♪ host: inday -- is day three of the sonia sotomayor hearings. eight senators still have questioning sessions to go. the committee is planning a closed session after that and then 12 democrats and seven republicans on the committee will each get 20 minutes questioning sessions with her, whether or not they get to all that today is up for grabs. it is scheduled from 9:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., or so. it is all up in the air at this time. race and gender to it for a row

seats yesterday. we want to hear about that from you today. whether or not you think that race and gender matter coming from the supreme court nominee. please allow 30 days between your calls. if you would like to send us a tweet, cspanwj is our twitter address. yesterday, sun is other responded to comments concerning her comment ". wise "" >> you have heard all these charges and counter-charges regarding the comment. here's your chance. you tell us was going on here. >> thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks. no words i have ever spoken or written have received so much

attention. [laughter] i gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups. most often the group's were to women lawyers or most particularly of the young, latino lawyers and students. as my speech made clear in one of the quotes you reference, i was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do. host: in their lead story today here in the "usa today" -- this headline, and here's their editorial. does she harbors secret use of latina exceptional is an? if so, there ought to be some

indication of it and the hundreds of decision she has made in nearly two decades. yet her records suggest been a mainstream, if liberal jurist to has not exhibited any obvious per-hispanic buys. with little to 0.2 per -- with little to point to in her record, some republicans have hinted darkly that once sonia sotomayor secures a lifetime seat on the high court shall be beyond any restraints that by internet. it is true that the nominee sometimes the fire predictions. david souter cannot be more liberal than his conservative supporters thought. but it is a stretch to believe that she would act radically different on the high court than she has an 17 years on the federal bench. the fate of her nomination should depend far more on what she has done in the courtroom than on something she said away from it and now disavows.

here is "the new york times" this morning. white man's last stand. you cannot judge the judge by her cover.

again, that is a writer from " the n.y. times" this morning. do race and gender matter when it comes to a supreme court nominee? our independent line is first up. are you with us? caller: first of all, i would like to thank the c-span staff because without them if this does not get done. they make you all look good. i do not think that race and gender have much to do with it as to how well-connected they are within the republican or democrat party. it seems that our country has run amok in the last eight years here, but it will take a lot to

get us back on track. i think she would make a very good judge. host: atlanta, a democrat, what do you think? caller: i do believe that the court picks should show the diversity in america. of course, having a person of color and a woman will show that diversity. about the session, the republican from alabama -- how could he sit there and say that woman was a racist when wasn't he also supported the of the klan and made derogatory remarks about the naacp? he was railing against her for

10 minutes and it was disgusting to look at. host: here is a cartoon in roll call this morning. tennessee, on the republican line. caller: yes, i am 67 years old. hello? host: we are listening. caller: i'm sorry, ed thank you, i appreciate this. but i am 67. i have been a republican all my life. these people who are in there now are not chasing me from the republican party. they discussed me. they discuss it me, the republican party, who is running it today since 1994, but it

started back in the 1970's. i am disgusted. i'm a white male. so what is our alternative if you're talking gender or race? she is spanish. is the alternative white people sitting there asking her questions yesterday representing the republican party -- i do not know what party they are representing or what core of the people, but i am a working republican, 67 years old. host: thank you. this morning in "the new york post" this headline. the idea that her experience would not influence or a silly, of course. in past nominations we were told that queerest thomas's childhood

poverty had formed him and that samuel alito's blue-collar childhood was relevant to understanding him. that is an opinion editorial this morning. massachusetts, an independent. do race and gender matter for a supreme court nominee? caller: of course, it does. do you think the press that

would have picked her? let's say she was a man with the same record she has, which they say is mainstream, and i believe it probably is. let's say that her name was jones. does anyone in the right mind think the president obama would have picked her? of course he is looking for the latino vote and the female vote. that is why she was picked. host: lubbock, texas, republican. billy? last chance, are you with us? we will move on to pennsylvania, a democrat, terry. caller: i want to thank you for c-span which is good and informative. i have thoughts about judge sonia sotomayor. i wanted to keep an open mind about her.

in the bible it says "what comes out of your mouth shows what your heart is full of." she contradicted herself so many times. the comments she made about those latino is probably honestly how she feels in her heart. people should know that and have a right to vote for the person she is, not the person she wants them to perceive she is. i wanted to keep an open mind. she has presented herself very well, but i think that she is an activist judge. host: thank you for calling in this morning. judge sessions, a ranking member, also had commons yesterday. >> repeatedly said this -- i wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality as possible at all and even most cases, and

i wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men, or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society. aren't you saying there that you expect your background and heritage to influence your decision-making? host>> what i was speaking aboun a speech harkened back to what we were speaking about a few minutes ago which is that life experiences do influence us, and could sein good ways. they can affect what we say or how we feel, but that is not what drives a result. the impartiality is an understanding that the law is what commands the results. to the extent we are asking the

questions -- most of my speech was an academic discussion about what should we be thinking about, considering in this process, and excepting that life experiences could make a difference. but i was not encouraging the belief or attempting to encourage the belief that i thought that should drive the result. host: new york city, and the independent line. caller: yes, i do think race and gender should matter and the sense that one's background should be a factor. first of all, i want to say that your program is a wonderful one. i am a regular listener. it certainly adds to our discussion. i do think that judge sonia sotomayor's sensitivity should be considered. law should be tempered with a sense of justice and justice is

best served with a wide knowledge and experience that she seems to bring. i was very moved by gertrude yesterday, the 95-year-old new yorker. it was quite incredible. i think that c-span would do well to have her on as a guest. host: i could have spent an hour talking to gertrude, but we have a lot of work to do. i'm hopeful that she will come to the harlem book fest on sunday when we will be live. hopefully commercial pop in there so we can see her. thanks for that and for calling in. day three of these hearings begin on 9:30 a.m. and we will carry it live until 10:00 a.m. when the house comes into session. you can listen to it after that on c-span3, or on line.

you can watch it at c-span.org. in the middle of the pages says that the light during begins at 9:30 a.m. and you can click on that. here it is on the screen. on the right these are four different cameras that you can watch from any angle you like. you can save what is carried on c-span3. click on the live hearing and you will be able to watch that. all those cameras will be up at about 9:15 a.m. so you can't watch on your own. atlanta, georgia, a republican. caller: good morning. yes, i feel that race and gender do matter. with the nominee sonia

sotomayor i feel i watched the hearings and a few issues not been genuine. i feel that she is telling us what she wants us to hear. when she is pushed her true feelings do come out, but i do not feel she is being genuine. i believe when she gets on the bench she will be bully and brass. do you understand? she seems that way and i think she will push all the other justices around. host: mackinac island, mich., an independent. caller: yes, i think it is terrible the way that these southern senators are treating this woman. gender will come into play. she is a lady and deserves that respect. they are not doing that. race -- these senators, sessions and the other from south carolina -- their judges

used to hang people, sentenced them to be hanged just for being black. host: mike is a republican in charlotte, north carolina. what do you think? caller: of course they should not matter. that is why we had a civil war and civil rights act, but unfortunately, the liberals have used the civil rights act and twisted the constitution to advance an agenda that they are proud of before the come to these hearings. i was a democrat activist, a county chairman in south carolina. it is a state that just got slandered by your previous caller. for 18 years. i have been a lawyer for 20 years. what i know is the best way to slander democrat and liberal is to accurately " them. it is embarrassing to see these people get up and deny their whole history when as patrick leahy said the day before the hearing, we want her judged on what she says in the hearing.

no, not the 20 years she has lived, spoken, and worked on a porter weakened defense board that advocates said that slavery is equivalent to the nine taxpayer -- anna puerto rican boa rd. she will have to interpret the 13th amendment and will not be bound issue was for 20 years as an appellate court judge. judging her by that is basically irrelevant. if she had steered a sue for for president should not be nominated today, but she would not answer the question five times in a row. it is embarrassing to watch these liberal lawyers get up there and lie and of the state and run away from what they stand for. host: on the front page of "the washington post" this piece. she has a big, full-throated laugh. senator charles grassley

producer to peals of merriment after another protester stood up and started yelling. she uses her hands extensively to communicate.

here is a picture of her with a senator lindsay gramm in "the washington post" this morning. here is a call from the caller: independent line yes, i am a neurologist to. i have three questions. number one, with the supreme court justices, from 1789-1895? i want someone to answer that. number two, what was the gpa of it jeff sessions in college and law school, as well as others? number three, why was it just sessions' nomination by ronald reagan withdrawn? given the fact that he -- it was because he had the opinions of debbie duke, and is sitting

there questioning sonia sotomayor? i want that to be answered. host: as for the eight senators remain with the questioning sessions, the committee will meet in closed session and then return to the 20-minute sessions for all 19 members. but the closed session today is something we wanted to find out a little more about. joining us now is michael, an associate professor of law at george mason university and served as the top republican staff member when arlen specter was the chairman of the committee. what is the closed session today? guest: basically, the numbers will go over any background issues the nominee has. the tradition has been that even if there are none it will still go into closed session. it is an opportunity for senators to get to know the nominee a little better when not under the lights. host: the nominee is there with

them in the closed session? our staff members also there? >> yes, ordinarily. only staff members who have clearance. host: have you sat in on some of those? hull is a structure? guest: yes, i have. ordinarily it is structured much like the other hearings are. the sit in front of the senators. the senators can ask background questions. if they have no specific questions is a chance for give- and-take. usually it is very informal and friendly. host: where is the background information come guest: from the fbi does report on each nominee. part of that is public, part is background. obviously, the senate judiciary staff has its own background work done as well. host: what kind of work with the senate judiciary committee do? guest: it reviews the fbi report

and comments from other people, people. bar, acquaintances, and even family members. host: has any information in those sessions ever become public? have they become public knowledge later, or has something explosive happened with them? guest: not to my knowledge, no. ordinarily they are held and the senate judiciary committee hearing room. a secure sweep it is first and to make sure that the room is secure. host: does she have a white house lawyer with her or one of any type? guest: usually someone from the white house justice or someone from the council. it last not more than one hour. host: michael served as chief republican staff member on the committee when arlen specter was the chairman. he is an assistant professor of

law at george mason. thank you. back to your calls on race and gender. a democrat, do you think these issues matter? caller: i feel one of the things being overlooked is the fact that all of the lawyers who are questioning her decision in the new haven case are overlooking the obvious mandate of title 7 which says even based on a certain supreme court case, even if a valid test is used if there's discrimination or what is called adverse impact which means that any group that gets less than 80% of the major group in a pass rate needs to consider

alternatives so that there is non-discrimination. host: whoops, we seem to have lost him. we will move on to north carolina. caller: i just wanted to answer the gentleman's question from virginia when he asked about republican sessions' gpa. we have seen a videotape of judge sonia sotomayor and she proudly said she was a benefit seabury digit beneficiary of legislation and it is how she got into law school. i'm getting unnerved about everyone calling in, saying let's look past what she has said.

let's look at how she voted. let's look at how she voted -- she did not rely a lot on her and thought. she used summers from other people. she's stood on the shoulders of others. we are saying that there is a move among progressives that there are judges who are deciding within themselves to change laws. when she answers the questions -- i sent up for the law. well, when she becomes a supreme court judge and changes the law, i guess she would be able to stand by a law that she changes. host: let's leave it there. here is a message from twitter.

it says that she does not think that race and gender matter. when will we get past this and america? this is a wall street journal story. she sought to avoid disclosing her views on virtually any legal issue, saying that she feared it pre-judging a question. when asked whether she agreed with earlier precedents she generally describe them rather than saying if she would have ruled december. -- she would have ruled the same way wajose, in california, what do u think? caller: thank you to c-span for allowing us to have a soapbox and the simple matter. first of all, also being puerto

rican, i'm proud that she has been nominated to the supreme court. i feel like every time a woman makes, runs for a particular office, it seems like they are always taking their views and ways of thinking or believing, or whatever, and making it sound like they are terrorists looking to destroy our country from within. when mrs. obama made her first statement of being proud to be an american for the first time, they took all that and ran with it. they made it sound like it was of terrific person going to take office with her husband. i'm very proud today that at least -- we're still america and have that right for freedom of

speech which is one of the greatest things ever afforded to us. host: greg is a democrat in new york city. caller: absolutely. the fact that you are asking the question shows it is imported. the fact we're talking about race is a plus and shows of matters. 99.9% of those who sat on the supreme court have been white men. america is a diverse nation. race matters on a daily factor. it matters when you go into a store. it matters when you go to get a job. race matters when you go into a restaurant. if you stop asking the question about race may beat it would no longer matter, ok? but the supreme court has been 99.999% white male.

host: austin, a republican, would you think? caller: i do not think race or gender matter. we want quality people and these positions. with clarence thomas i saw such abuse that i could not believe it. it was the democrats doing it. so much for race and gender. if you are not a democrat it does not count. host: we will switch topics. you have senator grassley coming on later in the program and you can talk with him about those hearings. there was a big announcement yesterday, the house democrats announcing their health care plan. here is the take on an on the front page from "the wall street journal." all sorts of different things about this bill. here are couple of the provisions. a government-funded health

insurance plan to compete with private insurers, requirement for employers to provide health- care coverage or pay a tax penalty. and we want to hear from you about this new plan. what you have heard about it so far, if you have heard about it, and just a general discussion on health care legislation. it is working its way through congress. henry waxman spoke yesterday as

did the republican majority whip. >> the president was elected with a mandate that he undertake this very ambitious goal. he outlined how he wanted to achieve it. by building on the system we have now, by giving people the option to keep the insurance they have if they like it, and to allow the seniors to stay in medicare, but improve the system. but for those who have no insurance for those small businesses that cannot afford insurance, our legislation will allow people to choose an insurance auction. i emphasize the word choice because that choice and competition is one very formidable way to hold down the costs. >> again, we have a 1000-page bill none of us have seen that

apparently we will start markups on this week. i noticed they had all the points you would like to hit. if you look to have you can keep it, there will be competition and choice, and a number of changes we can look at when we see the draft -- that might have been my favorite quotation. but what we really have is a bill that will kill jobs, limit access to health care, raise taxes, and will lead to a government takeover of health care. host: this paper leaves with a surtax on the wealthy. we want your reaction to some of this you have heard or seen. cspanwj is our twitter address. here is from "the wall street

journal" this morning of the house bill which would also impose new taxes on the wealthy, estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over one decade came as lawmakers and the senate race against the self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer. that is part of the story by the paper.

here is more. the congressional budget office on tuesday calculated the cost of the plan by the house to expand insurance coverage at $1 trillion over 10 years and predicted the measure would eventually lead 97% of legal american residents to have insurance.

the house democrats have unveiled their health care plan. wyoming, a democrat, what do you think about it? caller: i think that we should start thinking out of their box. i think that c-span should have michael more on to discuss his movie. i do not know why anyone isn't saying that we should be a state and federal partnership in this. we should be able to tax church property and if the churches cannot help with the parishioners healthcare they are not doing the work of christ. we can have a 5 cents per gallon

tax on gas and we should have a federal lottery to help pay the cost of health care. we should also try to give more people into college to practice general medicine and the government should pay their health care -- their college fees and let them work for two years in rural and urban areas to help defray the cost of college. host: thank you. we will go to frank, republican, and maryland. caller: i think it is great. i'm looking for two lots more freebies from my fellow citizens around me. white 3% tax, why not 15%? i think that we should tax the wealthiest people to that time

were they can build for hire anyone. i think we should tax them out of business. to call their money. give it to the people who needed, need this new rite of health care. host: john, an independent from pennsylvania. caller: good morning, peter. this previous guy was just an old strongman thing. it is one extreme or the other. it is ridiculous. our tester was 50% up until the time of reagan. all this thing about socialism and communism is baloney. as far as the whole thing goes, it is a good start. now you see the unleashing of lobbyists, though, even more than the $1.4 million they're spending now every day, trying to sabotage this deal. it would be great if you could have a whole show on how much lobbyist money goes to come,

like max baucus who got $3.4 million. he has received the most money. host: did you say $3.4 million, or $3.4 billion? caller: million. he received more from all this than any other member of congress and he is spearheading healthcare reform? it is ridiculous. chuck grassley is in second place. these are the facts that get lost in the argument. host: where did you get that information? caller: from the internet, democracy now, common dreams -- numbers of sources. i think that it is an independent, non-partisan listing from some washington group that tracks lobby money. host: all right, thanks for calling in. here are a couple of articles. here is one from bloomberg.

president obama may rely only on democrats to push health care legislation through the u.s. congress if republican opposition does not yield sen. he says ultimately this is not about a process, it is about results, said david axelrod. here is some reaction to the house democrats' plan. this is that aarp on the house bill. "this bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families," aarp says. "we're pleased by the house tri committee's health care reform bill which makes important strides toward making sure that every american has access to affordable, quality health care

trusses. here is the reaction from the u.s. chamber of commerce, president and ceo, tom donahue. he responded to healthcare surtax plan. "the intention is to tax high- income households, but the real victims would be america's small-business owners." montana, a democrat, what do you think? caller: good morning, peter. what we could do is impose, congress could do this, impose a national surtax on the whole of the private sector. that would be the companies association corporations, everyone who makes up the sector. it could be limited to a number of basis points. that would be fractional pennies on the dollar. if you take a look at the bare

statistics as to what may be the pharmaceutical industry makes, $400 billion in gross receipts, and applied just 10% on that amount on an annual ongoing funding measure, i think that they who have profited so much and will continue to, this will assure they will be competitive. we will want them to be competitive to help pay for national plan for those who are uninsured, for our aging population, and these would be measures we could put into place. i think funding would be there. we would not be looking at deficit spending. we would not have to reach out for budget neutrality. host: here it says the 1018 page

initiative could take several components pushed by liberal democrats that were long expected to be part of house legislation, but which face considerable opposition in the senate. the next call comes from taxes on the republican line. what do you think about this new proposal? caller: i cannot understand how nancy pelosi's and mr. henry

waxman can tout this new plan when there is not even a draft yet. i do not know how we will pay for this stuff. i love the republican response to it. that is basically my concern. how we will pay for this thing. host: ann tweets --. caller: when president bush first came in we have a lot of extra money and republican party controlled the house and the senate. if this had been a priority that would have been the time to do something about health care reform because we needed it even then.

my husband and i prior to retiring owned a small business. we negotiated through a large insurance company to get good rates and for all the years we were in business we paid all the premiums on all of our employees. it was a tax deduction. my husband did not pay himself a salary that was 20 times more than we paid our employees. he paid himself a decent living wage. i think that if we could get it greed out of the picture we would have some success with healthcare reform. host: silver spring, md., on the democrats' line. caller: it is the best thing that can happen to america. this is the wealthiest nation in the world. if there is one thing you can be proud of it is the fact you provide basic, affordable health care to all citizens.

anyone who opposes this or has any ideas against it is doing it for greed, politics, for some strange reasons. i think this is very good. one more thing, c-span. america, please, supporting military bases all over the world. we spend billions of dollars in the military [inaudible] we have the money. we can do this. i support the president and democrats in the senate for coming up with this id. host: here is a message from twitter. a republican from chicago, you are on. caller: first of all, i think congress must be on this

healthcare plan. they should not be permitted to exempt themselves. i would like to see them tax athletes and movie stars 80% or 90% of their income. the poor people do not want to pay for health insurance and expect quality health insurance but won it for free. if you tax pharmaceuticals to that level there will be no new research and no new medicines will be treated. the people who now say they should be taxed are those who will be complaining because they do not get new medications. host: here is a story from "the new york times," massachusetts takes a step back from health care for all. i have eliminated health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal

coverage. the affected immigrants cannot permit residents who have led green cards for less than five years are now covered under commonwealth care, subsidized insurance program for low-income residents that is central to the ground breaking health-care law and acted there in 2006.

trenton, new jersey, on the independent line. caller: i believe he is spending money that is not necessary. there is a 25% cost of the total health care in america for clerical work. there is over $100 billion per year in fraud. we have a data system for social security and the irs. i estimate of bell $10 billion to modified these systems so that we can go and to the electronic billing. canadians do it for about 13%. we pay 25% now. we can do at least as good as the canadians are. that would be a saving of $250 billion per year. plus, what you would capture from fraud.

you will not capture it all, but you could capture some. estimate $3 trillion which does not cost the federal government one penny, yet they want to spend another $1.40 trillion. host: you have thought about this, haven't you? caller: i have been working on this since 1992 because i saw it. i saw back in the 1960's when john kennedy said $40 billion per year for health care. it is averages. for 50 years no one has done anything about it. now they want to do it overnight. host: thank you. here is a message from twitter -- let's see democrats are for the plan. republicans are against it. nothing will ever change. the people need to overhaul congress' first. massachusetts, a democrat, what do you think?

we'll move on to republican in mississippi. please go ahead with your comments. caller: yes, i am totally against this healthcare plan. i make $24,000 per year. i pay part of my interest. i have a single -- i'm a single parent with a son in college and i have 13 grandchildren and campaign my way through this. i do not see why the rest of america cannot pay their way through it. host: robert, and wichita kansas, an independent. caller: the plan as presented on tv this morning is akin to mandatory liability insurance which is an extension of the extortion rackets we used to pull off in gang land.

this is protection money. you will be compelled to pay by the federal government like the states compel production money paid for liability insurance on automobiles. host: you are against that? caller: of course. i'm against extortion, especially on such a grand scale. host: on the front page here is some other news. this is an exclusive story. over here is a picture of a democrat from colorado. ed inserted a provision into the recently passed house climate change bill that would drum up business for the green of banks such as the one he has invested in and his family and political better helped to found in san francisco.

it calls on regulators to promote green banking and says federal dollars should be used to support energy-efficient home improvements at government- funded housing projects. his at two-term democrat and has two investments and the 3-year- old new resource bank. it calls itself the nation's first green bank. the bank offers home equity loans for consumers to make their homes more energy efficient in addition to construction loans for green builders. a spokeswoman for him stressed that the bill provisions benefit any bank that offers qualifying products. here are a couple of articles from "the financial times" that you might find of interest. the firm set aside $6.6 billion for compensation. it has earmarked a $11.4 billion for compensation for the first six months of the year.

over on their lead story this morning is about the fed. the obama's plan to give the fed extensive powers over all large funding to groups will be attacked today by coalition who say that the fed's credibility has been tarnished by its role in contributing to the crisis. back to your calls on health care. kansas city, missouri, a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i am in favor of what the

president's health-care plan is. i work for the insurance company. i am a claims examiner. i pay and deny claims. i look for different kinds of information. being a claims examiner, working for the insurance company, i would pay more claims than i would deny, depending on the policy contract you have for your employer or medicare or medicaid. so, i am in favor of what the president is planning. it is because i am a claims examiner and work for the insurance company. i know a lot about them having worked for them for over 30 years. host: from "the wall street journal" this morning --

they have begged and cajoled to get passage. days later the president said he was not bound by any agreements. the ensuing flap over the june 24 signing statement was the latest in a series of clashes over an issue that mr. obama once fought against himself. he pledged to would not abuse the statement as a candidate. president george w. bush used so many sunny stevens, more than 750, that the american bar association criticized it as an abuse of power. -- he used some any signing statements. an independent from denver come hi.

caller: 01 to to say i am completely against this health care program. i think it is imperative that u.s. citizens require our government proper management of the already social system of health care which is social security and medicare. when that is managed properly and running smoothly and there is no corruption and fraud, then there would be a time where there would have enough support and enough, an example of what they can do in healthcare. i think this is just being shoved down our throats again like everything else in the last six months. it is very upsetting. host: this is an "the washington post" this morning. aid for a makers gained traction on have. now that the obama administration has been billions on bailouts for gm and chrysler,

congress is considering making its first major management decision. gm and chrysler would have to reinstate more than 2000 dealerships that had been slated for closure. from the missouri, a republican, what do you think about the house democrats and their plan? caller: well, i think we definitely need to change the health-care so that it is affordable and responsibly applied to everyone. make it possible for everyone in the u.s. to have health care.

i think we need to take a serious look at it because there is a disparity between the doctors and hospitals and those who do not have health care. or those who are under-insured. we have tremendous numbers of americans who if they really knew their insurance program, they have a very insignificant -- there are one step away from bankruptcy if they did have a medical problem. it needs to be resolved. we need to have universal health care. it needs to be fair. the insurance companies were not concerned. i would say there would be more of an equal balance there -- but obviously, they and the medical system as well as insurance companies are trying to protect their own so they do

not have cost loss due to the fact they're making all the money and everyone else is paying all the prize. host: here is a message from twitter. . . if they cannot run it, they need

to leave. also, blue cross/blue shield paid no taxes. a set it up that it is exempt. if they were to do a flat tax, 30% or 35% and make everyone pay the same, it would come down -- pay it for the exact amount. if they did -- can't do their job and run the program they need to resign and do someone -- have someone in there. host:dems said a problem they fix it, gop causes problems and says how to make a buck off of the tragedy. lisa, independent line. caller: how are you doing today? you are looking very nice. americans always want to cut their nose off to spite their face. we are already paying for health care anyway, either way you look at it. i just read an article that we

are paying for immigrants with green cards. if illegal immigrants can use health care, why can't we? democrats are fighting against each other, republicans are fighting against democrats and whites are fighting against blacks. but if you look at it, if you go to your corner stores, we don't own any stores or small businesses, foreigners owned it. americans, please wake up. we need this health-care system. we can find money for work, we can find money for this. host: another tweet -- thank god this bill will die in the senate just as cap-and-trade well. america cannot afford obama and his zealots. and op ed from "usa today" by dr. kevin pho, a blogger. wikipedia really isn't the

patient friend, he writes. even more troubling is that doctors seem to be increasingly reliant on wikipedia. according to a health-care market research firm, more than half of dr. going on line for professional purposes reported using it as a source for medical inflation. that number has doubled in the past year alone. the threat is obvious. did you imagine a doctor stepping out of the exam room, tapping away at his or her computer and seeking the advice of wikipedia. research has documented the danger. it compared drug information from wikipedia to medscape drug reference and researchers found wikipedia omitted important for mission, including drug side effects. another entry overlooked commonly prescribed pain medications association with miscarriages. kevin pho, m.d., writing in "usa

today" this morning. when have about an hour-and-a- half before the sonia sotomayor confirmation hearings. you come watch them on c-span and when the house comes into session, we will go to c-span3. but more importantly, you can watch it on mine. go to c-span.org, our home page. click on the camera icon that says live hearing and you will be able to go to our control room, and you will be able to watch four different camera shots on line as the hearing goes on throughout the day. it looks like it is going to be pretty long day. coming up in about a half an hour is wade henderson, president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil rights and senator charles grassley. but now a discussion on the cip situation -- cit situation. host: what is the group and who

does business with them? guest: they are a small business lender, so they borrow money from investors and lend it to small businesses so they form a conduit from the capital markets to small business operators. everything from franchisees' to well-known chains to companies that in various areas may seem larger than small business -- dillards. host: what are some of the chains that do business with and? >> duncan donuts does one. there are a lot of others. a lot depends of the frenchies -- depends on the french lindsay's. it could be an individual who owns a number of franchises. host: how does it relate to other known companies like aig that need federal assistance? guest: it is smaller, for one thing. you are not talking about one of the global giants of finance. that said, and the small-

business world it's a pretty big deal. it helps a lot of small businesses. it lends to a lot. it is still talking about fairly large dollar amounts in an absolute sense. i think the company has about $7 billion, a little over $7 billion of debt that it owes coming due the first quarter of next year and then it has other obligations beyond that. what we are talking about is a financial crunch for a company that is important -- a fairly important sector of the economy -- but isn't quite one of the global giants that people were worried about last year. >> we all are talking about the financial industry and the cit group. if you have a question, you can:. -- call in. how did cit group get to the

position they are and right now? guest: its problems in some ways mirrors the problems lehman brothers had last year, which is sensible -- essentially it borrows from one group and lends to somebody else. whenever you do that, if the duration of the loans on the one hand and the other are different, you can 1 into a squeeze. you may borrow in the short term and land in the long term and all of the sudden you are not able to borrow more on the short term to kind of keep those long term loans you made going. so that is more or less the squeeze that cit group has gotten into. it isn't clear that it will not able to roll over some of the loans that it takes out in order to fund the lending business that it does. it is a tough spot -- spot to be in, particularly when most investors are wary of anything but the safest bet -- debt.

host: liscovicz inouye "the wall street journal." regulators near deal on package to save cit. cit and federal regulators were working to iron out details of an aid package tuesday night after customers trained hundreds of millions of dollars from the lender. under the plan it would allow cit to transfer assets to its bank in utah. the federal reserve would allow it to pledged some of assets in the discount window and refinance some of its existing debt. the package is not yet finalized and it remains uncertain whether a deal can be struck. what is the mood in washington on further financial bailouts of firms right now? guest: it is fairly grim. i think there is a recognition in offical washington that there may be a need for further financial assistance but there certainly is no desire to do that if it can possibly be

avoided. i think some of the reluctance is political. it will look bad if there is another bailout especially for a company that many people say is not too big to fail. in other words, it will not threaten the overall financial system or even necessarily a small business financing system, if it fails. that is the argument. other people saying that this may be near the border but it does go over the line, still merits assistance because it is important in the small business lending market. host: are their concerns that there will be more of a system problem along these medium-sized lenders? guest: of there is always a risk when you have a big player in a particular area failed, it leads you to question the other spirit that is what we saw last fall with lehman brothers. it raises questions about other banks and everybody just assumed we would keep going -- going. they have, for the most part. but some have failed and had been bought. that could happen here.

it is just hard to say. host: of if they do not get federal assistance, what is the option? guest: the worst case scenario is some sort of bankruptcy filing. there are two times -- kinds, reorganization and liquidation. i certainly have spoken to analysts who said reorganization -- liquidation is not likely, but reorganization where it is sold. one argument is the way the government may be able to assist in a relatively low in that way would be to offer guarantees to the new owner and co., and that way you are not rewarding the people who recently financed a company that took too big a risk or ran into problems that they may have been able to avoid. the flip argument is that you are essentially penalizing the company if you go with the supporters -- essentially penalizing a company that ran

into an environmental problem not of its own making. that is partly what the debate is about. how much aid should the government provide and under what circumstances. i think there is definitely interest in official washington and helping the small business customer of cot, but nobody wants to see those businesses get caught up -- a small business customer of cit. but do you help the existing shareholders and bondholders for transfer the lending it was somewhere else? host: let us go to our first caller, steve on the democratic line from milwaukee. caller: @ thank you for c-span. -- thank you for c-span. with major lending -- host: with all the bailout --

dan? caller: with all the bailout is, why cit now? we had a problem bailing out the auto companies. why the trouble with the auto workers but no trouble building out the big financial industries? where is the difference? why the trouble with one and not the other? guest: that is an excellent question. and what you see is there is certainly a lot of debate about whether or not to help cit group. but the key is -- you have to think financially, what happens in the financial system, but also politically. one of the key elements is the word small business. small businesses a major part of the economy and also a major constituency in washington. the fact is, the battle over small business is a big part of the political battle in washington right now. so you will hear critics of the

administration saying they are not doing enough for small business, and you will also see democrats in congress and the ministration talk about what they are doing for small business. so i think part of the reason small business owners are seen as up for grabs political constituency. host: frank on the republican from michigan. caller: good morning. federal funds, federal money -- i would like to point out there is no federal money. all money comes from the taxpayers. now, they are trying to create a utopia where nobody fails. if you buy a car, you can't pay for it, the government. if you buy a house and you can't pay for it, the government. cause we have to go primarily to foreign countries to get money to give to cit or whoever you

are going to give it to and we have to pay that, and that is paid out of taxpayer money. it is a sham, a switcheroo or whatever you want to call it. guest: that is absolutely true. two ways the federal government can get money -- it can tax or borrow. and a lot of the borrowing is from overseas. the key factor here, again, is that the government -- and this has been true since last fall -- the government has been trying to determine which areas it needs to prop up now to prevent further damage. so the argument last fall, for example, was if you didn't rescue the banking sector, financial sector, the damage to the broader economy would be much worse. the question now and the debate going on in washington is, how true is that for cit group?

how much damage for the broader economy, or is there some way to keep the lending going and the small business of going without necessarily propping up cit group itself. >host: john from houston. guest: we always talk about companies as an entity, but they are full of people. they are taxpayers, because they are gainfully employed. what would be the effect of pulling those perils out of the economy? and once they are no longer employed, they are going to be going to the government for assistance, so the impact -- not even counting the companies that are going to go belly up because they can't continue to get funding. has anyone ever talked about those numbers and what the impact would be? guest: in a normal economy, when

a company goes out of business, they tend to be absorbed -- and of course i am not minimizing the pain and unpleasant -- but they tend to be reabsorbed into the job market. in a recession, the number of people looking for jobs outstrips the jobs available more than usual. so that is a very real problem. one of the big concerns with the auto makers is back one -- is that one of the arguments for assisting them was if you don't, you have a lot of dislocation and the ball out of work right now at a time the economy can at least withstand that kind of shock. there is definitely that concern i would argue on capitol hill and in administration -- both sides on capitol hill. at the same time there is a strong belief that the market is the best way to the sort of make sure that people stay gainfully employed, rather than having the government decide.

host: on the independent line, maryland from ohio. caller: i am telling my husband to mute the television. can i ask my question now? i would like to know, the people who invest in cit, what was their rate of return when things were really good and what was the rate of interest that was charged to the small businesses or various businesses? the loans that they took out from cit. guest: a very good question. i don't have the exact numbers. but it would very depending on when investors bought the shares and when they sold. similarly for individual businesses, it will very much depend on their situation, loan terms they could get and what they could get elsewhere. but i think you raise a question that has come up with each of

these bailouts, which is essentially, who takes the hair cut, who suffers loss? there is certainly a growing sentiment that shareholders have not taken as much of a hit as they might have. there are also some people calling for bondholders, people who lend to these financial companies, to take something of a hit. that is in little more controversial. but certainly they lent to companies who were engaged in risky behavior. host: 8 tweaked -- how would the demise of cit affect the national business climate? guest: i think the fear is you would see more uncertainty when you have a situation like this,. the shock of lehman brothers going down last fall, something many people believe didn't quite expect the government to let and

amazement -- major investment bank go under, after the lessons of their stearns before. so, the more uncertainty is, one argument goes, the more volatile the financial markets will become of the less willing lenders will be to lend and the harder things will be for everyone basically. the counter argument is at some point the government has to draw the line and say, ok, not going to bail everyone out. and the question of where to draw the line and how to do it in a way that does not disrupt the economy. host: who decides where the line is drawn? guest: it ultimately boiled down to different people from the government. the major players are the federal reserve, the u.s. treasury department, and the federal deposit insurance corp., or fdic, which guarantees bank deposits but also has a number of powers, some of them received during this crisis, that allowed it to essentials a short up or

back up financial institutions. host: jackie from east lake, ohio. caller: good morning. excuse me. we gave the tarp funds to the banks to lend out and to build up business. now they are telling us that there are some that are showing very large profits. i think it was morgan stanley, i heard, had very large profits. and they want to pay back the money. my question is, why is -- you know, the banks, if they are not lending out, how can the budget may be making these large profits? -- if they are not lending out, how can they be making these profits? and now i'm gay ones to pay the

large bonuses and morgan stanley -- and i heard aig once to pay the large bonuses and morgan stanley, too. there is a disconnect between no money to lend, too big to fail, and all of these people walking away with all of these -- this money and no jobs are being generated because they are still not lending to small business. i just don't understand. there is just a huge disconnect for those of us out here who are losing our jobs, losing our homes, seeing our kids suffer, and i am sorry, but i don't understand. maybe you can explain it to me. guest: i don't know i have a complete answer. but certainly the banks will tell you and say repeatedly that they are lending. the critics argue they are not lending enough or that they should be lending more.

certainly returning but tarp -- the tarp money, leaves the banks and with less resources to lend but banks are allowed to return and are those of war healthy -- who are healthy and have the capital. there also may be a real interest and the government letting the banking industry be profitable. certainly the more profitable the banks are, the more they can arnot their way out of the whole they have been in in the past couple of years -- earn their way out of the whole they have been in. certainly, the political dimension cannot be ignored. the fact that goldman sachs just reported a quite profitable quarter and other major banks are expected to it is certainly going to provoke a lot of resentment. at the same time, there are still banks that are not particularly healthy, including some of the smaller ones, but also some of the larger ones,

that are not as healthy as goldman sachs or j.p. morgan. so, it is hard to talk about the banking sector all at once. host: another comment on twitter -- people lose homes and jobs. why not let the owners/boards/ceo's of these corporations fail? what happened to the free market? minnesota. of a cut -- caller: if you ask an economy -- economist the purpose of the bank, it is the engine of the economy. engine of the economy, why do you only rely on the private banks. i was hoping after the crisis there would be a few nationalized banks whose main purpose would be not profit but truly engine of the economy. i believe the banks should not be making on new -- a lot of money, but making money to cover

initial costs and function as an engine of the economy. my question is why don't we have the national banks like other countries do have, just to help the small businesses and to the profits only? guest: of the have been voices calling for nationalizing some of the bigger troubled banks. some of the more prominent ones is simon johnson, former international monetary fund economist who says the federal government should essentially take over some of the bigger banks. there is a strong reluctance to do that, both in the previous administration peak and among democrats and republicans on capitol hill. the feeling is the united states simply isn't the country where most people are interested in having the government on a

significant part of the financial sector for any sector, for that matter. host: of quincy from washington, d.c. are you there? good morning. caller: i want to get definitely what the small business be. it continues to flex me -- 100 employees or less. last time i heard it was 500. what is the difference between a small business and corporation where they can actually qualify for some of this money? guest:sure, and answer will depend on who is talking. small business to some degree as an eye of beholder. and federal law there are certain threshold for different programs. i am afraid i don't have the rundown, but there are various programs that set different threshold's. i believe some have been changed in light of the financial crisis to make it easier for businesses that might be on the border between small and not-small

business, to qualify. host: ken from new york. caller: how is it possible that the rating agencies remain unregulated? that is my question. guest: a great question. it is debated not just in the united states, but in europe as well. the administration's plan for a proposal for financial regulation reform largely skirted that issue. it did not call for major changes in the rating system -- agencies. there was concern about conflict of interest among rating agencies that both take consulting fees and also are paid by the issuers of the debts. there is a lot of concern, a lot of discussion. i have not yet seen a lot of

concrete action in this country, although there have been hearings. there had been action in the eu, but i think you will see this issue, a lot more, especially with news -- i believe, this morning, there has been an lawsuit filed in california against a major rating agency. i should mention i work for " business week" owned by mcgraw- hill -- owned by mcgraw-hill, who owns standard and poor's, one of the big rating agencies. host: mike, are you there? caller: it is 43 degrees, so much for global warming. a lot of subject 7 cover, but some of the things and not been discussed. when the senate legislation going on. -- we have the senate legislation going on. no expo's facto law is to be

allowed, but we have the anti first amendment bill going on right now and also just an attack on free speech. this is going to affect a lot of different areas, even your industry. in fact, it will affect your industry. witness oppose this on mass -- en masse. i have been working for the democratic party in years -- calling it a hate bill, it is an attack on free speech from a little clique trying to destroy our liberty and freedom of speech. i am ready to throw the democratic party out. i work for them for 30 years. i don't know what to do. i am to the point where the independents is the only place where one to go. i worked with carl levin. i'm finished with them. you guys need to do something fast because this is an attack

on our first amendment and freedom of speech, make a call at hate bill and whatever they want, it just flat out fascism. host: we have to leave it there. guest: as i'm a reporter i cover those issues, but it is not something i report on and write about. host: we will have to live there. thank you for being here. back in a minute to talk to wade henderson who will be testifying on behalf of sonia sotomayor letter this week. but first, a clip from tuesday's confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee. >> i gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups. most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly, young, latino and lawyers and students. as my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you

referenced, i was trying to inspire them to believe that their life in sperry says would and reached the legal system -- life experiences would reach what -- would enrich the legal system. i don't think back is a quarrel of that in our society. i was also trying to inspire them to believe that they could become anything they wanted to become, just as i have appeared -- just as i have. the context of the words that is both created a misunderstanding -- and i wanted to give everyone assurances. i want to state up front, unequivocally, and without doubt, that i did not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advance -- has an advantage in sound judging. host: we are joined by wade henderson, president and ceo of

that leadership council on civil rights. you will be testifying in support of sonia sotomayor for the supreme court. why'd you support a nomination? guest: good morning, and the morning to the listeners. let me start with one quick observation because as you know, i do support the judge's confirmation. the american people what is in something real special. this is about the majesty of american government. we are looking at a process that was designed by the founders to help perpetuate american bar see in the best way. the president nominated an extraordinarily well qualified individual to be the next associate justice on the u.s. supreme court, and our senate is not engaging in the advice and consent process and you are seeing the dignity and solemnity of the process that really serves the american people's interests. and you are looking at an individual who is extraordinarily well qualified, with active and a record and background that speaks eloquently about the power of hard work and what it means to achieve. you looking at an individual who

has more experience as a judge both on the federal court and the court of appeals as well as having worked as a district attorney under one of the renowned district attorney's in new york, robert morgan saw. she has extraordinary qualifications, almost unmatched by any current sitting justice. and you are looking at an individual whose personal story about is in the american dream. this is a woman from humble beginnings to demonstrate that with hard work you can achieve, our economic performance just really speaks volumes about what she was able to do. and her public service and commitment to the rule of law has been demonstrated so well during the last two days that i am proud we support her. one last point -- what you are seeing over the past two days, both with the statement of the senate members of the committee but also yesterday with her response to questions is an individual with a superb

command of what it means to be a lawyer and a judge. someone who understands the importance of the constitution. someone who has a temperament that is extremely well-suited for a job ahead. and someone who brings a level quality and -- level of quality to work and to think that makes it extremely qualified to be the next a social justice. host: why were you chosen to speak of her behalf? guest: i am privileged to head the leadership conference on civil rights. we have over 200 national organizations that work to advance civil and human rights in our country. our motto is we are trying to make an america that is as -- that is as good as its ideals. we believe in the constitution and the role of a lot and we believe it applies to everyone in the united states, and we want to make that a reality. i was asked i think to speak to

both her qualifications but more importantly why the broad civil and human rights community would support a judge sotomayor to be an associate justice. and because i had a coalition of organizations, groups to advance civil and human rights, i was chosen i think to represent that sector of our public interest community. i am very honored to do that because the organizations that are members of the leadership conference are on the front lines of progress of social change in our country and i am very pleased to be its president. host: i wanted to get your reaction -- there was a series of tough republican questioning here we have a clip from south carolina senator lindsay gramm and his exchange yesterday. clevis take a look at that and get your reaction. >> do you think you have a temperament problem? >> no, sir, i can only talk about what i know about my relationship with but judges of my courts -- with the judges of

my cord and the lawyers who appear regularly. and i believe that my reputation is such that i ask the hard questions, but i do it evenly for both sides. >> in fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person that did not go down this line. but i would just suggest to you, for what it is worth, as you go forward, that these statements about you are striking. they are not about your colleagues the did the 10-minute rule applies to everybody. and obviously you accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are time for self reflection. this is pretty tough -- tough stuff. guest: you know, i have great respect for senator graham. obviously he is a long serving member of the judiciary committee. he has a responsibility to probe

deeply into the beliefs and philosophy of and a judge and judicial nominee who comes before him. i thought his question was direct, but also respectful, and i think it is totally appropriate. i think the judge's response was a reflection of the values that she brings into the table. she was judicious and her response, temperate and her response. she talked about what her relationship is with the judges who serve with her. i point out, she is in a unique position because i think as the first hispanic woman -- hispanic american to be nominated to the court, but also as a long serving judge, she faced many challenges, i am sure. i know it has been difficult for many women to of -- advance in law because of the existing structure and stereotypes that often affect them. so someone who is occasionally blunt and direct with her colleagues, someone who is challenges -- which challenges

the intellectually and sometimes i suspect the scene as rude and improvement in their comments. but i think the judge brought her career demonstrated its commitment to stability, a commitment to the rule of law and the ability to apply the law to the facts at hand. i think that is what makes her a superb judge and i think that is what will make her a superb the social justice. host: our first call from james on the democratic line from atlanta. are you there? good morning, do you have a question? caller: yes. first of all, i would like to make this point. people in the united states, they look at things, like race has nothing to do with it. but republicans nominated clarence thomas. he does not represent the interest of black people, period.

it is where he came from, but does not represent the interests. we as blacks, we need a representative on the supreme court to speak out. i have no problem with judge sonia sotomayor being nominated, but we also feel that the next nomination should be a black person, or a man that represents the interests of the black community. she is speaking up, that is what she is supposed to do. just like the 110 before that kept segregation. jeff session -- he was not in the senate judiciary committee. you see what he is leading up to. i would like to hang up and get you to respond. why he was denied in his past and alabama and all the one

opposing her our southern white caucasian males. guest: thank you, james, for your question. let me answer the first part of your question, which really talks about the importance of diversity on the supreme court. i think we can all celebrate as americans the evolution of american democracy. we know that when the republic was founded in 1787, we were not the perfect union we describe to be today. we had a civil war, a struggle over 150 years. but we have made progress as a nation, and it is because of our commitment to fundamental values under the constitution and hard work of the american people. certainly african-americans and latinos, but white americans committed to a fair play for all. and so i think what we celebrate with this nomination is really the historic milestone that represents. the first african-american president nominating the first hispanic-american member of the supreme court speaks volumes

about the evil lucian of american democracy. and one of the things that it says -- the evolution of american democracy. the one of the things that is says is that excellence and preparation and diversity are not only compatible but readily achievable. we have individuals like judge sotomayor, as extraordinary as she is, really in all walks of life. so we now have for the first time in our history and ability to integrate the supreme court and its legacy with the voices of other americans who previously had not been represented. as you said, there are 110 people who have been appointed to the supreme court over the last centuries of our country and yet only two of them have been women and only three of them -- only two have been members of color. people of color. what we are saying is that america is a diverse country, a wonderful country, and we are celebrating that diversity in

one of the best way possible. your question about senator sessions. senator sessions is the ranking member of the judiciary committee. he, too, has a responsibility to pursue questions regarding the character and fitness of any nominee that comes before him. i don't think his questions are out of line. certainly he does have a history. i think his history as well known. you reported james on his history. and i don't want to introduce that history here, other than to say that i think he is making an effort to try to keep these issues on a fairly high plane. i recognize, however, that questions of bias need to be really tempered by the reality of the situation at hand. i think it is incredibly inappropriate and unfair to imply that somehow judge sonia sotomayor has an inherent bias that has affected her judicial decision making, and that is what some of the questions that he and others have raised will try to imply.

i think the reality is when you have a record as extensive as hers, over 17 years of federal decisions in the courts, you should look at them and make that evaluation and stick to the merits. and i think that principle applies to senator sessions and anyone else who would veer across the line in the proprio -- in inappropriate ways. host: steve on independent line. caller: how are you guys this morning? i want to tell you how very much i appreciate mr. henderson. you are an extremely articulate and wonderful person to listen to. thank you, sir. i just want to point out it looks to me like the sotomayor thing is going to happen the way many of us would like it to happen. i also want to make an observation about president obama having played chess with the lindsay graham's out there, lured them into a swamp and they

have gone for it lock, stock, and there'll. they have shown themselves to be anti hispanic and anti woman and i'm just enjoying the heck out of watching them do this to themselves. guest: steve, thank you for your call. host: married on the republican my -- caller: i am steve. host: lenny on the democratic line from floral park, n.y.? are you there? caller: i am here. good morning. good morning, mr. henderson parent -- mr. henderson. my comment is just a comment. my comment is this, just a comment. now everyone who comes before the supreme court basically is qualified. that is not the issue.

the thing that the democrats and republicans are not really looking at is that a lifetime appointment is just what it is. you will see that judge sotomayor will follow the law, and as many times as you think he will be picked -- she will be voting along liberal lines as you speak, she will be siding with the conservatives and you will see 6-3 as many times as you will see 5-4. remember that hugo black, when he was appointed, was a former member of the " clucks klan who then became a liberal. the same thing with judge souter. it is a lifetime appointment and you are dealing with people who are of high intellect and who will vote and think along those lines. she will partner many times with justice scalia. thank you. host: what kind of jurists the

thing sotomayor will make? guest: i think the best elements of how judge sotomayor will approach her job as a justice is based on the record we have before us. i think if you look at her trial court record and if you look better court of appeals record, you see someone who has a real commitment and fidelity to the wall all law. somebody who respects president and believes in following the precedent of the courts above her. someone who recognizes principles of settled law. but someone who also has a fairness and understanding that the facts really determine the outcome, but who applies the law to the facts. i think that she is careful. i think that she is extremely scholarly. i think she is extraordinarily fair. i think if you look at the reports that it been prepared that examined the record before us, like the center at nyu or

the legal defense fund, a naacp legal defense fund for lawyers committee, they all approach this issue as one of an examination of the record and i think the record speaks for itself. i also think, again, it has been pointed out, she is extraordinarily bright. and i think her intellectual capability comes through in her writings, so i think you will see someone who's future on the supreme court is reflected in the kinds of responses she gave yesterday to pretty tough questions. host: on the republican line, george from san diego. caller: hello? good morning. guest: good morning. on a cut -- caller: i am talking to democrats and republicans here in san diego, and they are scared of this woman did just scared of her because of commons. now, come on. if the first latino would have been the guy that the democrat''

filibuster. if they turn around and did this to this woman, it is a double standard for these democrats. they are ruining our country. host: what comments? caller: sotomayor, for one of them. they are ruining the country. call congress and tell them we don't want any of this stuff. guest: george, let me respond to what i think was one of the points you were making which is that judge sotomayor has been reported to have made this comment in a speech that a wise latina brings a certain better understanding of issues than someone else might bring to the table. and i think she addressed that question directly yesterday in a number of ways as a result of questions asked by members of the committee. i think she backed away from the statement in saying the following that, look, it was an art -- all were moment, she was trying to make a rhetorical

point and it fell flat, and she concedes -- concedes that. but the larger question is she is saying, look, everybody brings part of their cultural background to the table. as a judge she is committed to the war along and applying the rule of law and she will not apply her personal views or cultural experiences either indirectly or in some way that may influence the outcome inappropriately. and her comment was really no different than what clarence thomas made years ago in his confirmation when he said a judge needed to be the to walk in the shoes of another. no different than what justice samuel alito said when he referred to his immigrant experience. his fair -- parents were first- generation italian immigrants and also his immigrant background. so i think to try to make more of judge sotomayor's, and particularly after clarification yesterday would actually be the unfairness you referred to, george, because it would be

treating her differently than anyone else. as for people who have fears about the judge and how she will be as a justice, again, i can only commend this to you. look at the record. it speaks eloquently of her modesty, care, and restrained. i think if you examine the decision as she put before you come you will see a judge who approaches to work with great care and fidelity to the law, and that, from my standpoint the, is what the american people want most. host: pine bluff, arkansas. dorothy on the independent line. caller: i want to thank mr. henderson for bring sanity to the hearing process. i have respected him for years. i am 62 and have been involved in the naacp. the thing that i will say, just as he has said, is her record. the lady has already been confirmed twice. but look at her record and listen to what she has been saying.

i have stayed overnight listening over and over to what she is saying. she is very sound minded and she is very, i could say, justice oriented. and those comments that she said showed her commitment to applying the law. i appreciate c-span for giving us this opportunity. guest: dorothy, thank you so much for your call. it is good to hear from you. as you know, the naacp is celebrating its centennial, which is quite remarkable. let me just say that sonia sotomayor was first appointed as a judge by george herbert walker bush. she was then appointed to the court of appeals by president clinton. she is not nominated to be an associate justice of the supreme court by president obama, three separate presidents. dorothy, as you pointed out, there is a record of her confirmation so that should provide additional insight to both senators and the public

about her views. but i think what you are seeing now and in response to the questions and which you are likely to hear from the statements of both supporters but even division created by those who are critics, is that this is a woman who is extremely well rounded, respected by lawyers and judges alike, the highest rating of the american bar association, and someone whose qualifications are beyond question. so anyone -- and it is what i find it disturbing about -- not the comments this morning, but any means -- but some of the sidebar comments that somehow her qualifications don't really speak as important about her ability to do her job as many of us believe. i think that is a double standard. because this is a woman with such a remarkable level of achievement that it really defies comparison. host: dee on the democratic line from detroit.

caller: mr. henderson, i'm so glad to hear you this for me and thank you, c-span, for taking my call. some of the recent callers, the last one in particular, also referenced what i wanted to say, that judge alito when he was going to the hearings said essentially the same thing that judge sotomayor said. but no one asked him any questions about it. how can you not bring to the table your life experiences, where they are black, white, hispanic, italian, whatever the color or creed. we bring it all to the table. what i am seeing, which is good for the country and good for the world, is that america and all of the good things that it has done it is still stuck in the corner of racism.

it can't get past racism. they would rather take this woman threw hectic and high water because of her cultural differences as they would president -- our president now, i'm getting kind of nervous, so bear with me. we live in america. has anyone ever forgot and we are supposed to be the land of those freed and the home of the brave. we are supposed to treat each other equally. there is no standard that says someone else is better than the next person. and i'm going to tear off just for a minute. this also comes to me relative to the health care reform. these folks do not realize and do not care about all of the folks out here who don't have health care insurance when they

have a cadillac of health care. host: of the republican line, maryland. caller: i have a question. democrats say she is going to be confirmed, no ifs, ands, and lots. so what is the purpose of this hearing other than, i think, it is just a political ploy to discredit the republicans because they ask questions and it is -- oh, it is terrible. it should not matter what color she is. if you prick somebody's finger, everybody believes red. guest: you are right, it is -- you are very right about that. the process ec before us is a process required by the constitution, and that is what i was speaking about earlier. i think ms. entire experience celebrates the majesty of -- this entire experience celebrates the majesty of american democracy.

having judge sotomayor considered to be the first hispanic-american to be appointed to the supreme court should not be undervalued. you are absolutely right. people are concerned being judged fairly and race and ethnicity and national origin and gender and disability status and the rest should not be determinative factors in deciding who to choose. and they want in this instance. here is a woman, as i said, whose qualifications speak for themselves. but i also think it is important to recognize that a person as diverse as ours, strengthened by a recognition that when you have people from all aspects of the american political system serving our government, we are better served, we are a stronger nation. and i think judge sotomayor brings the kinds of values and skills and background there really will add to the tapestry of what makes this country so great. host: art from new orleans.

caller: what is so great about this, sir? we have a president who lied to us about every single thing he campaigned on. we are still at war and expanding. pushing these disasters bailout on as one people were calling in 1000 to one against it. so, he doesn't listen to the people. this program does not allow me the time to list all of the things this president has lied about. we are still torturing, still expanding wars, the military commission act, patriot act is still in place. the president's directives that were so disasters are still being signed. i can go on and on and on. so, why should we -- what makes this country so great? guest: actually asked a very important question. so, i will take a stab at it. you know, i grew up right here

in washington, d.c., and when i lived for the first 15 years of my life, i lived under a formal system of legal segregation. i can tell you that being denied basic rights under the constitution was personally painful for me. i have lived longer enough to have seen an even motion an american bar proceed to have participated -- evolution in american democracy to have participated and i have seen this place become a more perfect union of hard work of, yes, members of the black community, but certainly all communities of conscience -- conscience who have been concerned about making change. i have seen that happen. i know that growing up in a country that provides opportunity, certainly that allows individuals to overcome the circumstance of their birth has a greatness to be celebrated. i still recognize we are the world's largest representative democracy. and while other countries are struggling to try to manage issues -- whether political,

racial, religious, or ethnic tension, we are actually overcoming that tension and i think offer real lessons for the world. now, i am not trying to celebrate in a naive way where this country stands. and i understand that there are hard, tough issues involving war and the economy and the like. the climate, and where we are going as a nation. but i also know that having witnessed the election of a president who is committed to these values and changing the way the world looks today is evidence enough for me that this is a great nation and that we have seen change. so i am quite proud to say that they're not a problem. host: we are talking about the nomination of sonia sotomayor. if you have any questions -- let's go to birmingham, alabama. are you there?

caller: i am still here. host: be have a question? caller: yes, my question is, i am so sick tired of all the partisan fighting going on over the nomination. host: why is that? guest: -- caller: when you look at previous selections, democrats did not argue as much as the republicans. by representatives are senator sessions and shelby, and they are grandstanding, as far as i am concerned. they need to ask more pertinent questions and what the record that she has. i guess it is not really question, just a statement. host: i think we're going to have to leave it there because we are going to be joined by

iowa republican chuck grassley, member of the judiciary committee, to get an update of what is going on and where he stands on the nomination. senator, are you there? >> yes, i am here and very happy to be with you. host: where you stand now on the sotomayor nomination? >> of course, there are still two more days, and if i had my mind made up already there is no point in my participating. i will wait until the end of the hearing. probably then we will get the transcript of the hearing, where everybody can at best -- and we can review that. i will tell you what my main concerns are and what i will probably base my vote on. i, as i said yesterday in my opening statement and the day before in questioning, i am interested in somebody being on the court, whether they are republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, i want people who are going to

interpret law and not make law. it is very clear why that is very important. . and that is checks and balances and we want to preserve host: those let's hear from our viewers. it is on the republican line from erie. caller: thanks for c-span. i have been listening to some of these hearings and i have to admit i was baffled by one of

the questions regarding the dread scott case, and the judge saying it was paramount to slavery to not allow women to have abortions funded by medicaid. i'm baffled because of the pro- like person i compare that innocent baby in the womb just wants to live to dred scott who was called a slave and owned by another person. the liberal mindset is that this little one is owned by the mother and can be killed at whim. i think the problem is as mr. henderson said, the judge has to rule on facts and has to make a lot looking at facts. but we have two different views of what truth is in this regard.

one party says this is a human being entitled to life, and the other says it is property and we should be able to kill it at whim. if the tax dollars to are going to fund abortions, i would rather go to jail and refuse to pay my taxes. host: senator? guest: i agree with you on your opinion, and even though i do not like roe v wade i was take another view i give on television in addition to what you said. that is that probably for roe v. wade to be changed it will have to probably beat the science that brings it about. we have improved knowledge about life in the womb a great deal since that decision to the extent now that the sonogram and

just a few weeks can show a heart beating. the extent to which we get science and medicine to help prove to the secular world that life begins at conception, and it is more apt to lead us to the policy change against roe v. wade. you and i would say we do not need to wait for that, but as a practical matter for the country as a whole to accept something different from roe v. wade. another thing has happened recently. polls are beginning to show for the first time in our nation, the majority opinion of per- life. host: let's go to eric from new york city. caller: when i look at justice sotomayor's statement that i would hope that a wise latina

woman with the riches of her experience with more often than not reach a better conclusion them are white male it seems we have a tendency to not focus on the word hope. i see that as an aspiration that she would reach a better conclusion, not as a statement of fact. why is the focus so much on the speech, but not on her actual record? host: do you want me to answer that? ok, well, there is plenty in her record to justify some questions about whether she will be a judicial activist and legislate from the bench. there is also a lot in her record to show a lot of shallowness in her judicious a grieve -- writings. of the fact she has been over turned so many times on the

supreme court. but the thing about her speeches and what she has written and the focus on that -- it shows the tendency for which you might do when on the court. remember that the supreme court sets precedent and it changes it. no other court in the united states has ever been a once in a while other courts try to do that, but are not supposed to. her elevation to the supreme court and the president's emphasis on appointing someone based on empathy signals to many people in this country that she is a person who might legislate from the bench. you're finding concentration on her speeches based on a predictor of what she might do on the supreme court legislating. host: let's here from minneapolis, minnesota. caller: good morning, senator charles grassley.

i appreciate your stand. my question concerns a row v wade, that senator dianne feinstein looked at about a half a dozen precedents. the courts took a strong detour before the decision. can't you set precedents before that? guest: there was, but probably not as a federal question. it is something that the courts can intervene to state decisions. prior to roe v wade everything about abortion was decided in state law. so, under the 10th amendment with reference to states without

a federal the system. you had several decisions, one of them was griswold. they eventually got into the point of ruling on what is considered privacy. that set the precedent for the privacy of a mother including the disregard for the life of the baby in the womb. that is how you evolved into this. you have to have a law professor give you the whole duty of. but roe v. wade was presidceden, and there were lesser ones before that that of a court in that direction. the most important one was that the court decided yes, there is a federal question. one year before roe v wade there was an attempt to overturn our and the-abortion law and a state

legislator. -- state legislature. it was defeated on a tight vote so it was still lobbing a one year later there was an attempt to appeal because the supreme court intervened in preempted state law in this area. the state can still govern in this area, but not really in the wake of outlawing abortion entirely, except for perhaps late term abortions. but there are certain restrictions that states can do. like 24-hour thinking time, miners being -- i mean, before they get an abortion, that their parents have to be informed and things of that nature the legislatures can legislate conditions that cannot outlaw. host: let's hear from indiana.

caller: good morning, senator. it is important that everyone stand up as a united people against this nominee. she is not only left-wing progressive that makes racist statements that if a white person said -- let's look at her record. it is clearly racist. when white people, when people took a test in the fire department and it just so happened that white people did better than african-americans she threw the test out. let's look at the issue in new york where a homeowner wanted to use his property to build a pharmacy and she did eminent domain into the webbing of this woman is a left-wing progressive that is anti-american and wants to take legal gun owners, wants to remove the states' rights to own guns. and it is very important for everyone to stand up and let

these people know what you're getting. the progressive movement is destroying our country. issue will destroy it with a loss from the bench. remember this, better to be headed for who you are then to be loved for your note. i praised you for standing up as a true american and to let the truth be shown. -- then to be a love for you are not. guest: i will go on the direction of what he said based upon my comment about her strict and tradition of the fifth amendment, the respect for private property, the fact the government cannot take it without just compensation and for public purpose. i asked a whole series of questions on that yesterday. frankly, i did not get many answers. host: let's hear from phil in baltimore. caller: hello, i have a

question. do you think someone who makes a racially-charged, and as sotomayor did it should be considered for such a high-level position? i think that it sends an awful message to the and people and people of -- to the young people and people of our country that that kind of common would be allowed uncivil discourse. guest: first of all, she said yesterday that it was a poor choice of words. i like to hear her say that it was just plain wrong. that would go a long ways. i have to have some sensitivity towards anyone making a mis- statement that they apologize for. i have found myself in a position many times and have probably said something that was offensive to someone. someone might say that i should not be in the united states senate. i hope that i have realized it and stated that it was wrong.

so, i am still a united states senator. we are all human beings and could all make mistakes. it is the extent to which you are sensitive and sorry for them and will not repeat them. host: let's hear from middletown, new jersey. caller: i do believe that the reason why a segment of the judiciary committee oversight is focusing on a comment made at a memorial during a speech for a memorial service for another latino judge has been blown so far out of proportion the woman said she would hope that her ethnic background and experiences would lead her to good or better decision-making. what you are focusing on and the reason you are focusing on it is you are pandering to the republican base you believe it is left.

you're focusing on racism and misogyny and missing the 1000 cases that would prove who and what type of judge this woman is. host: guest: senator i think that the answer to the latest caller is simply this, that she has said it was a poor choice of words. i assume that by saying that she would say the same thing again, or if she wanted to make those point, should make it in a way that did not sound racially insensitive. i have to except her for what she said. i would only have her go one step further and say that what she said was just plain wrong. host: let's hear from the republican line. from california? caller: yes, we all stood by things to political correctness to deny our common sense that this woman is sitting up there lying in telling us exactly what she wants us to believe rather

than what we know. what we know about her record on the courts. the thing that scares me the most, with the due to clarence thomas, it is incredible. the democrats put a liar and the white house, president clinton, and now want to put a liar and to the supreme court. i cannot believe that political correctness will hogties the way that it is. host: let's go to the independent line from maryland. caller: hello, senator grassley. i would like to ask you what you think of this win justice toalito was a student at princeton and belonged to an organization that was against having women or minority people

admitted to princeton university just before sotomayor and rolled thei. re -- just before she was in role of thre. and just before justice alito was interviewed, he hoped that he would be -- what is the word you are harping on all the time? he hoped that he would be empathetic. and the senior president bush did say, did use the same word for justice -- uh, oh, what is his name? the one there was so much about? host: clarence thomas?

guest: a think that answer to her first question concerning alito been in an organization that did not let people in, justice sotomayor just one month ago resigned from an organization that would only take women. i think that answer the question better than anything else. on the last point, he no, i was on the judiciary committee when clarence thomas was appointed and i was hoping that an african-american being nominated by a republican president would show that we wanted to help people who came from the bottom up, had a very good ivy league education, was a good lawyer, a good judge with experience, and that he would be welcomed as a minority on the car. i thought it would be a a no- brainer for every republican and

democrat, but you see how much opposition among democrats he ran into. so, it is the same thing with her background. she has got an outstanding background as a judge and academic background, and prosecutor, and come up from humble beginnings just like clarence thomas did, but the democrats ignored clarence thomas' humble background and all of his academic background sotomayor background has had -- that is not the focus of this hearing with sotomayor. we are interested in what people will do and get on the bench. we're very interested, concentrating on a command digging in -- concentrating on its and digging and to every

record. this is a lifetime appointment. i have voted for 11 different people who used to be ouor are w on the car. all of whom were approved by the senate. this would be the first-ever vote against, man or woman. i think that i have a good record of accepting democrat nominees -- i voted for ginsberg, bryor who turned out to be exactly what i expected, but there are qualified. they turned out to be very liberal in their approach to the law. ok, i knew that, but there were qualified. there is only one out of the 11 i ever voted for that turned out to be a lot different than what i expected and that was the one justice sotomayor is replacing, judged souter. i'm completely baffled by what

he told the committee, told me privately, and how he has voted as a justice on the supreme court, but everyone else whether republican or democratic appointees that i have voted for, voted for every one of them, they have turned out pretty much like what i expected. host: ok, we'll have to leave it there. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. we're going live to the senate judiciary committee who is continuing the confirmation hearing.

>> good morning, everyone. judge, it is good to see you back, and your family. judge sotomayor, yesterday you answered questions from 11 senators. he demonstrated your commitment to the fair and impartial application of law. you certainly demonstrated your composure and patience and your

extensive legal knowledge. today we will have questioning from the remaining eight members of the committee, and that schedule is set. once we have finished that cushiony we will arrange the time to go into the traditional setting, the closed door session which is usually not very lengthy, and then go back to others and talk with senator jeff sessions. we will then go to a second round of questions of no more than 20 minutes each. a number of senators have told me they will not use anywhere near that 20 minutes, although every censenator has the right o do it. we'll go to senator john corning, himself a former member of the texas supreme court, former supreme court

member -- cornyn. >> good morning. >> good morning, it is good to see you. >> i recall when you met in my office you told me how much you enjoy the back-and-forth that lawyers and judges do, and i appreciate the good humor and attitude that you brought to this. i very much appreciate your willingness to serve on the highest court and the land. i am afraid that sometimes in the past these hearings have gotten so downright nasty and contentious that some people are dissuaded from the willingness to serve which i think it's a great tragedy. of course, some have been filibustered, denied the opportunity to have an up or down vote on the senate floor. i told you when we visited that that will not happen to you. if i have anything to say about it. you will get that up or down

vote on the senate floor. but i want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help us reconcile two pitchers i think have emerged during the course of this hearing. one is -- two pictures. senator schumer and others have talked about your lengthy tenure as a trial and court of appeals judge on the federal bench, and then the other picture which has emerged from your speeches and other writings. i need your help to reconcile totwo pictures, because many people have wondered about that. the reason why it is even more important is to understand how you reconcile some of your other writings with your judicial experience and tenure. now you not be a lower court judge, subject to the appeals to the supreme court, but you will

be free as the united states supreme court justice to basically do what you want. with no court reviewing those decisions, harkening back to the quote we begin with during my opening statement about the supreme court being gullible only because it is final. so, i want just to start with the comments you have made about the why's latina speech that by my count you made at least five times between 1994 and 2003. you indicated that this was really, and please correct me if i'm wrong, i am trying to " your records -- of fail but rhetorical flourish that fell flat. at another time he said they were "words that do not make sense," and another time he said it was ". a bad ""

am i accurately characterizing your use -- you said that it was "a bad idea." have i gotten that correct? >> yes, generally, the point i was making was that justice o'connor's words, the ones i use as a platform to make my point about the value of experience generally and the legal system, was that her words literally, and mine literally made no sense, at least not in the context of what judges do. i did not and do not believe that justice o'connor and tended to suggest that when two judges disagreed one of them has to be unwise. if you read her literal words that wise old men and wise old women would come to the same

decisions in cases, that is what the words would mean, but that is clearly not what she meant. if you listen to my words it would have the same suggestion, that only latinos would come to wiser decisions, but that would not make sense in the context of my speech either. because i pointed out in a speech that nine white men had decided brown vs. board of education, and i noted in a separate paragraph of the speech that no one person speaks in the voice of any group. so, my rhetorical flourish, just like hers, it cannot be read literally. it had a different meaning in the context of the entire speech. >> the judge, she said a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion. you said that a wise latino woman would reach a better

conclusion. then a male counterpart. what i am confused about, are you standing by that statement? or are you saying that it was a bad idea and your disavowing that statement? >> it is clear from the attention that my words have gotten and the manner in which it has been understood by some people that my words failed. they did not work. the message that the entire speech attempted to deliver, however, remains the message i think justice o'connor mend, the message that higher nominees including justice alito mensch, when he said that his italian ancestry -- that's alito mint -- when he is deciding cases,

and i do not think that he or justice o'connor meant that personal experiences compel result in any way. life experiences generally, whether it is that i am a latina, or have been in a professional position -- that is a mixture of all those things, the amalgam of them, help me to listen and understand. but all of us understand because that is the kind of judges we have proven ourselves to be. we rely on the law took command of the results in the case. so, when one talks about life experiences, and even in the context of my speech, my message was different then i understand my words have been understood by some. >> so, do stand by your words yesterday when he said that it was a failed rhetorical flourish

when they fell flat, that they are words that do not make sense, and that they are a bad idea? >> i stand by the words, it fell flat. i understand that some people have understood them in a way never intended. i would hope in the context of the speech that it would be understood. >> well, you spoke about the law students to whom these comments were frequently directed and your desire to inspire them. if in fact the message they heard was that the quality of justice depends on the sex, race, or ethnicity of the judge -- is that an understanding you would redirect? >> i would regret that. for me, the work i do with students is not in the context of those six speeches you know,

i give dozens more speeches to students all the time and to lawyers of all backgrounds. i give, and have spoken to community groups of all types. in each of those situations what i do is to encourage those students. i did the same when i was speaking to new immigrants, to encourage them to participate on all levels of society. i tell people that is one of the great things about america. that we can do so many different things and participates fully in all of the opportunities america presents. the message i deliver repeatedly and the context of all my speeches is, i have made it, so can you. work hard at it. pay attention to what you are doing and participate. >> let me ask about another

speech gave in 1996 that was published and the suffolk university law review review wrote what appears to be an endorsement of the idea that judges should change the law. you wrote "change, sometimes radical change, can and does occur in the legal system that serves as a study in whose social policy itself changes and you wrote that a judge may develop a novel approach to a specific legal framework that pushes the lot and a new direction." can you explain what you meant by those words? >> the title of that speech was "returning majesty to the law." as i hope i communicated in my opening remarks, i am passionate about the practice of law and judging compassionate in the sense of respecting the rule of law so much. the speech was given in the

context of talking to young lawyers and saying, do not participate in the cynicism that people express about our legal system. >> i'm sorry, i did not mean to interrupt you. >> i was encouraging them not to fall into the trap of calling decisions that the public disagrees with activism, or using other labels, but to try to be more engaged in explaining the law and the process of law to the public. and in the context of the words you quoted to me, i pointed out to them explicitly about evolving social changes. what i was referring to is congress is passing new laws all the time, and so what ever was viewed as settled law previously

will often get changed because congress has changed something. i also spoke about the fact that society evolved in terms of technology and other developments. so, the lot is being applied to a new set of facts. in terms of applyintalking about different approaches and all, i was talking about the fact that there are some cases that are viewed as radical. i think the mentioned only one case, brown vs. board of education, to explain and encourage them to explain the process, too. there are new directions in the law in terms of the court. the court, supreme court, is often looking at its precedents and considering whether in certain circumstances -- that the court takes a new direction.

those new directions rarely if ever come at the initiation of the court. they come because lawyers are encouraging the court to look at the situation in a new way. what i was telling those young lawyers is, do not play into people's skepticism about the law. look to explain to them the process. i also, one knows talking about returning majesty to the law, spoke to them about what judges can do. i talked about in the second half of that speech, that we had an obligation to ensure that we were monitoring the behavior of lawyers before us so that when unquestionable, ethical, or other conduct could bring disrepute to the legal system, that we monitor our lawyers.

>> judge, i think we are straying from the question i had talking about oversight of lawyers. would you explain how when you say judges should -- let me just ask, do you believe judges ever change the law? a ticket from your statement that you do. >> -- i take it from your statement that you do. >> well, we're not lawmakers, but we change our view of how to interpret laws based on new facts come a trial in theory, considerations of the reliance of society in an old rule. we think about whether a rule of law has proven workable, look at how often the court has affirmed a prior understanding of how to approach an issue.

but in those senses there are changes by judges in the popular perception that we are changing the law. >> in another speech in 1996 he celebrated the uncertainty of the law and wrote that the law is always "and unnecessary state of flux." you read that the law that judges the clear is not definitive capital-l law that many would like to think it exists. can you explain those statements? what you think indefiniteness is so important to the law? >> it is not so important to the law as much as it is what legal cases are about. people bring cases to the courts because they believe that

precedents did not clearly answer the fact situation they're presenting in their individual case. that creates uncertainty. that is why people bring cases. they say, look, the losses this, but i am entitled to that. i have this set of facts that entitled me to relief under the law. the entire process of law, if lot were always clear we would not have the judges. it is because there is an definite -- indefinteness that some times people feel it is unpredictable. that speech have given is not an attempt to encourage judges -- it is an attempt to encourage judges to expend a process more to the public. the role of judges is to ensure

they are applying the law to the new facts. that they interpret the law with congress' intent, been informed by what precedents say about a lot and the intent and applying it to the new facts. that is the role of the courts. obviously, the public will become impatient with that if they do not understand the process. i'm encouraging lawyers to do more work and explain the system. in explaining why we're doing as court. >> in a 2001 speech of berkeley you wrote "whether borne from experience or from inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility compared to my colleague, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in

our. our" -- in our judging." what you mean by that? clucks a was talking just about that. and all there have been upheld in certain situations that certain job positions have a requirement for certain amounts of strength or other characteristics that may be a person who fits that characteristic can have that job. but there are differences that might affect a particular type of work. we do that all the time the new > -- we do that all the time. >> but we're talking budgets. >> i was talking about the difference in process of judging. the process of judging for me is

what life experiences brings to the process. it helps you to listen and understand. it does not change what the law is or with the law commands. a life experience as a prosecutor may help me listen and understand an argument and a criminal case. it may have no relevancy to what happens in an anti-trust suit. it is a question of the process of jamming of improves both the public's confidence -- it is a question of the process of judging. the public feels the issues will be better addressed, not that it is better address, but that helps the process of healing confidence that all arguments will be listened to and understood.

>> so you stand by the statement that inherent physiological differences will make a difference in judging? >> i'm not sure -- i am not sure exactly where that would play out, but i was asking a hypothetical question in a paragraph. i was saying, look, we just do not know. if you read the entire part of that speech i was saying, let's ask the question. that is what all of these studies are doing. ask the question if there is a difference. ignoring things and saying it does not happen is not the answer to a situation. consider it as a possibility and think about it. i was not intending to suggest there would be a difference that affected the outcome. i talked about there being a possibility that could affect the process of judging. >> as you can tell i'm

struggling to understand how your statement about physiological differences could affect the outcome, or affect judging, and your stated commitment to fidelity to the law as being your sole standard, it and how any litigant can no where that will end. but let me ask you on another topic, there was a "washington post" story on may 2009, that says that the white house scrambled to assuage worries from the grips of bell sonia sotomayor's scanned record on abortion rights. the white house goes to say that the press secretary says the president did not ask sotomayor specifically about abortion rights during their interview. is that correct? >> yes, it is absolutely

correct. i was asked a question by anyone including the president about my views on any specific legal issue. >> if that is the case, and i accept your statement, do you know on what statement do white house officials would subsequently sent a message that abortion rights groups do not need to worry about how you might rule in a challenge to roe v wade it? >> no, sir, because you only have to look at my records to know that in the cases i addressed on all issues i follow the law. >> on what basis would george, a senior partner and the law firm that hired you as a corporate litigator, on what basis would he say that he thinks support of abortion rights would be in line with your generally liberal instincts? he's quoted in this article as saying "i can guarantee she will

be for abortion rights." on what basis would he say that? >> i have no idea, since i never spoke to him about my views on abortion or on any social issue. george was the head partner of my firm, but our contact was not on a daily basis. i have no idea why he is drawing that conclusion. if he looked at my record i have ruled according to the law in all cases addressed to the issue of the termination, of women's rights to terminate their pregnancies. i voted in cases in which i have upheld the application of the mexico city policy which was a policy in which the government was not funding certain abortions.

>> do you agree with his statement that you have generally liberal instincts? >> if you was talking about the fact that i served on a particular board that promoted equal opportunity for people, the puerto rican legal and education defense fund, then you could talk about that being a liberal instinct that i promote equal opportunity in america, but he has not read my jurisprudence for 17 years. i can assure you. he is a corporate litigator. my experience with them is that they only look at the law when it affects the case before them. [laughter] >> well, i hope, as you suggested not only liberals endorsed the idea of equal opportunity in this country.

that is a bedrock doctrine that undergirds all of our law, but that brings me in the short time i have left to the new haven firefighter case. as you know there are a number of new haven firefighters here today and will testify tomorrow. i have to tell you, your honor, as a former judge myself i was shocked to see the sort of treatment that the three-judge panel you serve on gave to the claims of these firefighters by an and published summary order which has been pointed out in the press would not likely be reviewed or even caught by other judges on the second circuit except for the fact that judge cabranas read about it and in the press said that the court gave short shrift to the

firefighters. he said the core issue presented by this case, the scope of municipal employes accorded to disregard examination results based solely on the successful applicant is not addressed by a needprecedent of the supreme court or of our circuit. looking at the unpublished summary order, this three-judge panel of the second circuit does not cite any legal authority whatsoever to support its conclusion. can you explain to me why you would deal with it in a way that appears to be so, well, dismiss it may be too strong a word, but to avoid the very important claims that the supreme court ultimately reversed you on that were raised by the firefighter'' appeal? >> senator, i cannot speak to

what brought this case to the judge's attention, but i can say that when parties are dissatisfied with the panel decision they can file a petition for a red the hearing. that is what happened in the richy case. those briefs are routinely reviewed by judges. so, publishing by summary order or addressing an issue that way or by public opinion does not hide the parties' claims from other judges. similarly, when parties are dissatisfied with what a circuit has done, file a petition for a request for the supreme court to review a case. so, the court looks at