside to buy seven additional fighter jets. he stepped up his campaign after liberal democrats said they supported the purchases, arguing the program would retain high-paying jobs in many districts. the world's costliest fighter jet is the most prominent weapons system that mr. obama wants to cancel or cut and his

plan to rein in military spending. a vote by the senate to keep producing it would be an embarrassing setback for him. there are plans to accelerate testing for a new plan designed to attack ground targets. the pentagon say that the fighter jet contested it is hard to maintain. but republicans say that more f- 22s are needed as a hedge against countries like china. a growing number of democrats are questioning what the president would let such high- paying union jobs go. the last call for this first hour is from kimberly, a republican in kentucky. caller: yes, my question for the judge, and i know what has been a lot on racism this morning,

but the problem is, if a white man had said that statement she made, the naacp and everyone would be up in arms. i'd like to know what she can make those statements and then expect to sit on the supreme court? if i were ever to have to go to the supreme court, you are right, i would be scared. would to be willing to say, throw her in jail? we will not overturn this? even though it is a bad ruling because i am white? we have the negro college fund -- that is racism. host: one more time, if you go to c-span.org you will be able to watch the hearing online. it begins at 9:30 a.m.. we will carry it here on c-span, but when the house comes into session we will have to go to the house. the coverage will switch to c- span 3. . .

about her confirmation hearings with jess of the "wall street journal" then we're going to switch topics and talk about health care. then we'll talk to someone from

the ways and means commee and janet will be here to take your calls. we'll be right back. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing for sonia sotomayor continues this week on c-span 3, c-span radio and on the web at c-span.org. and we'll replay the proceedings weeknights on c-span 2 and coming this fall tour the home of america's highest court, the supreme court on c-span. >> how is c-span funded? >> half million dollars. >> private donation? >> consumer-funded, i guess? >> viewer-funded? i don't know. private contributions? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable

companies created c-span as a public service, a private initiative, no government mandate. no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. >> supreme court correspondent, good morning. guest: good morning. host: any surprises yesterday? guest: really only one and it wasn't a huge surprise, the candor of lindsay graham the republican of south carolina he had an sbror new clothes moment saying bar ago meltdown judge sotomayor would be confirmed and then spelled out the real battle lines for these hearings which is the difference between liberal and conservative approaches to the law. host: what would a meltdown actually be? what would jeopardize judge sotomayor's chances of living through this sfloss guest: i think if she were to

stand up, take the cast off her leg and hurl it at one of the senators. if she two or not understand one of the questions and answer completely in spanish. it's almost hard to imagine that someone who is as experienced as she is a federal judge whose been through senate confirmations twice before and who has had a number of high-profile positions would not know how to deal with this one. obviously the stakes are much greater, the attention new higher and stakes much greater. . host: dental kratz line and republicans line and independents line you can also email us at journal or send us tweet on twitter at c-span/wj. what was your feeling in the --

we are at twitter.com/cspanwj. >> guest: they use the the same room, the cast of is all the same there are fewer republicans around and we have a different type of nominee. i think there was somewhat less tension in the room than there was in the case of john roberts and sam alito because the outcome is even less a mystery this time. the senate was more closely divided when roberts and alito were nominated. more over initially the thought was that they would be replacing justice sandra day o'connor who was considered at the end of her term a swing justice, a judge who sometimes

decided with conservatives and sometimes liberals and sometimes carved out a path of her own. so with the stakes were considerably higher if it were going to be a solid conservative as president bush alleged pledged to appoint. this time we had justice david suitor and justice sotomayor would be exceeding him so with the assumption she would likely carry on his view of the law the stakes are somewhat less intense and if it were a member of the one of the five conservatives on the court which could really change things there. host: so with chairman patrick layy have vermont and how influential are they in the tenor of these proceedings? and did you get a sense

yesterday of how they were kind of going to run the show? guest: well, yes, even senator sessions who is the leader of the opposition noted that senator leahy was going to follow the same foremats they used with roberts and alito meaning that that they would get to talk for 30 minutes each and asking questions of judge sotomayor. they each got 10 minutes yesterday to lecture them on their views of the law. and lecture them, so to speak. so the format, it will be, i think, very, very predictable for people who have seen these before. if they haven't it's interesting to watch how these two branches of play come into it. the supreme court sits across the street from the capital but justices do not interact

directly with the lawmakers and vice versea except very rare things like the state of the union address. here you have a situation where one gets to tell the other exactly what they want. 57bd that could be an illustration as to the wheels of our justice system. >> good morning, jackie. >> good morning. yes. i want to ask the guest, you know, i just get the sense that this whole thing about judge sotomayor's radicalism, things like that. i just think the conservatives are masking this really as a race issue and against president obama. what is your feel? and how do you think the nation is going to react to this? i think there's such a divide now. like another call said earlier, this is the final nail in the coffin for white people. i think they just want to keep

total control, and it's like they don't want to get anybody else any chance to do anything, and i just think it's going to be a racial revolution, and it's getting worse. and what is your thoughts? thank you. guest: well, the -- this nominee as has been well noted is the first latina nominee to the court. the third woman on the supreme court and therefore her background in contrast of that in the proceeding 110 justices is something people are very much aware of. but i think that too, again, refer back to what senator graham said yesterday, more than it's really about race, i think about the deference between rib lals and conservatives and how they see the law. mentioning the candidates that

they had blocked for philosophical reasons not for any racial prejudice. so they enassisted that if you'd had a conservative latino or african-american candidate, you know, the democrats might not have supported that person. in fact, the most conservative member of the court right now is an african-american, clarence thomas. so i think the reason that the race issue has come into play with justice sotomayor is because that is where republicans have seen an opportunity to criticize her ruelings and that's what they have seized on with some of the off the record comments she made. and at any educational fund if it had been a wyatt candidate that president obama selected

or a male candidate that president obama selected, i think we would have seen perhaps a focus on some different issues, but equally intense hostility from republicans. host: they mom -- the opening statements featured frequent clashes between democrats and republicans over the proper role of judges and empty. barak obama has said he's seeking in his court nominees. >> imp think dealing with that when it was ter she didn't even use the word everyone thee in empathy in his statement. and the empathy question is one where i think the president pretty much stands by himself. it's not one word that people on the right or left or middle have invoked frequently when

talking about the law or one particularly associated with judge sotomayor or any of the democrats on the judiciary commee. it is something that is peck already with the president and we'll see fit caps on much as the concept dignity did when justice brennan and chief justify underlying principal that the constitution protected. everyone think, we're giving a trial run this time. host: lorraine joins us. good morning. chris: good morning. i have comment. and the comment i have, and then i will follow with a question, is all i have heard is political divisions.

in our country, that is promoting racism. i've heard from viewers, nothing but angry, racist big two-fisted comments. whites, blacks, hispanics and everyone in between are pitting against one another. and this is bringing about a destruction of our country. host: certainly the debate this morning people had been bringing up race quite a bit. are you hearing that discussion on the hill right now? is race really a factor? >> well, i think it's been said racism is the original sin of the united states. the country's founding and incorporating slavery was an issue that has continued to haunt the unite ever the way

that society has developed. but i think more specifically there's a particular issue when it comes to dealing with rationism and the way the the courts have had to deal with it. and on the supreme court there's a stark difference between the way the liberals and conservatives view the proper way to respond to the country's legacy of racial division. for the conservatives on the supreme court, and that is five members of the court, the way it's to ear aphrase around the way to stop dividing us by race will be to symptom dividing us by race. even for reasons local school boards think are beneficial, he think it is act of classifying or taking a count of say a student's race is by itself a pernicious act and should only be done in the most rare

circumstances, perhaps to remedy, you know, a seg gated school system. for the liberals on the court. they take a different view. their vufmente one part of the justices said in the past that to get past racism, you have to take account of race. you can't just clothes your -- close your eyes to this history and that different racial groups were treated differently and the way to get to a place where you have some racial quality and that's to take steps now. and that division about really the best way to deal with the country's legacy is something that comes up again and again at the supreme court. it was most dramatically shown a couple years ago when the court split over the meeting of brown versus the board of education, the case that ended school segregation. that decision was unanimous by

the supreme court. but the court split 5-4 to say whether it means we have to have pure color blind school systems or whether it's appropriate to look at rays, let's thereon what the senator had to say yesterday about empathy. >> like the american people i have watched this properties for a number of years and i fear this empathy standard is a no another step down the road to a relativeistic world where laws lose their fixed meeting. americans have seen as members of separate groups rather than politicians walked to buy out private companies. so we've reach ad fork in the road, i think and their stark differences. i want to be clear. i will not vote for and no

senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to ference and impartiality toward every person who appears before them. host: well, there you saw senator jeff sessions the senator from alabama laying owe a pretty hardcore critique about what he doesn't like about jurisprudence today. and it's pretty ke much how -- they maintain the court's role in a number of area is out of line. and he cite ad number of cases that he specifically found to be wrongly decided as examples of what he demalled one point of the statement, a "brave new world." an image of how does he he cite

ad case where the court struck down a silent moment of prayer judge wallace supported. he cited more recent things he disliked that said detainees at guantanamo bay were entitled to challenge the unlawfulness in federal court. earlier in this decade striking down the death penalty for teen inch ears in particular because the court used a standard it had applied since 1958 where it looks at the practices of states and also sometimes to other countries in whether or not an execution is cruel and unusual. host: let's get back to the phones. we have wallace on the republicans line from fargo. good morning. chris: good morning. i just wondered why the republicans don't take a page out of the democratic playbook and send 100 lawyers or why

didn't they send is 00 lawyers to background. and disparaging remarks towards african-americans or caucasians or -- guest: well, they did send researchers and people looking through the archives of the puerto rican legal defense in new york and quite insistn't on getting ackdrose various materials that were related to her. her background, i think that republicans are in the minority, but i wouldn't say-the-lost their commitment to examining judicial nominees. i mean, they take this issue very, very seriously, and historically they've taken it more seriously than democrats. at least in their rhetoric and making ate political issue that they think appeals to a lot of

voters. >> did jake sit on my euro and elaborate a playbook of what someone says when they are up for this? guest: judge sotomayor was as boring as humanly possible to be with the possible exception of senator al franken who has a particular burried on the prove how dull he can be once he's in public office. her statement was 1 1/2 pages. environmently conscious white house printed on both sides of the paper so looked like one sheet of paper. you made some obvious ound bites once she said that her philosophy was fidelity to the law. hard to imagine that any judicial nominee would say my

judicial philosophy is betrayal of the law. no one would say that so to say you're going to be faithful to it is not really that much of a stretch. she tried to deflect the empathy charge a bit by saying at least what she means. if someone two or use the president's word against her, it means she's just a -- it helps her be a better judge. that helps her be in response for that. but as far as remembering lines for generations to come, i doubt anyone will remember them later than this morning. host: hi, ed. chris: thank you to c-span, the voice of the people. listen, i have a short anecdotal thing about the empathy problem, because here's the situation. if someone is riding down the road and they see a homeless person begging, if they look at

that person and say i feel so sorry for that person, they are sympathizing with that person but if they look at that person and they say i feel sorry for that person and i want to put myself in their predicament, i can see myself in their predicament. that's empathy and that's dangerous to the system and that's why all those republicans say you can't empathize with the people you're talking advantage of that's why they don't want empathy in this white house or with people, because if i do, they are going to try to do something about it. guest: well, one of the things that judge sotomayor has said and which some conservatives have criticized her about is that one's background and influencing -- influences and

cultural experiences and so forth affect the way that they might operate on the bench. and when she said that, it wasn't like she was making that up. there was a school of thought of academic school called legal realism which said the whole judicial enterprise is not something that happens in a lab they bring their own views whether and in other ways, perhaps, that's not always a bad thing. they call themselves realists because they say that's how it actually works, so you better figure out how to respond to that instead of pretending that the court system is somehow different from other human substitutions. it's entirety, obviously there's some difference there. but others's response was you

want to talk about empathy, well, let's look at the conservative at rode island said in every major case that's come up since he became chief justice john roberts has voted for the corporation, against the lawsuit/plaintiff, for the state of the condemned inmate, basically for the big powerful rich guy against the poor powerless guy, so he's got emphasis. host: joe joins us from long island, new york. chris: hello. caller: hello. i just want to say i think republicans are having a hard time getting those join their cause because she's going to be

their judge. she's basically saying -- she is going to get the job so why put her through this crazyness? they should worry about building their party up and stop trying to pick at every little thing democrats do. you know? it's sickening at times. host: what isal productive about this process? why do we do this? guest: one because senate is a proud institution and it's entitled to provide advice and before they rubber stamp anyone they are going to talk about how important it is they advice and consent. the caller brings up a good point the republicans have had a dilemma which is the chances of them actually derailing this nominee and getting someone they think represents their view of the law there's no way they are going to nominate robert work for the the supreme court so they can't win even if

they somehow can stop this nominee and by attacking this nominee, they further identify themselves as a party of white men, in fact all the republicans on the commee are in fact white men complaining that she said something mean about white men. i mean, that's partly their critique, so i think some republicans are concerned that by attacking her, someone in their assent to the high court would be to many who look at the supreme court who were not white men is a difficult place to be politically because here we have someone who went to princeton and yale and sbhn who has been a judge and prosecuting attorney, what more do you want? host: let's listen to what senator feingold has to say about judge sotomayor. >> a few lines from a 2001 speech taken out of context

have prompted some tom charge she is a racist. i believe no one who reach as whole berkeley speech could come to that conclusion it's actually a remarkable attempt to grapple with issues. how does a judge personal's experiences affect the judging? and she concludes her speech by saying the following. i am reminded each day that i owe them constant and complete vidges in checking my presumptions around to the extend ensuring my to the best my capabilities permit i -- as changes in circumstances require. these are the words of a thoughtful, humble and self awared judge trying to do her best to administer impartial elements. it seems to me that is a quality --

guest: i also think for those of us who watch the supreme court err day, there's a bit of irony because even if judge sotomayor is confirmed, the wisdom is that the supreme court will still move to the right because you're dealing with nine people and they have developed relationships over the years and at the moment when you've got a pretty solid group of four liberals and four conservatives just as anthony kennedy who sometimes deviates from the right holds the swing vote. for nearly 20 years he's been working with justice david suitor, a republican who joined the court a few years after he did and they have developed a relationship of now you have a new person joining the court and just by that fact someone who might be an influence on justice kennedy or whose views justice kennedy might take on their experience together is

gone, and whether the new, most junior candidate will have that kind of influence on the court, so we might see her a little less inclined to zwroin liberal block. host: from lake hurst, new jersey. caller: good morning. your guest with his somewhat saar castic comments regarding the hearing and just judge sotomayor, represents his bias and the bias of his newspaper. i wonder why your guest doesn't bring up the fact that senator sessions was turned down to be a federal judge by the judiciary commee committee because of his own biased of black people. can you comment on that,

please? thank you. guest: well, it's true that senator sessions who was a u.s. attorney in alabama was nominated far judge and didn't make it and one of the reasons was some statements he made that democrats said showed he was very insensitive to minority corns. concerns. that was nearly 25 years ago and he's not here as a judicial candidate, he's here as a leader of republicans than to committee so that's definitely part of his background. it's not a secret. if our caller knows about it then our effort -- he's made his views known and everyone in the committee knows his views as well. host: thank you for being with us jess bravin. guest: my pleasure. host: next talking about health care. let's take a look at what house speaker nancy pelosi had to say about the health care

legislation yesterday. >> if we do nothing, the cost of health care, for an average family of four will increase $1800 a year. this is the hardship for that family, a hardship for businesses and a hardship for our committee. it's a hardship for our budget. so we can not afford to do nothing. over the coming weeks congress will continue. working with president obama to make health care reform work for middle class families in america. we will be on schedule to do as we have planned, to vote for to legislation before we leave for the in the meantime we have a path to skk. success giving lowering costs and keeping your current doctor or plan if you like them, improving the quality of your care, putting doctors not

insurance tweans back in challenge. you'll hear from some of our opponents reforming health care says this is like putting government between you and your we are -- in doing so, we will provide stability and peace of the mind that people cannot be denied for preexisting conditions. and that people have portibility as they go from one job to the next, and they will not lead or lose should you lose your jobs. this is why it's so important to middle class families of america. host: congressman's sixth district in illinois. guest: i think the speak serp continuing to lay out plan and agenda. but what i think is more

interesting is looking at the things the speaker didn't say. strikes me there's a real difficulty the speaker is having in rolling out their plan. that is plan that if it's so fabulous, if it's so familiar and great like supposed to come out last week, last friday. we were supposed to see it yesterday, and now we're being told it's very indication that not withstanding sort of the bumper sticker language that the speaker uses to describe sort of truisms about the weakness of the system is that they are trying to roll it out and it's clearly becoming much more difficult than they anticipated. host: what's your role now in the republican party as it looks at health care. >> well, i serve in the ways and means commee that has

jurisdiction over 41. so the ways and means committee is expected to have a markup this week, and again that's been delayed in terms of timing. it was supposed to be a markup tomorrow but the sbill yet to be disclosed. it's yet benny -- guest: but what i am trying to do as i'm approaching health care is looking at several things, number one, making sure we enhance the doctor-patient relationship ultimately in our health care system think physicians practice medicine best when they are in close proximity of their patients not bothered by government or others. investing in medical innovations so we as americans get the break throughs we need, the ore thing is to focus in on the number of uninsured.

we're told there are many uninsured. 23u drill down into that number, you find out why that is technically true at the time that number was asked, it will maybe get into that in some of the calls, and then finally publishes have a right to know. that publishes understand where and how their health providers, waste their background? how successful are they? those are some of the things that we need to focus in on. >> our topic is health care and how health care legislation may shape up in the house, you can call us with your comments and questions for our guest, peter. you can email your comments at

journal@c-span.org or -- it says one advantage for the president, 1/3 of those surveyed said they trust him and congressional democrats most when it comes to changing health care compared with 10% who choose congressional republicans and 45% trust doctors and hospital it is most. what do republicans need to do to get out their goals on priorities? guest: well, you're seeing this within the past couple of days here in washington, d.c., there's at least 10 physicians who are republican members of the united states congress who are being very vocal and outspoke on their concerns as et relates to the president's plan particularly for a public option on health insurance and see that as a prelude to a single-payor system and they

have a cereal great deal of credibility. i have met with over 150 physicians who are equally concerned about the public option. even this morning i exchanged emails with one of the doctors who is a policy person. but i think it's interesting if you look beyond some of the polling where the president seems to be slipping especially in a key state like ohio where his numbers now have dropped below 50%. i think it is in part due to the high expectation it is president created during the campaign and his inability to deliver on actual things that make a difference to most americans. what they see is run away spending and they are not seeing the stimulus they thought they would see and they are not see ago wise energy policy they thought they would see or the type of health care system they are shoping to --

in hair roled what was the message you heard from them? guest: well, the message really from the physicians who dame, and this is about 150 physicians who came out in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, and they were extremely concerned about the public option. remember, these are physicians who have been practicing -- and over the years i think what many doctors have communicated to me that the joy of practicing medicine has been robbed from them based on how the government ends the to get too involved and undercompensate them in so many area so in terms of physician compensation if medicare or med caced is busy, i am very wary about another big government program that comes in and reports the save the i've been disappointed by the government at almost every turn, and no

conversation that the president is willing to have about changing the liability system so, there will be a continuation of practicing defensive medicine and these are professionals and people that care for us that really feel greatly exposed right now. host: joe joins us this morning from the republican line, joe? caller: yes. hi. i just had a comment around i was wondering what guys thought about it. i think the smartest thing would be in, you know, instead of just acting out on these crazy plans or something if they would test it out on a county for a couple months and see how everybody's working and maybe they could tweak it out that way instead of just throwing it out there, give it a chance to work somewhere, somewhere small, you know? guest: joe, you make a good point in that 2007 benefit of a federal system, the benefit of being able to stage different types of things and they are

seeing in this community over it's something that took place in wisconsin originally and began to bubble up and control that area a massive program the likes of which you can never pull back from, why don't we creep and crawl and walk so we keep the elements that are good and robust but try and strengthously training cost and accessibility to launch joins us from alan hurst, new jersey. caller: good morning. and good morning congressman. guest: good morning. grip my personal doctor, my general practitioner, he also no he had toive up private

practice and join a group because it required a staff of 15 to deal with the paperwork involved until dealing with private companies. i' him alloted with about 10 pents per basis. we are all one catastrophic incident away from living like that. and the cost is skyrocketting because the private insurance companies are i think the only industry that can fix prices. our cost of health care ince insurance when price is mentioned to cadillac coverage. my scoverpblg no bigger or better than -- with a public

option as with president obama says, that will keep the private companies honest, and give competition, which all good conservatives believe in. in free market and competition. guest: jane, i agree with you insofar as the notion of good, fair and robust competition is a great thing, and it creates good advantages. i come from illinois. illinois has a reputation as a state as it relates to insurance as comparatively good. now that's not to say that there is not great challenges. but for the most part, here's how -- and i think this is something the congressional democrats andors are unwilling to do. they are unwilling to have it come in and have the same caps ads private insurance company or they are unwilling to let it go according to the same state mandates.

if they go to new jersey, the health -- repeat after me so i think what we're seeing here is just a con but the government is not able to both compete and govern and be the referee in the system. and i think that's the real weakness in this approach. and the reason that the democratic leadership in washington and speaker pelosi is having such a tough time gathering support on this and why blue dog democrats are now writing public letters and joining one another and saying testimony -- donald: the reason they are communicate ago great reluctants is they've seen the past failures in medicare. look at the fraudulent piece alone. i would encourage you to go to

my website roskam.house.glove there's an estimate up there that up to 13% medical care costs is squabdered based on fraud and outright criminal enterprise. it is more lucrative to come up with a medicare fraud scam than it is to deal with cocaine or -- so we've got get ahold of the cost side of this thing. host: roger writes from twitter why do companies have to play a role in the health care reform debate? >> well, right now, here's the deal cat balance so i'm going to -- according to the loon group which has a reputation in washington for calling ballses and strikes and being a

non-profit organization. they predicted that if the president's plan and public from you wrigs on the health care side 120 million americans are going to lose their private insurance coverage. and the fact is that those folks who have coverage by and large tend to be comma satisfied. i'm not here telling you it's great but by the same token we've got to be careful of what we end up giving up. in answer to your question, i have. you're right. insurance carriers ought not to be table cherry pick. insurance companies ought not be able to deny folks pre -- host: on the independent line scott joins us from st. agustin, florida, good morning,

scott. caller: good morning. hey, peter, i was wondering, will you be willing to give up your congressional plan to go on to a private plan with an insurance company? i know you represent the insurance companies and they'll maybe give you a nice deal but why don't you try to represent your constituents the 70-plus voters out there that want a single payor system. you don't seem to be listening too well. i trent folks in chicago not to say there's not unanimity in that district but the overwhelming majority of folks i represent are very, very leary of a public plan. i recently held "congress on your corner" where i just go in and have a conversation with folks at a grocery store this took place.

and their response depens public plan was overwhelming. i mean, overwhelming. when i had 150 physicians in for the meeting we talked about a couple of minutes ago, the overwhelming majority 97%-98% of the physicians were digging their heels in saying don't do this to us. it's going to change medicine in the united states. look, here's the weakness of the public option. it's clearly a prelude to a single payor system so you've got combrers who, if given the option, will pay the 8% tax and shed themselves of all of the burden to really get out of the responsibilities. so from a cost at the same time point of view, which is why the lirne group says it's going to

be a single-payor system. if it's a single-payor system, then what we end up in is a canadian and uk model, they will not acknowledge beneficiary more in r & d than they do in canada. think about that, one american medical center and invests more in recent development that you and others -- how about the rates of serve and volleyibility in cancer. here in the united states 66% chance according to the lance et oncology study and that's a five-year study compared to the u.k. was let's not put our citizens at risk for the and

the plan still not able to disclose. host: from the republicans line, jerry caller: good morning. congressman i just want to encourage you and the republicans to be vigorous in our opposition to the ultimate sengal pay program, and it seems to me as i listen to the debate, the folks who have insurance who are in favor of the administration's proposal steem want to -- people tend to overuse insurance. when they have it. leading to an increase in costs . and health care is about the only arena where the individual payor doesn't negotiate their own pricing. when we go to buy a car, we negotiate for it. when we go to buy a home we

negotiate for it. we don't have an insurance company acting as an interimmediate area. when he will, they where we had high deductibles that allowed us to pay for it individually, our basic hair care needs and had catastrophic coverage for everything over that. it seems to me that, by its very nature would cause a decline because we'd be bargaining with the health care provider for a the cost of a filling, the cost of a check-up. guest: you raised an important idea with the price controls the government imposed after the war and so two employers started to try to compete for a new in terms of hi, i'll pick

up your the insurance relationship between the insured and the insurance carrier. we don't have this sort of irrational priceing in other aspects of insurance. we don't have this problem by and large or homeowners coverage or even life insurance. but for some reason health insurance has become irrational. the other component that has to be a part of this deal, it seems to me is that physicians have to be protected from lauts that tend to just drive up medical costs and practicing defensive medicine. and the president, with all due toronto him, when he came before the american medical association and gave his speech to the house of delegates, it just struck me as a pretty dismissive to complaints about the exposure that they have, and hi just kind of chatted them up a little bit, but he

ultimately didn't offer anything and that's one of the reasons i'm hearing from physicians in my district that they are very reluctant about following along this path. host: peter has also served in the illinois state house and senate, and i wanted to ask you about how to pay for health care in whatever form that change may take this u.s.a. article today talks about when it comes to financing the cost 6-10 favor combrers hoping to pay for their workers increasing -- is endorsed by 58%, just half support tacksing washington, to raise their taxes. and i think i ropetted now weir

having this conversation in the context of one of the worst resessions that our company hased in decades and in the context that promised sunshine and roses that it was going to peak at 8% if only the stimulus plan was going to be passed. no we've got a serious proposal that would increase the tacks burden on american citizens. even chairman renckal's number, if you look at doctor christina row mercy annual jiss of that type of task before she was tamer of notify that the "wall street journal" does a good job today. characterizes that as anti-estimatelative. nortsdz, that tacks burried than chairman that tax burden that chairman wrangle is

talking about is going to have an impact on small businesses. it's both of those that wide -- well, look, i think one of the things that i am most interested in is what is it that the democrats want to do? they have -- they are now arguing in the alternative. so they've got a proposal that's out there. and the scoring, the original scoring that we heard about took everyone's breath away. $ .5 to $1.6 trillion. and i think that is one of the area that suggests, you cannot create this new middle class entitlement, because if you do, it will be a crushing burden on the american public. host: our next caller is on the democrat's line calling from ox word, pennsylvania. good morning. >> and thank you for c-span. we watch it every morning.

caller: i don't know exactly how to put this but you talk about the medical problems and we were forced into medicare, because our private insurance company, which was blue cross, their rates just went up every year and your copays were up along with it. so we were forced into medicare, and even with that with the is up pleasantry you had to buy, the supplemental pays what medicare don't pay. and my wife is suffering with a health problem where just 21 pills was $5800 and it was a drug that was developed back in the 1960's, our doctor said it probably should have been like $40 because it's been on the market for so long but because it's supposed to help this

cancer, which it didn't, but anyhow, 21 pills was $5800. our co-pay was $3,800. and many times the person goes to the hospital, they are forced out by the insurance companies because they are in there for the length of time they think they should be, the doctor has no control over it. 34 times they are forced right back into the hospital because they had infections because they were sent home too soon, and it's supposed to be too costly yet they'll force you to do x rays and scans and then the mri. host: robert let's get a response from the congressman. guest: yes. thank you and you're actually portray ago real weakness within the system. up with of the things we've got to be table do is lower the entries of surns.

why sit we have laws in place that prohibit alumni associations or chambers of commerce or other groups to be table pool together and create their own market to go back against the insurance companies? i think you accurately state ad real problem, and i think that's one of the things that we can drive towards that doesn't jeopardize some of these other core principals that i mentioned earlier. host: tim from the independent line, tim? are you with us? i think we've lost him. we'll get him set up in a moment. in the meantime, what do you see happening over the next month or so? tight time lines here, do you think the republicans will be involved in the debate as democrats do craft this legislation? how lub in markup? >> well, i think we clearly

don't have a majority on the committee. i think this is literally changing hour-by-hour as we speak. i think -- let's take a step back and look at the context after a very controversial vote, the cap and trade bill or cap and text or depending on -- it was a real priority of the speakers. she went to democrats by -- story after story after story, and members went back to their districts and really, i think got an earful from a lot of folks that were very concerned about that. i think as we look back in months to come, that strategy of moving the cap and trade bill first will have been in error because if the priority was really health care the speaker used up a lot of good well with a lot of goodwill

with her members to get massive cap and trade host: on the republican line, mark from ash ford, virginia. caller: yes i want to say most americans and comrades to everyone these days because that's where we're leaning. the average or middle income on down will never get same care as the rich get where they can go to the mayo clinic but there's 36 million you know what i mean canada. we have 300 million in america. we have a trade deficit of 74 bile. that's per northern canada, so don't point me and say we want to be like canada. 4 -- guest: you're right, mark, and

the president and other pro poneents of the bill get defensive when you compare it to canada or the u.k. even some of the earlier callers who were proponents of the president's proposal disclosed it as a single-payor system. that's clearly the pathway and with all due respect to the white house, when the president during the course of the campaign when he said you want your private health care don't worry, you get to keep it. well, not if it's gone. .

>> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago american cable companies created c-span. new orleans government mandate. no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: january set president and ceo of the national county critical of la raza. first of all, describe the mission of your organization. guest: sure our mission is quite simple we wanted to create stunts for hispanics in the united states and our mission is to open the door to the american dream for everyone in this country including latinos. host: and what has your relationship been with judge sotomayor?

guest: watching her move through. she was a part of our organization from 1998 to 2003. host: and you endorsed her yesterday? guest: yes. because of the unique nature of this appointment and nomination and what it means for our community and the fact that she is uniquely qualified and overwhelmingly qualified for this position that we would endorse, frankly, typically we don't endorse federal judiciary nominees or supreme court nominees. that's rare for us. .

>> have these on an uptick in interest in your group? >> there's been a surge of pride in the latino community, and it is going across the country and it where rico -- puerto rico, and we have enjoyed a momentous occasion with the nomination. for the first time, people in our community will be

represented at the highest level of our court system. we obviously have followed many issues in our country, including civil-rights, so we are always interested in these kinds of conversations. host: give us a call. how much attention are you paying for these hearings, what are you looking for, our human are interested in the " roll out effect of restoring or equally interested in the content of what she has to say?

guest: i believe yesterday's hearing was a historic moment, and as a a member of the national organization, having the opportunity to talk to folks about what it was like and what it meant. we have seen very extreme comments, commentary made about her, not relevant to her experience or record. we were concerned that that might be the tone taken in the senate. that is not the case, and i appreciate those on the senate judiciary committee making sure that they have been respectful. i hope that will continue.

host: peggy from altoona, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have a question. i wanted to know if your organization is cooperating or coordinating with any other organizations right now to increase awareness regarding bias, not only to the issue of ancestral history, race, or creed, but so still the economic impact -- socio-economic impact. when i hear the word empathy used regarding the current nominations, it brings to mind a right-brained fuzziness, and i just want to know if you think

in your organization that many things labeled racists in this country today entered the realm of the socio-economic status. >> interesting question. anytime you delve into the interest of the issue of race today, is a complicated issue and there are many who believe that we have moved far enough along as a country where perhaps we no longer need to be race- conscious work -- or have any consciousness with regard to ethnicity. i think while we have made significant progress, the fact of the matter is that there is still a lot more to be done on the basis of race and gender and any other type of category like that.

i do think that it makes a point that when it comes to socio- economic status it is often times both lower-income communities and the work of families that tend to have difficulty moving forward, and i think there is still a requirement for opportunities to folks having access to intermission and knowledge and assistance that will help them to better move up that ladder and navigate the system and open more doors. we are 40 years old now. we have contributed greatly to opening doors for this country. the fact that there is still progress to be made among race

and ethnic groups requires many organizations like the nhl's epa -- naacp. caller: the latino community, you folks are welcomed in the white house, the naacp is welcome. if i had an organization called a white group, i would not be welcome anywhere. those laws demeaned the race? can you answer that for me -- does la raza mean the race. guest: no, it doesn't. in spanish, which have different meanings -- words have different meanings. it is the national council of the people, meant to be very

inclusive. i know some have interpreted that word to mean it is exclusivity, but that could not be further from the truth. certainly, our work and the records we have had a opening doors to opportunity and really creating great programs engaging in policy that advances the country in a way that is inclusive is our record. we run 100 charter schools and community based organizations across the country providing important support for education. we run a home counseling network that helps many families learned about buying their own home. we have health programs to help sick families with good information about nutrition and diet so they can become healthier.

there is a broad range and nature to our work and the work we have been involved in over those 40 years really reflects the fact that we have been an organization that has contributed mightily to the civil rights and other policy development issues. there is a lot of confusion about our name, but the reality is that it is coming from a term and often used in the early 1900's talking about the cosmic race, very much meant to mean hispanic people of the new world, and occlusion of a mixture of people from different races. host: activity getting ready in heart room to 16. the actual hearing will begin in

20 minutes or so. until then, we have our guest, president and ceo of the national council. let's talk to george, calling from ocala, florida. caller: yes, good morning. i have a very simple question given the controversy with the president now being black and with miss sotomayor and her supposedly racial gun -- comments, is it working? is the melting pot here working? you do not have to be long- winded. just yes or no. guest: we have certainly seen a

melting pot developed. some say it is a tossed salad. the question is, with the nomination of an american black president and a latina for the courts, there is an incredible debate about ethnicity. but the reality is, the fact we have success with these individuals, they are still having a lot of communities out there and individual families that are in search of that american dream and still struggling. look at the economy today to understand that the unemployment rates are actually much higher than other communities when you are talking about communities of color. we need to think about what that means not just for the sake of those communities but really for the sake of the country and repairing the entire economy.

so i think we definitely have demographics in this country reflecting that there is a change and there isn't more of a growing mixture of different communities of color. in the latino community, we have seen a growing demographic in the country. in reality, we need to face these issues for the interests of our country. we're really investing in the future of the country. host: c-span will broadcast live confirmation hearings this week, and you can still go online and click on our control room. you can see a bright camera angles and be your own director, taking in choosing what you want to watch.

it is all on c-span.org. you mentioned you were there yesterday. we talked to reporters and said it was standard procedure, nothing out of left field. but what did it mean to you to witness that? >> it was a palpable in terms of finding pride for the moment in the country. when the judge introduced her mother and talked about the struggles she had gone through and the sacrifices to provide for children, it is really compelling and resonates with so many beyond the latino community, because it is that story of the american dream and it seems a great success, but requires hard work, and for the judge and her mother, it requires a real dedication to

persistence and excellence. many in our community see that as a significant achievement and i think the whole country should feel that. her story is a very compelling story. she really grew up in a project in the bronx and lost her father. her mother worked hard, study to be a nurse. this is a core value and quality that we see across the latino community personifying that american dream. caller: by live in houston, and

and african americans seem to have difficulty finding jobs. and you say york races -- you organization is not racist. i think it is, because all you care about is latinos. we arare americans. guest: latinos have a great record of contributing to this country in so many ways, in particular making the ultimate sacrifice in battle and in war. we have lost so many, and oftentimes been honored with an

congressional medal of honor, and we are proud of the fact that we have that. we were in a book last year called "forces for good at," which highlighted nonprofits in the country. but hispanic on profits, but the top of that had been affected. i think the fact that it was endorsed by jim collins, somebody great, we have their record of being recognized as a

nonprofit, and we have done that because we have helped, and we are an american institution. oftentimes, folks want to create wedges between this, but the reality is that we have worked closely with the naacp and other americans, because we understand we have common issues we face and become together we can advance all of our communities and with everyone else. listing everyone else up.

caller: i do not know where to start, but i would like to state facts and history so people understand why it is like this. i hope she gets the nomination and does a good job for everybody. a lot of people, black or white, you have to realize your part of this and do not even know it. puerto ricans are a blend of europeans and africans and the original red man from this side of the world. columbus landed and took over and everything changed. there was genocide of our people. you understand? we've seen mexicans coming across borders, and you have to realize this.

in 1898, the false pretense of independence -- people know that we're still the united states? isn't that imperialism were to ricans are the first one at the front line at war. someone said that liberalism is the american dream, and i agree with you. but i think this is shenanigans. it is not about justice. thank you. guest: i think there are still so many in the united states who

do not recognize the relationship of puerto rico and the united states. but they are united states citizens. while the status of puerto rico is always an issue of contention in terms of congress wanting to chased the status and crete independence, it is a part of the united states, and we never rich history of individuals making great contributions. the cuban community, the mexican community. we are not a monolithic group. there are common bonds among us, including ties to language and culture.

among the demographics, we have to reconcile it to move forward. every group brings a unique perspective and contribution, and that diversity is part of our strength. host: good morning. caller: i want to thank la raza for the wonderful work to do. i am african-american, and i have to say once again,

wonderful work that you are doing and wonderful work you do with other minority organizations. my question to you, and i will make it short -- what will la raza due to continue to ensure that latinos -- and i work closely with the community, continue to of social economic and political mobility, despite the historical advances we have made like sotomayor, who will be confirmed. and we have a black president. i have a friend here who is locked out of a public residency program that funds discrimination. so and the backdrop, people say there is no racism. i see there is a wonderful, beautiful achievement, and she is overqualified for her position. and how you keep that from overshadowing those communities that are still struggling,

still hoping for a quality in this country and to be considered americans? that socio-economic and political mobility is not available. guest: that is a thoughtful question, and i understand. the naacp is celebrating their 100th anniversary, and their president was quoted as saying you cannot have a post-race america until we are really post-racial. you can look the advancements in electing president barack obama. they have to access information. we have found that working

together with communities and frankly, we have worked with other organizations because we understand that we can leverage partnerships to really advance the greater good for every, and that is important. you have the supreme court, sotomayor and obama in these positions or nominated to them -- just less than a week ago, you still had little african american children being denied access to a swimming pool because there were some thought that they were afraid or fearful of what that could mean for the other children.

there are people in the country serving individuals and families teaching english, making sure there is access to health programs. we are going to continue to do that to open the door to the american dream.

[gavel] >> good morning, everybody. i am not sure whether we have votes or not.

we do to the extent we can keep the hearing going. we will have different senators leave, but we will if we can have our recess. what we are going to have is have 30 minute rounds, and senators will be recognized based on seniority. if they do not, we will go to the next person.

with that, as i said yesterday when we concluded, the american people have finally heard from judge sotomayor. we have weeks of silence. you have visited more senators than any nominee i know of by any position. we used to it, questions are asked. but finally, you were able to speak, and i think your statement yesterday when a long way to answer critics and naysayers.

i would hope that everybody -- you will be the first nominee in more than 50 years who serves as a federal trial court judge, the first in 50 years to have served at the federal trial court as an appellate judge. what are the qualities you possess? you have had time for the trial court and appellate court. what qualities should a judge have, and that experience to have had, how does that change your approach to being on the bench? >> senator leahy, yesterday a number of state senators

emphasized the values they thought were important. central to many of their comments were fact that a judge had to come to the process of understanding the importance the constitution must receive. the limited jurisdiction, understanding its importance as well. that is the central part of judging. what my experiences on the trial court and appellate court have reinforced for me is that the

process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. it is the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment, ended at comes from examining all situations carefully. it comes from making a decision that is limited to what pylos says on the facts before the judge. -- what the law says. >> one of the things i have found is that you were a prosecutor.

we're had the privilege, and you work in the front lines. an assistant at the d.a.'s office in manhattan. your former boss, robert morgenthau of, dean of the american prosecutors. he was a burglar. he terrorize people in harlem, robbing, stealing, and actually kill three people. your co-counsel described every aspect of the prosecution and helped to secure a conviction, sentenced to life for the murders. your co-counsel described you as not only pursuing justice but going to the recalls -- root

cause of crime and how to curb it. does that experience ship your views in any way, both as a judge -- this is getting as nitty gritty as you can. >> i became a lawyer in the prosecutor's office. to this day, i know who i am become. he gave me a trial.

and then they asked you to opine about the theory and applied legal theory. in a prosecutor's office, you understand that the law is not theory. it is fact. is what witnesses say and do not said. it is taking those arguments based on low wall as it exists. it is what i take with me as a trial judge and an appellate judge.

u.s.-mexican question about the tarzan murder case, and that brought to light for me in a new way the tragic consequences of needless deaths. in that case, he was dubbed the tarzan murderer because he used aker product feet. he swung himself after breaking the window into the apartment and on the other side shot a person found.

he did that repeatedly and as a result destroyed family. i saw in the past, some were going to school. they stood as they watched one of their children -- a mother stood as she watched one of her children struck by a bullet. he was killed because the bullet struck the middle of his head. klatz family was destroyed. they scattered to the four winds, and only one brother remained in new york who could testify. that case taught me that prosecutors in the justice

system must be sensitive to the glrok -- gork -- price that is influenced in society. at the same time, had to consider how to insure that the presentation of the case would be fully understood by jurors, and to do that it was important for us as prosecutors to be able to present a number of incidences mr. maddox had engaged in in one trial barium -- barry -- . there had never been a case like that where an individual had used individual feats to get into different apartments and was tried with all of his crimes in one indictment.

i found a theory in new york law that if you could establish a person's identity, simplifying the argument, you could try different cases together. this was not a conspiracy. i had to try different angles to bring the facts together. i presented this to the trial judge, but i did throw on the principles of this theory. in the end, he carefully developed the fact of the case, making art record complete.

we convinced the judge that our theory was supported by law. that harkens back to my earlier answer. that is what being a trial judge teaches you. >> so you see it from both ends, obviously with a novel theory. also as a trial judge, you had to make decisions based on those. the fairly easy answer to that is that you do or do you not? >> it is important to remember that as a judge, i do not make wall. so much capacity is not to accept or not accept new theories, it is to decide whether the law has principles

that apply to this situation. >> the tarzan case was a unique case, and it says that mr. morgenthau said it out as an example of the kind of lawyer you are. i find it compelling. i can understand how you are feeling, but it applied the wall and the fine -- defined it. he told me once that ultimately led completely, a lot is what controls, and i was struck by that.

in the firefighter kids, you and two other judges were assigned and of -- an appeal involving new haven firefighters and the decision to discard the result of a paper and pencil test to measure leadership abilities. the legal issue was not a new one. it was a unanimous supreme court decision, as well, conditions in 1991. congress had to reinforce their understanding of wall -- the law, for everyone in the senate. you had a binding precedent, you and two other does came to a unanimous decision that defer to the district court ruling

allowing the determination that could not justify that paper and pencil test under civil rights law, and you said it was setting judicial precedent. the majority of the second circuit revolted not to not revisit the decision and therefore upheld the decision. so you have supreme court precedent, your circuit precedent, your appellate within the circuit went to the supreme court and by a bare majority, five justices reversed the decision and precedent, and many have said they created a new interpretation of law. ironically, if you had done something other than of pulled the precedent, some would be attacking it as an activist. you follow the precedent.

it is unique. damned if you do, damned if you do not. how do you react to the decision in the fire fighter to is -- firefighter case? >> you are correct. the panel made up of myself and two other judges decided that case on the basis of a very thorough, 78-page decision by the district court, and on the basis of the established precedent. the issue was not what we would do or not do, because we followed precedents, and we are obligated on circuit court to follow established circuit precedents. the issue in this case what the city did or could do when

presented with a challenge to one of its tests for promotion. this was not a quota case, not an affirmative action case, it was a challenge to a test. there was a wide difference between the pass rate of a variety of different groups. the city was faced with the possibility that the employees who were desperately impacted was used in wall -- a law that those employees could bring a suit and the employer had to

defend the test that it gave. some -- the city here, after a number of days of hearings, it was decided that it would not certify the test and would not certify it in an attempt to determine whether it could develop a test of equal value in measuring qualifications, but which did not have a district impact. the question before the panel was, was the decision of the city based on race or based on its understanding of what a lot -- the law required them to do.

given bushy versus the new york state civil services commission, the panel concluded the city's decision in that particular situation was lawful under established law. the supreme court is looking at and reviewing to apply the new standard, except it announced that it was applying a standard from a different area law, explaining to employers and the courts below how to look at this question in the future. >> when you were deciding it, you have a precedent from the supreme court and for your circuit that basically determined the outcome. is that correct? >> absolutely.

and today, now that the court has changed their decision, without you having to relitigate the case, it may open a different result. the circuit would be bound by new decisions, even though it is only a 5-4 decision. they would be bound by the new decision of the supreme court. correct? >> absolutely. that is the statement of the supreme court of how employers in the court should and examine this issue. >> during this, there were outrageous charges of racism made about you on radio and television. one person i referred to as being the equivalent of the head of the ku klux klan, and another leader in the other party refer to you as being a bigot and to the credit of the senators from

both sides, they have not repeated those charges. but you have had to be quiet while critics take wines out of your speeches and twisted them. one justice talked about the experience of his immigrant family members, and how that would influence his thinking. how that would influence decisions.

he said that judges must transcend sympathy and aspire to get more fairness and integrity. they must completely develop along the law, what counts. you have heard these charges and countercharges, the wise latina and so on. here's your chance. tell us what is going on here, judge. >> thank you for the opportunity to explain my remarks. no words i have ever spoken or written received so much attention. [laughter] i gave a variant of my speech

to a variety of different groups, most often to women lawyers or creeks particularly of young latino warriors and students -- lawyers and students. as my speech made clear, one of the quotations your reference, i was trying to inspire them to believe that their life and experiences would enrich the legal system, because different experiences and backgrounds always do. i think there is no quarrel with that in our society. i was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they want to come forth and be, just as i had. the concept of the words i spoke have created a misunderstanding , and i want to stay up from --

state up front that i do not believe any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judgment. i do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of background or life experience. the words i used, i used them agreeing with the sentiment that justice sandra day o'connor was attempting to convey. i understood that sentiment would be what i just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being a wise and fair judges. that has to be what she met -- men -- meant, because judges

disagree about legal outcomes all the time. at least in a close basis they do. judges on the supreme court come to different conclusions. it cannot mean that that's one of them is not wise despite the fact that some people think that. . literal words could not have meant what they said. she had to of meant she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial. >> you have been on the bench for 17 years and you have said it is your goal to be fair and show integrity based on golof the law. >> i believe my record on two

quarts that showed in every case i rendered i first decide what the law required under the facts before me, and that's what i do, explain to litigants what the law requires results, and whether the position is, i understand what the result is required by law. that is the fundamental job that judge. >> district of columbia versus heller -- that was a held second amendment guarantee for americans to keep and bear arms as an individual right. i own a firearm since my teenage years and suspect a large majority do. i enjoy target shooting on a

regular basis at our home in vermont, and i find it interesting and watched with interest. is it fair to say you accept the decision as establishing. they decided in heller that the personal right to bear arms was guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution against federal law restrictions, correct? and you are accepting the heller decision?

>> the supreme court in its own opinion in heller entered different questions. >> justice scalia's opinion in the heller case expressly reserved as a second question whether the amendment applies to the state and lots -- you emphasized the new york state law on the martial arts device. the unanimous decision. supreme court cases have held that second amendment applies only to the federal government and not the state.

one of the best known conservative judges cited the same supreme court and agreed with the second circuit decision. we know that not every constitutional rate has been applied to the state. there was a question whether a grand jury was applied making it applicable to the state and the supreme court has not held. seventh amendment right to jury trial, eighth amendment for success of binding. this has not been made for the state. i understand that there are petitions visiting the question applies to the second amendment to the state's appending.