independent content, which is a big step ahead. we are getting access to tv dollars and shifting some media buying on the digital side from search and display. it is not easy to do what we are doing in terms of ad sales, but it is 9% easier than it was a year ago. >> those were some of the interviews we did at the digital media conference held in june out in northern virginia. we will show you some more interviews in the coming weeks on "the communicators." thanks for being with us. . .

x this week, the confirmation hearing was heard for judge sotomayor. in the next hour, highlights from the hearings as sanders question the judge about her

judicial philosophy, past decisions, and views on abortion, race discrimination, and power. we begin with the top republican, jeff sessions. >> i accept the position will be by women of color on the bench and my experiences affect the fact i choose to see as a judge. first, that is troubling to me as a lawyer, and i present evidence and inspect the judge to see all the evidence. how is inappropriate for a judge to say that they will choose to seek some fact and not others? >> it is not a question of choosing. i did not intend to suggest

that, and in a wider context, the point i was making was that our life experiences do permit us to see certain facts and understand them more easily than others. in the end, you're absolutely right, that is why we have appellate judges that are more than one judge, because each of us, from life experience, will more easily see different perspectives argued by party. with all the options i have, most of my opinions explained to parties and what what requires what it does. >> experiences affect the facts i choose to sell? >> no. i do not choose to say i will ignore other facts or

experiences. i do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging, helping you to understand and listen, but the law requires a result, recommending you to affect relevant to the disposition of the case. >> i know that you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of years. it is concerning to me. so i would like to say to you, i believe in the judge's formation. he said, and you disagreed, and this was really the context of your speech. you used her statement in the beginning of your discussion.

you then argued you do not think it is possible in all or many cases. you deal with a famous quotation from justice o'connor in which she said that a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old women and pushed back from that, saying that you do not think that is necessarily accurate. you doubt the ability to be objective when in your analysis. so help can you -- how can you assert that impartiality is an aspiration that may not be possible in all or even most cases which york both you have taken twice? >> we basically are good friends and believe we approach to judging in the same way.

we can apply the law to each fact in a case. i also, as i explained, was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. facts. i also as i explained was using a rhetorical. i know he couldn't have met if judges reach different legal conclusions that one of them wasn't wise. that couldn't have been her meaning because reasonable judges disagree. on legal conclusions in some cases. i was trying to play on her words. my play fell flat. it was bad. it left an impression that i believe that life experiences command a result in the case. that's clearly not what i do as

a jung. it's clearly not what i intended in the contest of my broader speech. it was to believe that their life experiences added value. >> well, i can see that perhaps as a layperson approach to it. as a judge who took the oath that you repeatedly made statements that consistently argues that this ideal and >> you are watching highlights from the senate judiciary committee hearing on the nomination of judge sotomayor. we will resume and a moment with questions from russ

feingold. the next step is a vote before the nomination gets sent to the senate floor. democrats hope for a final vote confirmation in the full senate before the august recess, which means she would be in place for the first argument the court plans to hear on september 9. we now continue with highlights of the confirmation hearing and questioning by democrat russ eingold nominees. chief justice roberts and justice alito. that's the issue of executive power. in 2003, you spoke at a law school class about some of the legal issues that have arisen since 9/11. you started your remarks with a moving description of how americans stood together in the days after those horrific events and how people from small midwestern towns and people from new york city found their common threads as americans, you said. as you said in that speech, while it's hard to imagine that something positive could ever result from such a tragedy, that

there was a sense in those early days of coming together as one community, that we would all help each other get through this and it was, of course, something that none of us had ever experienced before and something i have often discussed as well, but i have to also say in the weeks and months that followed, i was gravely disappointed that the events of that awful day, the events that had brought us so close together as one nation, were sometimes used, judge, to justify policies that departed so far from what america stands for. i'm going to ask you some questions that i asked now chief justice roberts at his hearing. did that day, 9/11, change your view of the importance of individual rights and civil liberties and how they can be protected? >> september 11th was a horrific tragedy. for all of the victims of that tragedy and for the nation.

i was in new york, my home is very close to the world trade center. i spent days not being able to drive a car into my neighborhood because my neighborhood was used as a staging area for emergency trucks. the issue of the country's safety and the consequences of that great tragedy are the subject of continuing discussion among not just senators, but the whole nation. in the end, the constitution by its terms protects certain individual rights. that protection is often back specific.

many of its terms are broad. what's an unusual search and seizure, what are other questions that are fact-specific. but in answer to your specific question, did it change my view of the constitution, no, sir. the constitution is a timeless document. it was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation, to everything that would develop in our country. it has protected us as a nation. it has inspired our survival. that doesn't change. >> i appreciate that answer, judge. are there any elements of the government's response to september 11th that you think maybe 50 or 60 years from now, we as a nation will look back on with some regret? >> i'm a historian by undergraduate training. i also love history books. it's amazing how difficult it is

to make judgments about one's current position. that's because history permits us to look back and to examine the actual consequences that have arisen and then judgments are made. as a judge today, all i can do, because i'm not part of the legislative branch, it's the legislative branch who has the responsibility to make laws consistent with that branch's view of constitutional requirements and its powers, it's has been on a circuit court for a dozen years. some of the things trouble me that, generally speaking, left of center,ut within the main stream, and you have these speeches that just blow me away. don't become a speechwriter if this law thing doesn't work out because these speeches really

throw a wrinkle into everything. and that's what we're trying to figure out. who are we getting here. who are we getting as a nation? now legal realism, are you familiar with that term? >> i am. >> what does it mean for someone who may be watching the hearing? >> to me it means that you are guided in reaching decisions in law by the realism of the situation, of the -- it's less -- it looks at the law through the -- >> kind of touchy-feely stuff. >> not quite words that i would use because there are many academics and judges who have talked about being legal realists. i don't apply that label to myself at all. as i said, i look at law and precedence and discern its

principles and apply it to the situation. >> so you would not be a disciple of the legal realism school? >> no. >> all right. would you be considered a strict constructionist in your own mind? >> i don't use labels to describe what i do. there's been much discussion today about what various labels mean and don't mean. each person uses those labels and gives it their own sense. >> when judge rehnquist says he was a strict constructionist, did you know what he was talking about? >> i think i understood what he was referencing, but his use is not how i go about looking at -- >> what does strict constructionism mean to you? >> well, it means you look at the constitution as it's written or statutes as they are written and you apply them exactly by

the words. >> right. >> would you be an originalist? >> again, i don't use labels. and because -- >> what is an originalist? >> in my understanding, an originalist is someone who looks at what the founding fathers intended and what the situation confronting them was and you use that to determine every situation presented. not every, but most situations presented by the constitution. >> do you believe the constitution is a leaving, breathing, evolving document? >> the constitution is a document that is immutable to the sense that it's lasted 200 years. the constitution has not changed except by amendments. it is a process -- an amendment process that is set forth in the

document. it doesn't live other than to be timeless by the expression of what it said. what changes is society. what changes is what facts a judge may get. >> what's the best way for society to change generally speaking? what's the most legitimate way for society to change? >> i don't know if i can use the words changed. society changes because there's been new developments in technology, medicine, in society growing. >> do you think judges -- do you think judges have changed society by some of the landmark decisions in the last 40 years? >> well, in the last few years? >> 40 years. >> i'm sorry you seed. >> 40, i'm sorry. 4-0. >> do you think roe v. wade

changed american society? >> roe vs. wade looked at the constitution and decided that the constitution is applied to a claims right applied. >> anything in the constitution that says a state legislator of a congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester? >> the holding of the court as -- >> i'm asking the constitution. does the constitution as written prohibit a legislative body, at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester? >> the constitution in the 14th amendment has a -- >> is there anything in the document written about abortion?

>> the word abortion is not used in the constitution, but the constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process. >> and that gets us to the speech speeches. that broad provision of the constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily pray in school and on and on and on. and that's what drives us here, quite frankly. that's my concern. and when we talk about balls and strikes, maybe that's not the right way to talk about it, but a lot of us feel that the best way to change society is to go to the ballot box, elect someone and if they are not doing it

right, get rid of them through the electoral process. and a lot of us are concerned from the left and the right, that unelected judges are very quick to change society in a way that's disturbing. can you understand how people may feel that way? >> certainly, sir. >> now let's talk about you. i like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. since i may vote for you that ought to matter to you. one thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the almanac of the federal judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament. and here's what they said about you. she's a terror on the bench. she's temperamental, excitable. she seems angry.

she's overly aggressive, not very judicial. she does not have a very good temperament. she abuses lawyers. she really lacks judicial temperament. she believes in an out-of-control -- she behaves in an out-of-control manner. she makes inappropriate outbursts. she is nafty to lawyers. she will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like. she can be a bit of a bully. when you look at the evaluation of the judges on the second circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb. in terms of your temperament. what is your answer to these criticisms? >> i do ask tough questions at oral arguments. >> are you the only one that asks tough questions at oral arguments? >> no, not at all. i can only explain what i'm doing, which is when i ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to

explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right. i do know that in the second circuit, because we only give litigants ten minutes of oral arguments each, that the processes in the second circuit are different than in most othe circuits across the country. and that some lawyers do find that our courts, which is not just me, but our court generally is described as a hot bench. it's a term of art lawyers use. it means that they are peppered with questions. lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the second circuit find that tough bench difficult and

challenging. >> if i may interject, judge, they find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues. and the only reason i mention this is it stands out. there are many positive things about you and these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad. and i never liked appearing before a judge that i thought was a bully. it's hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. do you think you have a temperament problem? >> no, sir. i can only talk about what i know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. 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 do not go down this line. but i would just suggest to you for what it's worth as you go forward here that these statements about you are striking. they're not about your colleagues. the ten-minute rule applies to everybody. and that, you know, obviously, you've accomplished a lot in your life. but maybe these hearings are time for >> you're watching highlights from the judiciary committee of the nomination of of justice sotomayor for the supreme court. we will continue in a minute with the senator from texas. at our website, c-span.org, find video of the hearings as well as highlight and questions and answers organized by senators, as well as links to articles and supplemental information. we now continue with highlights.

started with during my opening statement about the supreme court being infallible, only because it's final. so i want to just start with the comments that you made about the wise 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'm trying to quote your words, a, quote, failed rhetorical flourish that fell flat. i believe at another time, you said they were, quote, words that don't make sense, closed quote. and another time, i believe you said it was, quote, a bad idea, closed quote. am i accurately characterizing your thoughts about the use of that -- of that phrase that has been talked about so much?

>> yes, generally, but the point i was making was that justice o'connor's words, the ones that i was using as a platform to make my point about the value of experience generally in the legal system was that her words literally, and mine literally made no sense. at least not in the context of what judges do or what judges do. i didn't and don't believe that justice o'connor intended to suggest that when two judges disagree one of them has to be unwise. and if you read her literal records, that wise old men and wise old women would come to the same decisions in cases, that's what the words would mean. so that's clearly not what she meant and if you listen to my words, it would have the same suggestion, that only latinos

would come to wiser decisions, but that wouldn't make sense in the context of my speech either. because i pointed out in the speech that eight, nine white men had decided brown versus 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, can't be read literally. it had a different meaning in the context of the entire speech. >> but, judge, she said a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion. you said that a wise latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a male counterpart. what i'm confused about, are you standing by that statement or are you saying that it was a bad idea, and you -- are you

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 didn't work. the message that the entire speech attempted to deliver, however, remains the message that i think justice o'connor meant, the message that prior nominees, including justice alito meant, when he said that his italian ancestry -- he considers when he's deciding discrimination cases. i don't think he meant -- i don't think justice o'connor meant that personal experiences compel results in any way. i think life experiences generally, whether it's that i'm a latina or was a state prosecutor or have been a

commercial litigator or been a trial judge, an appellate judge, that the mixture of all of those things, the amal gum of all them helped me to listen and understand. but all of us understand, because that's the kind of judges we have proven ourself to be. we rely on the law to command the results in the case. so when one talks about life experiences, and even in the context of my speech, my message was different than i understand my words have been understood by some. >> so you -- do you stand by your words of yesterday and -- when you said it was a failed rhetorical flourish that fell flat? that there are word that's don't make sense and that they're a bad idea? >> i stand by the word, it fell flat. and i understand that some people have understood them in a

way that i understand as i both ask you questions and as you answer them. i think it benefits our country to do that. you've been asked a lot about abortion. you said roe v. wade -- where are we today? what is the law in america about abortion? >> i can speak to what the court has said in precedence. in planned parenthood versus -- the court reaffirmed the court holding of roe versus wade. that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances.

the court considers whether that regulation has an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right. that is my understanding of what the law is. >> let's say i'm 38 weeks pregnant. we discover a small sack on the lower part of the back on my baby. and i feel like i can't handle a child with that. would it be legal in this country to terminate that child's life? >> i would have to look at what the state said with respect to that issue. the question of the number of weeks that a woman is pregnant, that approach to looking at a woman's act was changed by casey. the question is, does the state

regulation seem like an undue burden. before the court. >> does technology in terms of the advancement of technology, should it have any bearing whatsoever on the way we look at roe v. wade? for example, published reports most recently of the 21-week, 21-week, 142 days, fetus alive and well with no apparent complications because technology advanced so far that we can save children born prematurely at that level. should that have a bearing as we look at the law?

>> the law answered a different question. it talked abouthe constitutional rights of women in certain circumstances. the issue becomes one of the state regulation. >> i understand. all i'm asking is should it have any bearing? >> i can't answer that in the abstract. the question wouldn't be in the way that you form it as a citizen. it would come to me as a judge in the context of some actions that one is taking. if it's a private citizen being controlled by the state challenging that action. >> viability is a portion of a lot of that.

if we now have viability at 21 weeks why would that not be considered as we look at the status of what can and cannot happen in terms of this right to privacy that's been grant under roe v. wade? >> all i can say to you is what the court has done. and the standard the court has applied. it can't be predicted in a way to say yes that's going to be considered. >> all i'm asking is whether it should. should it be considered? your answer is that you can't answer it. >> i can want because that's not a question that the court reaches out to answer.

that's a question that gets created by a state regulation of some sort or an action by the state that may or may not place an undue burden on her. we look at the case before us with the interests argued by the parties without our precedence and try to apply the principles. >> one of your quotes say you do make policy. i won't continue that. i'm concerned, and i think others are. does the state legislature have the right under the constitution to determine what is death? have we statutorily defined, and we have, what is the definition of death? you think that's within the

realm of the constitution that states can do that? >> depends on what they're applying the definition to. so there are situations in which they might. and situations where the deaf nation would or would not have the ability to dispute >> do i have the right to personal self-defense? >> i'm trying to think if i remember a case where the supreme court addressed that question. is there a constitutional right to self defense? i cannot think of one.

generally, as i understand, most criminal law statutes are passed by states. i'm also trying to help remember if there is any federal law with a self-defense provision or not. i just cannot. what i'm attempting to explain is the issue of self-defense is usually defined by state laws.

my personal opinion is an abstract question with no particular meaning to it outside -- >> that is what american people want to hear, your honor. they want to know if they have a right to self-defense. does the second amendment means something under the 14th amendment? how they take the constitution -- not how bright legal minds take it, but what they think is important. i do not want to influence your position, but those are the things people want to answer. not how you will rule, but just yes or no. do we have that right?

>> i know it is difficult with a judge, whose thinking is so corner by law. but let me try to address what you are saying in the context can. under new york law, if you're threatened with eminent death or injury, you can use force to repel it. and that would be legal. the question that would come up and would come up to four juries and judges is how eminent is the threat? if the threat was in this room,

i'm going to come get you, and you go home, or i go home -- i do not want anyone to misunderstand what i was going to say. if i get a gun and come back and shoot you, that might not be illegal under new york law because he would have alternative ways of defending yourself. i would be a lot of trouble. >> you're watching highlights from the senate judiciary committee hearing on the nomination of judge sotomayor. we will continue in a moment with dianne feinstein. dennis sotomayor could be --

judge sotomayor could be in place on september 9. we now continue with the confirmation hearing. decision. >> right. i'm not asking you to. now, many have made comments regarding your latina -- "wise latina" comment, and i'd like to take a moment to put your comments in the context of the experiences of women. and this country is built on very great accomplishments. we forged a new country. we broke away from the british. we wrote documents that have stood the test of time. the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights. but we also have a history of slavery, segregated schools, of employment discrimination, of hate crimes, and unspoken prejudices that can make it very hard for individuals to be treated fairly or even to believe that they can do well in

this society. so i understand empowerment and the role that it plays. everything has been hard fought. we as women didn't have the right to vote until 1920. and that was after a tremendous battle waged by a group of very brave women called suffragettes. when you graduated law school in 1979, there had never been a woman on the supreme court. today women represent 50.7% of the population. 48% of law school graduates and 30% of american lawyers, but there are only 17 women senators and only 1 woman is currently serving on the supreme court, and we still make only 78 cents on the dollar than a man makes. so we're making progress, but we're not there yet. and we should not lose sight of that.

my question is, as you have seen this, and you must have seen how widely broadcast this is, that you become an instant role model for women. and how do you look at this, of your appointment to the court affecting empowerment for women? and i'd be very interested in any comment you might make, and this has nothing to do with the law. >> i chose the law because it's more suited to that part of me that's never sought the kind of attention that public figures -- other public figures get. when i was in law school, some of my friends thought i would go into the political arena, not knowing that what i thought was more the life of a judge, the thinking involved in that and the process of the rule of law. my career as a judge has shown

me that regardless of what my desires were, that my life, what i have accomplished, does serve as an inspiration for others. it's a sort of awesome sense of responsibility. it's one of the reasons that i do so many activities with people in the community, not just latinos, but all groups because i understand that it is women. it's latinos. it's immigrants. it's americans of all kinds and all backgrounds. each one of us faces challenges in our life. whether you were born rich or poor, of any color or background, life's challenges place hurdles every day. and one of the wonderful parts

of the courage of america is that we overcome them. and i think that people have taken that sense that on some levels i've done some of that at various stages of my life. and so for me, i understand my responsibility. that's why i understand and have tried as much as i can to reach out to all different kinds of groups and to make myself as available as much as i can. often i have to say no. otherwise i'd never work. i meet and it can have far-reaching implications. let me tell you what three writers in effect said about it. and get your reaction to it. here's what the supreme court said in ricci about the decision, about the rule that your court endorsed. it said that the rule that you endorse, and i'm quoting now, allowing employers to violate the disparate treatment prohibition based on a mere good

faith fear of disparate liability would encourage race-based action at the slightist hint of disparate impact. this is the supreme court. such a rule, it said, would amount to a de facto quota system in which a focus on statistics could put undue pressure on employers to make hiring decisions on the basis of race. even worse, an employer could discard test results or other employment practices with the intent of obtaining the employer's preferred racial balance. your colleague on the second circuit, judge cab bran is said that under the logic of your decision, municipal employers could reject the results of an employment examination whenever those results fail to yield a skirable -- in order, failing to meet a racial quota. that's why it is so important. i would imagine you would hope that result would not pertain, you would not have rendered this

decision if you felt that would be the result. >> as i argued -- argued. as i stated earlier, the issue for us, no. we weren't endorsing those results, we were just talking about what the supreme court recognized, which was that there was a good faith basis for the city to act. it set a standard that was new, not argued before us below, and that set forthhow to balance co. that is part of what the court does in the absence of a case previously decided that sets forth the test. and what the court there said is good faith is not enough. >> understood. >> substantial evidence is what the city has to rely on. those are different types of questions. >> of course. and the point is you don't endorse the result that either judge cabranis or the supreme

court predicted would occur had your decision remained in effect. i'm sure that you would hope that result would not pertain. >> yes. but -- but i didn't -- that wasn't the question we were looking at. we were looking at a more narrow question, which was could a city in good faith say we're trying to comply with the law. we don't know what standard to use. we have good faith for believing that we should not certify. now the supreme court has made clear what standard they should apply. those are different issues. >> well, i'm just quoting from the supreme court about the rule that was -- that you endorsed in your decision, and again, it said the supreme court said about your rule that such a rule would amount to a de facto quota system in which a focus on

statistics could put undue pressure on employers to make hiring decisions on the basis of race even worse an employer could disregard test results or other employment practices with the intent of obtaining an employer's preferred racial balance. i guess we both agree that that is not a good result. let me ask you about a comment you made about the dissent in the case. a lot of legal commentators have noted that while the basic decision was 5-4, that all nine of the justices disagreed with your panel's decision to grant summary judgment. that all nine of the judges believed that the court should have been -- that the district court should have found the facts in the case that would allow it to apply a test. your panel had one test. the supreme court had a different test. the dissent had yet a different test. but in any case, whatever the test was, all nine of the justices believed that the lower

court should have heard the facts of the case before summary judgment was granted. i heard you to say that you disagreed with that assessment. do you agree that the way i stated it is essentially correct? >> it's difficult because there were a lot of opinions in that case. but the engagement among the judges was varied on different levels. and the first engagement that the dissent did with the majority was saying, if you're going to apply this new test, this new standard, then you should give the circuit court an opportunity to evaluate the evidence -- >> judge, i have to interrupt you there. the court didn't say if you're going to apply a new standard, you'd need to send it back. all nine justices said that summary judgment was inappropriate, that the case should have been decided on the facts. there were three different tests, the test from your court, the supreme court and the test of the dissent.

irrespective of what test it was everything they said that the case should not have been decided on summary judgment. all nine justices agreed with that, did they not? >> i don't believe that's how i read the dissent. it may have to speak for itself, but i -- justice ginsburg took the position that the circuit's panel opinion should be affirmed. and she took it by saying that no matter how you looked at this case, it should be affirmed. and so i don't believe that that was my conclusion reading the dissent, but obviously, it will speak for itself. >> well, it will. and i guess commentators can opine on it. i could read a commentary from people like stuart taylor, for example, who have an opinion different from yours. but let me ask you one final question in the minute and a half that i have remaining. i was struck by your response to a question that senator hatch

asked you about yet another speech that you gave. in which you made a distinction between the justice of the district court and the justice of the circuit court saying that the district court provides justice for the parties. the circuit court provides justice for society. now, for a couple of days here, you've testified to us that you believe that not only do district and circuit courts have to follow precedent, but the supreme court should follow precedent. so it's striking to me that you would suggest -- and this goes back to another comment you made, perhaps flippantly, about courts of appeals making law. but it would lead one to believe that you think that the circuit court has some higher calling to create precedent for society. in all of my experience, you have smith versus jones in the district court. the court says the way we read the law, smith wins. it goes to the court of appeals. the court has only one job to

decide. does smith win or does jones win? it doesn't matter what the effect of the case is on society. that's for legislators to decide. you have one job. who wins? smith or jones? based on the law. and you decide, yeah, the lower court was right. smith wins. you're applying precedent, and you're deciding the case between those parties. you're not creating justice for society except in the most indirect sense that any court that follows precedent and follows the rule of law helps to build on this country's reliance on the rule of law. >> i think we're in full agreement. when precedent is set, it follows the rule of law. and in all of the speeches where i've discussed this issue, i've described the differences between the two courts as one where precedents are set, that those precedents have policy ramifications, but not in the meaning that the legislature

gives to it. the legislature gives it a meaning in terms of making law. when i'm using that term, it's very clear that i'm talking about having a holding. it becomes precedent. and it binds other courts who are following the rule of law when you're doing that. >> mr. chairman, i'm over the time. just a final follow-up question if i could. you yourself noted that you have created precedent as a district court judge. both district courts and circuit courts create precedent simply by deciding a case. but they're both required to follow precedent, isn't that corre correct? >> yes. >> ond because the senator went over, i would note the district court in that case did cite the reeves case which is a 2000 supreme court -- 2000 supreme court case as has precedent and a binding second circuit court

case, the hayden case, as precedent. and as the judge has noted, she incorporated the district court, as they often do, incorporated the district court decision. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have great respect for senator kyl. i've worked with him, i guess, about 12 years now on the subcommittee of this committee. but i think there is a fundamental misreading of the supreme court decision, if i understand it. it's my understanding that the court was 5-4, is that correct? >> it was. >> and that the four >> you are watching highlights from the judiciary committee hearing on the nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court. we will continue in a moment with democrat al franken.

you can see video on the web site with highlights and question and answer sessions, as well as links to articles. i would ask that it be entered into the record. sir, can i enter it into the record? okay. thank you. thank you, judge sotomayor, for your patience. and your terrific answers. we've heard a lot about your thoughts on specific cases and on principles of jurisprudence. i would like to ask a much more general question and one that i think is really good question in job interviews. and that is why do you want to be a supreme court justice? >> you're going to hate me for taking a few minute, but can i tell you a story? >> i would love it. >> because it would explain who

i am and why. when senator moynihan first told me that he would consider sending my name to senator d'amato for krgts as a district court judge. he asked me it to keep it quiet for a little bit of a time. i asked permission to tell my mom. and omar. he said, sure. so they were visiting and i told them. and mom was very, very excited. and she then said how much more money are you going to earn? and i stopped and i said, i'm going to take a big pay cut. then she stopped and she stopped and she said are you going to do as much foreign travel as you do now? because i was flying all over the u.s. and abroad as part of my private practice work. and i said, probably not because

i'm going to live in a courthouse in lower manhattan near where i used to work as a manhattan d.a. now the pause was a little longer. and she said, okay. then she said now, all the fascinating clients that you work with, that you may have heard yesterday, i had some fairly well-known clients, you're going to be able to go traveling with them and with the new people you meet, right? and i said no, most of them are going to come before me as litigants to the cases i'm hearing and i can't become friends with them. now the pause was really long. and she finally looked up and she said why do you want this job? and omar, who was sitting next to her said, salina, you know your daughter. this is in spanish. you know your daughter. and her stuff with public

service. that really has always been the answer. given who i am, my love of the law, my sense of importance about the rule of law, how central it is to the functioning of our society, how it sets us apart as many senators have noted from the rest of the world are, have always created a passion in me. and that passion led me to want to be a lawyer first and now to be a judge. because i can't think of any greater service that i can give to the country than to be permitted the privilege of being a justice of the supreme court. >> thank you. well, i for one, have been very impressed with you, judge.

and i certainly intend to support your confirmation. for the court. i guess there is another round. i thought i was going to be the only thing between you and the door. so i planned >> you can watch this program again or do the entire hearing at c-span.org, and find resource links and put her comments. joined next week, 7:00 p.m. eastern saturday evening on c- span. >> coming up, opening statements >> coming up, opening statements from judge sotomayor's heari