the question is, when can they make it happen and how can they make it happen? megyn: and the other big question is the price tag. the key to reforming health care is to keep the cost down. the cost for the services and the cost for the new plant have been tough to ascertain on capitol hill. how do the democrats now say they want to pay for the president's health-care reform plan? >> the last we heard was on friday from the house ways and means committee. the democrat from new york, charles rangel, who said the plan is that they will find a lot of savings, and they think they can raise $550 billion by raising taxes on the so-called rich. individuals making above $280,000 per year. you would see your adjusted gross income tax at an additional 1%. it would be higher for couples

and individuals making more than those figures. some democrats have said that will not work. among them, dick durbin. megyn: that is part of the problem. they are worried about small business owners who are taxed as individuals. they're worried about jobs go away. i guess they will try to resolve this. when do we expect this to come to vast? we had heard the president wanted something by august. >> that is looking increasingly unlikely, according to leading democrats who made the rounds on the sunday morning talk shows. looks like that goal is slipping away. we doubt that the president will have anything to sign by the time the august recess happens. it is looking unlikely that he will have anything presented to him. fox news has confirmed that there's no finance committee marks up in the senate this week for this legislation. megyn: james rosen, thank you. bret: president obama has

chosen an alabama doctor to be the next surgeon general. she is dr. regina benjamin. major garrett has more from the north lawn. before we talk about the surgeon general, i want to talk about health care and whether this the white house is worried about it. harry reid said he might be for a co-op program, not a public option. all of this is suggesting that democrats are losing the public option side of the health care reform plan. >> they are losing the votes that they need to put the tooption through the relevant committees. it is not completely lost, but the momentum behind this appears to be diminishing. we had an interesting statement from the white house chief of

staff rahm emanuel that the goal is to lower costs and improve competition. that is not negotiable, but the past two that is -- but the path to that is. you are beginning to see from the white house open expressions that maybe the public option does not have to be mandatary component for reform. this afternoon, the president will be at the white house with charlie rangel, democrat from new york, and max baucus, the democrat. they will talk about how can you finance health-care reform, and how can you find the votes within your respective caucuses to back up whatever plan to put on the table? right now, it is an exercise in ideas. there's no consensus yet on how to pay the estimated $1 trillion

price tag for health-care reform over 10 years. and even some fraction of that, if savings can be achieved. at least half of that, if not more, will come on the revenue side of the equation. there's no consensus among democrats how to get there. bret: the president came out in the rose garden introducing his surgeon nominee. he really tried to shore up his base at this is going to happen. tell us about his nominee. >> regina benjamin runs a family clinic in alabama. she rebuild her family clinic after hurricane katrina. the president described her as someone who is very capable of dealing with the day-to-day operations of medicine, but has a personal tenacity to bring medicine and health care to those who need it most, even in the most dire circumstances in the post katrina atmosphere.

that sort of testament of grit and intensity of the health care front, the president said it made her an apt choice for surgeon general. the mort larger reason for this ceremony was to say, we will not lose momentum on health care. do not give up hope. we will keep pushing that right now. the reality on capitol hill is that momentum is being lost. unless there is a share to be in the political dynamic renew found consensus on financing mechanisms, momentum will continue to be a problem for the white house. bret: major garrett, thank you. megyn: back to our panel for some quick thoughts on health care before we get back to the sonia sotomayor coverage. you heard of the update that it is not looking good for the president. the president said do not bet against us. i think i heard you say last night, it is amazing that the white house has been able to

spend health care reform in a way that it feels like it is within reach. >> it is. this is the first time we have any action on health care not coming from the house. the clintons did not give a vote on anything. the idea that they made this much progress is astounding. the cost issue continues to dog them. it is doddie them with the conservative democrats. this potential idea that there's this huge deficit. if there is a huge deficit with the number two issue on the agenda, they will have to explain why they might have to incur tax increases and inflation. the first issue is jobs. if the president does anything more in terms of a second stimulus package, that it will drive up the deficit even more. the white house is caught in a

bind. it allows the critics to say, how will you pay for this? are you putting more in the deficit? how is that possible? i'm amazed they are able to stay afloat. it is why president obama is making a concerted effort. megyn: steve, how do they pay for it? every democrat we have had on the morning show have said we will get to that later. they know it can be a deal breaker. when they came up with the theory, it was we will tax benefits for those who are already getting into. then the unions rejected. then they said we will tax everybody except the unions. then everybody else went ballistic. now the old reliable, let's just tax the rich. that leads to the same objections from republicans, which means it will hurt small business owners, which will hurt jobs.

>> you have identified exactly the problem. if you want to know why the poll numbers have changed so much, it is precisely because what we had in the beginning was the president talking about universal health care. he said, we want to provide this, this is our goal. we want everybody to recover. these are platitudes. these are things that everybody agrees with. where you have increasing disagreement is how to pay for this. what are you actually going to do? when you get to that level of detail, that is where these plans start running into trouble. bret: is part of this also the pitfalls of the administration turning to congress and saying, you write this legislation. essentially, president obama wants to sign something, but there's a lot of back-and-forth. >> i want to go back even further to the stimulus package.

the administration talked about a stimulus package, and they said you give us $787 billion, and we will give you less than 8.5% unemployment. now we are at 9% and still rising. in that case, they let congress write the details. the result is, a lot of the public is beginning to have doubts. do they know what they're doing? a lot of people feel that they screwed up the stimulus. how do we trust them on health care? they sent to congress, you come up with the details. they come up with something that is a forced bill by committee. up with something that's more people would say that is not really what we wanted to end up with. they have doubts about this administration and mother and the rhetoric is matched by the

results. -- and whether the rhetoric is matched by the results. i think people are understandably having doubts in addition to the very real policy issues. bret: do you think there will get something together before the end of the year? >> i would not write it off so quickly because of the huge majorities. 60 votes in the senate and a big majority in the house. they do not even need to worry about it filibuster proof majority. the odds still favor that there will be something. it is getting tougher and tougher. there's no question that health care reform is losing latitude. >> a lot of republicans want to get something done on health care because of cost. we will see what goes. i do not think republicans are uniformly opposed. b>> it is a lot different than what the obama administration is talking about.

>> paid for it is the critical ipoint. >> democrats could be the ones who swing this more. bret: this has been a pleasure. we are not even done yet. megyn: we have plenty more, including -- did you hear this earlier? some people are taking a shot at frank ricci, the white firefighters who brought the lawsuit because his promotion was not given to him. in any event, we will tell you who is attacking him now and what they will do about it. (male announcer) if you've had a heart attack caused by a completely blocked artery, another heart attack could be rking, waiting to strike. a heart attack caused by a clot, one that could be fatal. but plavix helps save lives. goes beyond what other heart medicines do alone to provide greater protection

against heart attack or stroke and even death by helping to keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots. ask your doctor about plavix, protection that helps save lives. (female announcer) if you have stomach ulcer or other condition that causes bleeding, you should not use plavix. when taking plavix alone or with some other medicines including aspirin, the risk of bleeding may increase so tell your doctor before planning surgery. and always talk to your doctor before taking aspirin or other medicines with plavix, especially if you've had a stroke. if you develop fever or unexplained weakness or confusion, tell your doctor promptly as these may be signs of a rare but potentially life-threatening condition called ttp, which has been reported rarely, sometimes in less than two weeks after starting therapy. other rare but serious side effects may occur. (male announcer) if you take plavix with other heart medicines continuing to do so will help increase your protection against a future heart attack or stroke beyond your other heart medicines alone. you may be feeling better but your risk never goes away. help stay protected, stay with plavix.

bret: we are in the middle of the judge sotomayor. it is a lunch break. nasa's window to launch the shuttle endeavour is getting smaller. phil keating is monitoring the situation in florida. let's start with the weather. how does it look? >> we start today with a 60% chance of favorable weather conditions. we are now down to 40%.

basically, the weather today at the kennedy space center is a lot like yesterday. extremely dynamic. we spoke with a nasa meteorologist. most likely, this will come down to the last hour prior to launch. that was the case yesterday. sunday was gorgeous, but about an hour before the scheduled launch, a thunderstorm moved in from orlando. that was a no go as far as the launch director was concerned. the external fuel tank has been filled. it is just maintained and topped off for the remainder of the day. the seven astronauts were buckled in yesterday when the new goal of the -- no-go delay launch went past.

they will board space shuttle endeavour. this mission should be over by now. has been delayed two times. then, the lightning strikes near the shuttle on friday afternoon. it took 24 hours to make sure these are the tree was ok. vent line leak was fixed. it all comes down to the weather tonight. at 6:51 p.m. tonight, this is all about getting the remaining aspect of the japanese space agency leverage up on the international space station. this must part will be a large port. on board the space station is a small module carrying scientific experiments ready to be taken from the module and placed on to

the outdoor porch to see how they react in zero gravity. it is important. it will be a 16-day mission, five-day space walks. the international crew is hoping for new visitors. bret: we have seen these launch opportunities come and go depending on the weather. if it all comes down, you will see it here on fox news channel. you mentioned the the mission briefly. it is pretty intense for these astronauts. >> yes, the word play your at nasa is that even though they are installing this big porch, there will be no time for relaxing. it is 16 days and a lot of work. they're taking out the big piece of the laboratory. they will put in new scientific experiments. they will also be taking up a lot of spare parts.

there are only seven shuttle launches scheduled before the entire fleet is retired after next year or possibly early in 2011. where we stand as far as this launch goes, if we do not launch today because of the weather, they will have a chance tomorrow evening roughly 25 minutes earlier. if that is corrupt because of weather -- if that is scrubbed because of weather, then it will require the russian space agency to delay its module that will be sent to the international space station, which is on schedule. it would take the russians to delay that in order to try to launch this space shuttle endeavour on perhaps wednesday or thursday. bret: phil keating, thank you. you can catch complete launch

tonight on "special report." megyn: you may know who frank ricci, the white firefighters in the city of new haven, netiquette, and he sued new even after they refused to promote him. why? no minorities except for two hispanics scored well. they threw out the tests. he sued. sonia sotomayor threw out the lawsuit. she was reversed by the u.s. supreme court. now frank ricci will show up at sonia sotomayor's confirmation hearings, and he has become public enemy no. 13 we will tell you who is behind the latest attacks when frank ricci's lawyer joins us after the break. not long ago, this man had limited mobility.

last month, this woman wasn't even able to get around inside of her own home. they chose mobility. and they chose the scooter store! if you or a loved one live with limited mobility call the scooter store! no other company will work harder to make you mobile or do more to guarantee your complete satisfaction. if we pre-qualify you for a new power chair or scooter and your claim isn't approved, the scooter store will give you your power chair or scooter free. that's our guarantee. they were so helpful and nice. they filed all the paperwork, and medicare and my insurance covered the cost.

we can work directly with medicare or with your insurance company. we can even help with financing. if there's a way, we'll find it! so don't wait any longer, call the scooter store today. megyn: as we have to and watching these hearings, some drama has been unfolding. when the third-party witnesses, on scene, one of the witnesses will be frank ricci. frank ricci is a white firefighters in new haven,

connecticut. he has dyslexia. he studied for months for this promotion exam. he aced the exam after spending over a thousand dollars on a private tutor. as you know, frank ricci did not get that promotion. all of the top scoring people were white. none of the african-american firefighters did well. there were not qualified for promotion. they threatened to sue the city throughout the the exam. the white firefighters sued, claiming it was reverse discrimination. the case wound up before the panel that sonia sotomayor sits on, and she ruled against frank ricci. the u.s. supreme court just reversed that. joining us now on the phone is karen torre, frank ricci's attorney.

we are getting reports that people for the american way, and a report on slate, that completely lays into your client. says he has a troubled and litigious work history. he has sued several fire departments and is a serial plaintiff. in their view, this is relevant to his testimony against this judge. your response? >> i am just appalled by this. i the most americans are appalled by this. we understand the senate confirmation hearings have become a political bloodbath. the firefighter was asked to come to the senate out of a sense of duty and patriotism. they have agreed to cooperate.

it took all 24 hours for the liberals to start a smear campaign. i found it will lead distressing and disgusting. megyn: they say that in 1995, he filed a lawsuit claiming the city of new haven discriminated against him because he is dyslexic. they say he was also fired from a fire department in middletown, conn., allegedly because he raised safety concerns. the slate article paints him as a vexatious litigant. the article says, "perhaps he was repeatedly victimized by a cruel employers, first his dyslexia, then for his role as a whistleblower, and then just for the white. if that is so, we should all be grateful for the rest civil

rights laws. the other way to look at frank ricci is as a serial plaintive. he reacts to professional setbacks by filing suit, or by complaining his way up the chain of command. not the typical gop heartthrob." >> and does not surprise me that she would try to smear frank ricci like that. this by trying to pass herself off as a mainstream supreme court analyst, she has done nothing but write a lot of misleading articles. i center e-mail -- sent her e- mails. she ignored those e-mails. for the first time, non minority firefighters in new haven decided to sue. all of the lawsuits in new haven and elsewhere in the country,

and there have been hundreds of them, were started by black firefighters, the naacp, organized interest groups, and the brighter does not seem to think those groups are litigious -- and the writer does not seem to think those groups are litigious. megyn: frank was not the only planted in this case. >> that is right. he was joined by 19 other individuals. twice he brought a lawsuit and twice he prevailed and showed that his civil rights were demonstrated. why would an american, and especially liberal, have a problem with that? megyn: united states supreme court saw it his way. judge sotomayor had gotten it wrong. this is reminded of all to what happened to judge plummer, who

pass the question of president obama, who asked a question, and then became a target for some on the left? howard wolfensohn said the gop dropped the ball because it failed to vet joe the plumber. are you surprised that frank ricci is being made a target? >> i am not surprised. joe the plumber came to mind quickly. if this shows americans anything, is the complete and utter hypocrisy of the left and liberals in this country. they are unquestionably vicious. and they're the ones who purport to be the nice people. and somehow the conservatives are cold and not tolerant to other people. these people are vicious.

it is a good thing for americans to realize. these are the exactly the type of people we put in control of the american government. megyn: in defense of the left, it does not seem to be gaining traction. is this left-wing group, and slate. is frank still going to testify? >> yes, he is. he was asked to do so. he did not ask to go to washington. they asked him to come. one or more senators talk about the fact that president obama and other democrats have said that a supreme court justice must understand the lives of real people. you cannot get a better example of ordinary, real americans than frank ricci and the lieutenant. these are real people.

i think their case shows the importance of the judicial. megyn: we will be watching, as many americans will be. they will take to the stand to offer their thoughts. thank you very much, karen torre. bret: on foxnews.com, you can watch the white house briefing. is attorney general eric holder getting ready to appoint a special prosecutor to look into bush administration officials? leon panetta went to capitol hill at the end of june and brief to the house and senate intelligence committees about a secret initiative. you want to know what the initiative was? we have the answer after the break. ( crack of bat, cheering )

not playing with the kids? not on these legs. poor leg circulation. doctor says it's p.a.d. peripheral artery disease? hmmm. more than doubles your risk for a heart attack or stroke. so i hear. better ask your doctor about plavix. plavix can help protect you from a heart attack or stroke. plavix helps keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots, the cause of most heart attacks and strokes. my cousin the m.d. call your doctor about plavix. (male announcer) if you have a stomach ulcer or other condition that causes bleeding, you should not use plavix. when taking plavix alone or with some other medicines including aspirin, the risk of bleeding may increase so tell your doctor before planning surgery. and, always talk to your doctor before taking aspirin or other medicines with plavix, especially if you've had a stroke. if you develop fever, unexplained weakness or confusion, tell your doctor promptly as these may be signs of a rare but potentially life-threatening condition called ttp, which has been reported rarely, sometimes in less than two weeks after starting therapy.

other rare but serious side effects may occur. megyn: cia interrogation tactics are the focus of a possible justice department investigation. according to reports, attorney general eric holder may order a criminal investigation into the treatment of terror detainees under the former bush administration. mike amenable, we have heard so much talk about -- mike emanuel, we have heard so much talk about who might get involved.

put this in perspective. who are we talking about? how does it differ from the other investigations that we have heard about? >> we have heard some conflicting information. we have learned that attorney general eric holder is leading toward appointed a criminal prosecutor to look into whether investigations by the cia may have gone too far. we have heard conflicting information on whether he would go after senior ranking officials, or perhaps lower level people. obviously, if you served during the bush administration, you have got to be a little anxious to you will get a phone call from your attorney. megyn: we have heard before that they had determined they would not go after the cia operatives. the only ones they considered prosecuting were the lawyers who drafted the policy, and other

so-called policy makers, but the agents themselves were not really on the table as potential subjects of a criminal probe. is that now changing? >> that sounds correct to me. there's no political will to go after the operatives who felt like they run operating under the fauglaw. it sounds more like more of the policy people, perhaps the attorneys who said this would be ok to do in the field. megyn: just to clear it up, the potential subjects of the investigation would be cia policy makers, not the actual order takers at the cia. that is what it sounds like. it also sounds like people who worked at the justice department who may have said this sounds

ok to me. sounds like more of the voyeur types as opposed to the operatives in the field -- lawyer types as opposed to the operatives in the field. megyn: that was the question all along. the reports were that the department of justice was bleeding against not doing that. now we get a suggestion that they may be leading the other way. mike emanuel, thank you. bret: the other story regarding the cia has to do with director leon panetta briefing the house and senate intelligence committees about insurgent initiative. foxnews.com -- about a certain initiative that he said he ended pretty brief to the house and senate committees. lawmakers said they were not been briefed about what was being done in the bush administration. we can tell you now that this program was in fact an

authorization to capture or kill al-qaeda operatives, including possibly assassination squads to go after specific people. i spoke to a former senior intelligence official who said this was not a program. the person said it would never began. there was no need to brief it. it was not a reality. what about this back-and-forth and the politics of this? let's bring in bill salmommon. what about this back-and-forth on this non program? >> the first thing you have to remember is the chronology of how this unfolded. it started with republicans making it clear last week that they would resurrect the controversial -- house speaker nancy pelosi claimed she was lied to by the cia. they would use the defense

reauthorization act as an opportunity to renew this controversy. to head that off, according to republicans, democrats suddenly remembered that the director of the cia, leon panetta, came to them a couple of weeks ago and told them about how he had discovered there was this program that you just referred to, and he was briefing them because they have not been briefed before. it was an idea, never a program to the democrats say -- it was an idea, never a program. the democrats say that dick cheney ordered the cia not to brief congress. it turned into a masterful job of changing the subject. now everybody is talking about the evil dick cheney and the evil cia of the bush era instead of nancy pelosi the other purpose that the serbs is that it allows the attorney general to renew his call for the investigation -- the other

progress that the serves is allowing the attorney general to renew his call for the investigation. bret: it says the president had briefings every week. he also said, about the politics, leon panetta brief to the house and senate intelligence committees. you did not hear anything from senators. >> you only heard from the house. the house is usually a more political chamber than the senate. this never rose to the level of becoming a program. if every time someone at the cia has a thought in their head, and now we have to brief congress about it, no one is going to get anything done in this town. it is a stretch to argue that they should have been briefed about the idea that never came to fruition. bret: you talked about the

agenda. this is interesting timeliness president obama -- this is interesting timelinesing as pret obama is pitching the health care plan. there are partisan splits on capitol hill right down the middle. you don't think the obama white house wants this on the plate right now. >> no, you do not. the way this has been spoonfed to the press -- the press is playing along with this. they are put trying this like eric holder is so english. he does not want to look backward. he wants to fulfil his duties as attorney-general, so he is relatively going to have to go after these bush-era people and prosecute them. this allows people to have it

both ways. he could say i did not want to look back, but i have this very virtuous attorney general. it is dangerous. when you start looking into all these things, there's a good chance that this could reflect just as badly, if not worse, on democrats. obama is plane with dynamite if he allows eric holder to do this. it is ultimately obama's decision. bret: bill sammon, thank you. megyn: coming up, we will hear from our panel on frank ricci. there's a manhunt underway for three escaped inmates from an indiana state prison. we have the details on that. that is next.

bret: this is a fox news alert. as we look at the capitol dome, as the judge sotomayor are happening on the senate side, in the house, house speaker nancy pelosi at 3:00 p.m. will role of what they say is a health-care reform package. you will see the house speaker talking about what will come out of the house. we have been told that this package will include a federal public option. the big question is whether that can happen on the senate side. the answer so far is no.

and there are questions about how this will be paid for. as we talk about healthcare, overall, this is a fairly significant development. the house speaker said she will roll out the house version of health-care reform. we will keep an eye on that. megyn: a manhunt underway in indiana for two escaped inmates. one is a convicted killer and the other is a convicted rapist. they escaped with a third man from the indiana state prison. charles smith is back in custody. now police are warning folks in one southwest michigan town to be on the lookout. they believe 46-year-old mark booher is in the area of grand breeach. what did these guys do? >> charles smith was arrested in

a small town, grand preach, about nine months away from the maximum-security prison. -- and the town of grand beach. chicago mayor richard daley has a summer home and it was his office to tell that captured the inmates. they spotted a second inmate, marked booher, who police believe is still in the area. they believe that the inmates stumbled into town. they were not targeting mayor daley or his property. now we learn that he, his wife, and his three young grandchildren were in the home at the time. there's a massive search under way for the remaining two suspects. there's no word on where the third suspect is. megyn: how did they escape? >> prison guards and noticed that the three inmates were not there on sunday morning after they missed roll-call. i spoke to the department of

corrections earlier today. a representative told me those men had about five hours to escape. they had to escape prison bars and the locked doors and other security measures to get into an underground tunnel system. two of the inmates worked in that area as part of a supervised work crew. that is possibly how they began familiar with the tunnel system underground. megyn: this is a bit of egg on their face when you have two convicted felons get all the present. they're not telling you exactly how they did it. >> that is exactly correct. they say it is pretty much impossible to do what they had done. it seems like they were familiar with that area and they knew exactly what they're doing. megyn: seems like something they should figure out quickly. thank you .

bret: coming up, we will go back to the confirmation hearing of judge sotomayor. a few other senators have opening statements and then we will hear from the judge. senator al franken will stay. we will hear from a new democrat from pennsylvania. also, the important question about why judge sotomayor is wearing the same thing as megyn. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.

megyn: we are back with our panel. steve chayes and our own chris wallace. before we get started with the hearings again -- the hearings will resume at 2:00. and then we will hear from the nominee, se sonia sotomayor. and then we will hear from al franken. he has only been in the senate for two weeks, but people like him, and he is good enough, and he is smart enough.

i want to pick up on this story about frank ricci. we got a ton of the mill in already. -- have gotten a ton of the mie-mail. >> is outrageous. i'm not comparing it to a rate case where they are blaming the victim. it does not matter what this guy's history as. -- i do not know what this guy's history was. why you would get into his work history -- he is a unit, here is the case that i've brought. the supreme court took it as a big constitutional issue of all workplace discrimination. his background is irrelevant to the whole process.

megyn: they will do this on the other side. they will have a baseball player who like her 1995 ruling and said she is right. this is how it works. somebody on both sides will tell their story. is this marked? -- is this a smar smart? >> i think it is cover policy -- i think it is gutter politics. they do not want him to appear testifying against sonia sotomayor with any legitimacy or any stature in the mind of the viewers. i do not think it is fair. i do not think it is good. the left-wing bloggers can go after you on what i think our while the charges, and they see themselves as responding to whitright wing media.

i think they take it to an extent where it is offensive. it might generate a backlash. bret: this new development with going after him -- will that come up with the hearings? >> i do not know if that will come up in the hearings. overwhelmingly, americans oppose racial preferences. this shines a brighter light on a case that was already started to get a lot of attention in the first place. there was a poll last week that talked about the extent to which americans oppose race-based preferences. even among hispanics, 58-38. democrats overwhelmingly oppose the way that sonia sotomayor came to a decision in this case. i think this is a bad thing for democrats if they want to get through the hearings with as little fireworks as possible to draw more attention to this case seems to be foolish. bret: this was going to be a

focus of a lot of the republican questions. >> things are spinning out of control. it does indicate that there's an inside game and an outside game. everybody thinks the confirmation will happen. there's also the outside game of the republicans and democrats arguing about judicial philosophy. they will try to diminish frank ricci and what i think is a tough argument for the democrats to make, which is that sonia sotomayor on the right side of the case. megyn: they are getting closer to setting up. we will hear from judge sonia sotomayor momentarily. after all these senators tester with his 10 minutes -- gets through with his or her time and opening statement. >> this is interesting. this is democracy in action.

megyn: i do think it is an important civics lesson. we heard so little about judicial philosophy in the last presidential election. we were all talking about the economy. now you can see how this matters. the supreme court affects your day-to-day life. sonia sotomayor is most likely going to be on it. the supreme court justices rarely make public statements. this is the only chance to get to explore her judicial philosophy. she might be a little nervous. millions of people are watching this. everybody will be watching her every move, her demeanor. is she going to respond to any of these charges preemptively? and how she handles herself. >> unless she crashes, she is going on said as the winner. the question is, how does she

handle this. it is the way it is framed that is so interesting. one thing that happened this morning -- her people said overwhelmingly, 80% of her rulings have been reversed that have beegone to the supreme court. the democratic senators said she has voted with republicans 95% of the time. she has voted against people look filed a discrimination complaints on women. she has voted against those seeking immigration and asylum to the numbers are pitted against each other in an intriguing way. she is not a square player when it comes to judging. democrats say, what about chief justice roberts? he has no square player either. it is very interesting. bret: the white house put out a

200-page white house playbook in which they're told to focus on three major talking point. her history and personal narrative, and she has been a tough law-and-order jurist, and she respects precedent and the role of law. >> it will be interesting to see how she dances around her own history, especially in hiher speeches, and also tries to square that with the people she is trying to win over to her side. she will get the democrats. the big challenge for her is to get some moderate republicans. in order to do that, she will try to sound like somebody who favors judicial restraint, or has a moral and conservative judicial philosophy. i think that will be hard to do given the voluminous records of her rulings and the things shia said in her speeches -- and the things she has said in her

speeches. >> even people who were critical think she's mainstream in her rulings. >> i think you talk to conservative lawyers who say -- conservatives would argue she is not in fact mainstream. megyn: i have heard many conservatives describe her rulings as mainstream. they're worried that once elevated to the united states where she is no longer bound by some of these precedents, what will she do? will she have more in accordance with her speeches, or look at this, as i speak of them. al franken and senator specter. we'll hear from these two senators charlie. -- we will hear from these two

senators shortly. >> we do not know, but this is where we have seen so much debate today about her speeches and her off the bench remarks. democrats have talked a lot about her rulings. republicans have talked more about her speeches. once she is on the supreme court, this is a lifetime appointment. also, this is somebody who has been positioned to be a supreme court nominee for over a decade. she may have thought about how these might look going forward. >> one way to look at the hearings today, it is not about sonia sotomayor. it is really about president obama and the standard he has put forward for empathy. also, tom coburn said he did not think it was the justice roberts hearings.

[captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- bret: judge sotomayor enters the hearing room. look forward to judge sotomayor's stage. she is hougging the congresswoman of new york. look forward to her opening statement. do you think she will review some of these republican talking points that she has been patiently listening to? >> i'm curious. we do not know. it is an opportunity for her to say whenever she wants to senay. she may save it for tomorrow when she is ask questions. >> order in the room.

judge, good to have you back here. senator, your next. >> thank you very much. welcome back, judge terry is a pleasure to see you again. i enjoyed our conversation. -- welcome back, judge. you're confessed to me that you once brought a winter park cut to minnesota during june. i will not hold that against you. it is an honor for me to your mom. when president obama first announced to nomination, i love the story about how your mom said all of her money to buy you and your brother the first set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood. it reminded me of when my own parents brought us the encyclopedia britannicas. for me, they were our window on the world and a way to

knowledge, as they clearly were for you. from the time you were nine, your mother raised you and your brother of her own. she struggled to buy those encyclopedias on a nurse's salary, but she did it because she believed deeply in the value of education treaty went on to be valedictorian of your high school class and to go to law school. after that, you became a local prosecutor. most of my questions during this hearing will be about opinions you have altered and work you have done in the criminal area. -- opinions you have a uthored and work you have done. when i think about the inspiring journey of your life, i am reminded of other supreme court justices that came from modest and challenging circumstances. there is justice o'connor, who lived the first years of her life at a ranch in arizona with

no running water and no electricity. by sheer necessity, she learned how to mend fences, ride horses, should a rifle, and even drive a truck before she was 13. i also think about justice marshall, the great-grandson of a slave. his mother was a teacher. justice marshall waited tables to put himself through law school. his mother pawned his wedding -- her wedding rings to get the down payment to send him to college. then the justice who was able to attend harvard college only because of the last minute harvard club of minnesota got him a scholarship. he worked as a tutor and a janitor. his family was never able to

scrape up enough money to bring him back to minnesota for christmas. each of these very different justices grew up in challenging circumstances. no one can doubt that for each of these justices, their life experiences shaped their work. this should be on remarkable. in death, it is completely appropriate. our own committee members the mistress the value of different perspectives. at the same time my accomplished colleague senator whitehouse was growing up during the vietnam war, i was working as a carhop. senator hatch is a famed gospel music songwriter, and senator leahy is such a devoted fan of the grateful dead that he once had trouble taking a call from the president of the united states because the chairman was on stage with the grateful dead.

[laughter] we have been tremendously blessed on this committee of the gift of having backgrounds with different experiences and different backgrounds. when one of my colleagues questioned whether you would be a justice for all of us, or just for some of us, i cannot help but remember something that hubert humphrey once said. he said america is all the richer for the very different and distinctive strands of which is woven. along those lines, your only the third woman in history to come before this committee as a supreme court nominee. there are currently only two women on this committee. i think it is worth remembering that when justice o'connor graduated from law school, the only offer she got from law firms were for a legal secretary positions. justice o'connor, who graduated third in her class from stanford law school, saw her accomplishments reduced to one question -- can she type?

justice ginsburg faced a similar obstacles. she was one of only nine women in the class of more than 500. one professor demanded that she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. she was later passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her credentials to get their undeniable merit triumphed over those who saw to deny them opportunity. the revenue came before you to be considered by this committee helped blaze a trail. although your record stands on your own, you also stand on their shoulders. another will then with an opportunity to be a justice for all of us. as justice ginsburg's recent comments regarding the strip search of a 13-worlyear-old gir,

being a justice for all this made me bring in real world experience into the courthouse. we know that you are more than the sum of your professional experiences. you bring one of the most wide- ranging legal resumes. local prosecutor, trial judge, appellate judge. strait of law school, he went to work as a prosecutor in the manhattan the office and he stayed there for five years. when you are a prosecutor, the loss ceases to be an abstract subject. it is not a dusty book in the basement. if israel and it has an impact on real people's lives -- it is real and it has an impact on real people's lives. it also has a big impact on individual prosecutor. you never forget the big and difficult cases. one of those is the serial burglar-murderer case.

in my case, it was a 11-year-old girl who was shot by stray gang fire. as a prosecutor, we do not just have to know the law, you also have to know people. i'm interested in talking to you more about what you have learned from that job and how the job shape to our legal career and your approach to judging. i'm interested in learning more on your views on the fourth amendment, the confrontation clause, in sentencing law and policy. i'd like to know how you would balance the text of statutes and the constitution and the practical things to see in the world. it seems to me in cases like these, you have a keen understanding of the real-world applications. i am often concerned that those pragmatic experiences are missing in judicial decisions, especially in the recent supreme

court case. i agree with the four dissenting justices that the ruling has vast potential to disrupt criminal procedures that already give ample protections. your old boss robert morgenthau called up phyllis prosecutor. this is how he put it wants an interview. -- the call to a fearless prosecutor. he said a lot of the job is making decisions. he also said he wanted to see signs of humility. we are giving young lawyers a lot of power and we want to be sure they will use that power with good sense and without arrogance. these are among the very qualities i am looking for are any supreme court justice. i'm also looking forward to a person with adjustmengood judgmf also understands that her judicial decisions affect real people. with that comes the second quality, a humility. i'm looking for justice who

appreciates the awesome responsibility. a justice who understands the gravity of the office and respects the very different roles that the constitution provides for each of the three branches of government. finally, a good prosecutor knows that her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. a supreme court justice must interpret the law without fear or favor. i believe your background and experiences, including your understanding of front-line law enforcement will help you to always remember that the cases you here involve real people with real problems to are looking for real remedies. with excellent justice an excellent judgment and a sense of humility, i believe you can be a justice for all of us. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you.

welcome, judge sotomayor and congratulations on your nomination. congratulations to your parents. we are now beginning the end of an extraordinarily important process to confirm a supreme court justice. short of voting to go to war, the obligation to advise and consent on supreme court nominee's is probably our most important responsibility. supreme court justices serve for life. once the senate comes in nominee, she is likely to be affecting the law on american lives much longer than many of the senators who were here to confirm her. the process began after justice souter announced he would resign. president obama consulted with members of both parties. it has continued since then.

with the help from extensive public debate among analyst, scholars, activists -- this public process will not always -- this process is extremely valuable to the senate and to the public. one of the truly great benefits of a free society is our ability to delve deeply into extensive public record. we have seen a wide range of discussion of the issues in which anyone can help dissected the debate, even the most unique expressions of opinion. the less public part of the process -- you have the wonderful experience of meeting with 90% of the senate. these meetings are also extremely useful. i learned a great deal for my meeting. i'm confident my colleagues did as well. for me, the critical criteria for judging a supreme court

nominee or the following. first-rate intellect, sinitic experience, unquestioned integrity, absolutely committed to the rule of law, unwavering dedication to be fair and open- minded, the ability to appreciate the impact of court decisions on the lives of ordinary people. based on what we have learned so far, you are an impressive nominee. i am confident this hearing will give this committee and the rest of the senate the information we need to complete our constitutional duty. i believe we each owe you a decision based on your record and your answers to our questions. the decision should not turn on nt code words like judicial activist -- turn on judicial code words. we should focus on your record and responses and determine whether you have the qualities that will enable you to will serve all americans on our

nation's highest court. as my colleagues have noted, your rise from humble beginnings to extraordinary academic achievement is an aspiration to us all. i noted that you will bring more federal judicial experience to the supreme court than any justice in over 100 years. you have incredibly valued practice experience as a commercial litigator and as a prosecutor. in terms of your record, you have been careful, thoughtful, and open minded. what strikes me most about your record is that it seems to revealed no biases. you appear to take each case as it comes without predilection, giving full consideration to the arguments of both sides. when justice souter announced his retirement in may, i suggest that the court would benefit from a broader range of experience. among its. my concern at the time was of

the lack of women or racial or ethnic minorities on the court, although that deficit is queried. i was pointing to the fact that most of the current justices, whether it be black or white, women or men, share roughly the same life experiences. i am heartened by what you bring to the court based on your upbringing, your story of achievement in the face of adversity, your professional experience, and the prospect of your be the first latina to sit on the high court. the supreme court should hold as an ideal and it probably reflects the citizens in terms. diversity serves many goals. in a better but perhaps our institutions to understand more of the viewpoints and backgrounds. moreover, growing social research suggest that it comes to the right outcome more often

than not diverse groups. i believe a divorce court will function better a slow -- diverse court will function better as well. too often it seems business cases this regard law. based on my education, my experience, and my inclination, i'm not anti business. whether it is preempting state consumer protection laws, striking down to the damage awards, restricting access to the courts, or overturning 96 years of pro consumer and tight -- anti trust law. given our current economic crisis and what led to the crisis, that bias is troubling. congress can and will enact a to

radically improved regulatory system to the president can and will make sure that relevant agencies be headed by smart and motivated agents. the supreme court, resistant to federal government involvement in the regulation and markets, could undermine those efforts. a judge or a court has to call the game the same life for all sides. everyone comes to the plate with the same count. one of the aspirations of the american judicial system is that it is a place where the powerless have a chance for justice on a level playing field. we need justice is on the supreme court who not only understand that, but are also committed to making it a reality. because of the importance of business cases before the supreme court, i plan to spend some time asking you about your experiences as a commercial litigator.

handling of business cases as a trial judge had on the court of appeals, and your approach to business cases generally. from what i've seen of your record, you seem to call these cases write down the middle without any bias or agenda. that is very important to me. very soon, those of us up here will be done talking and you have a chance to testify and answer questions. i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you. another former chairman of this committee, senator specter. >> chairman, i join my colleagues to welcome you and your family. i compliment the president for nominating a hispanic woman. i think it was wrong for america to wait until 1967 to have an african-american justice on the court.

waited too long until 1981 to have the first woman, the justice o'connor. as a diversification, diversity is very important. you bring excellent credentials academically and professionally. your service on the court -- the constitution requires the process for this committee and then the full senate to consider in the till your qualifications. most of the questions which will be asked of you in the course of these hearings will involve decided cases. i intend to ask about decided cases, but also about cases that the supreme court decided not to decide. and on the rejection of cases. it is a big problem.

of it suggests the court has time for more cases. chief justice roberts noted in his confirmation hearing that the decision in more cases would be very helpful. if you could press the docket of the supreme court in 1886 was currently, in 1886, there were 1396 cases on the docket. 451 were decided. a century later, their only 161 signed opinions. in 2007, their only 67. -- there were only 67. i start on the cases that were not decided. i could start in many areas. i could start with the circuit splits were one court of appeals goes one way and another court of appeals goes the other like.

-- goes the other way. and the supreme court decides not to decide. take the case of the terror surveillance program, which was president bush's secret warrantless wiretaps, contrasted with congressional authority exercised under article one on the foreign intelligence surveillance act, providing the exclusive wait to have wiretaps. perhaps the sharpest contrast of the article one powers of congress and the article to the powers of the president. the federal district court said the terror surveillance program was unconstitutional. the sixth circuit decided 6-1

that if clinton did not have the standing. i thought the dissenting opinion was much stronger than the majority opinion. -- the sixth circuit decided that's it did not have standing. used frequently by the courts to avoid deciding the case. the supreme court of the united states decided not to hear a case. did not even decide whether the lack of the standing was justifiable. this has led to great confusion in the law. it is as current as this morning's newspapers, reporting about other secret programs which apparently the president had an operation. the supreme court of the united states taking up the terror surveillance program, the court could have ruled on whether it was appropriate for the

president not to notify the chairman of the judiciary committee. we now have a law that says all members of the intelligence committees are to be notified. the president did not follow the law. did he have the right to do so under article two powers? we do not know. within the past two weeks, the supreme court denied hearing a case involving claims by families of victims of 9/11 against saudi arabian commissions and four princes in saudi arabia. the congress decided what sovereign immunity was in legislation in 1976, and had exclusions. the supreme court denied an opportunity for those families

who has suffered from having their day in court. one of the questions will be to ask you what will be the standards that you would employ in deciding what cases the supreme court would hear. there's currently a major matter of an issue on the voting rights act, and the conflict has been present for many years between the authority of congress to decide what is the factual basis for legislation. the standard which justice harlan decided was a rational basis. the supreme court, more recently, has adopted a standard of currently -- congruence and proportionality.

justice scalia has said it is a flabby test which invites judicial lawmaking. you hear a lot about the judge's responsibility to interpret the law and the statutes and not to make the law. during the confirmation, chief justice roberts said in pretty plain terms that the court ought to allow the congress to decide what the factual basis is. and for the court to do otherwise is to engage in judicial legislation. the voting rights case was decided on narrow grounds. it certainly looks -- if you rated the record -- the court is about ready to said the voting rights case just like it in alabama on the americans with disability act. notwithstanding the best record established. i would like to know what your standard will be.

a rational basis, which had been the traditional standard, or congruence and proportionality. if you tell me congruence and proportionality, i will ask you what it means. it slips and slides around so much that it is impossible to tell what a constitution standard is. we would like to know what the standards are so we know what to do when we undertake legislation. your decision on the district circuit court in a case involving the environmental protection agency and the clean water act has a special prominence now that we are debating climate control and global warming. in the second circuit opinion,

you were in the majority. you decided that it was a best technology. the supreme court reversed 5-4 that it turned on a cost- benefit analysis. i think it is worthy of exploration, although, what you answer was a matter of your discretion as to whether on a 5- 4 decision, it is hard to say was really bright. it is a matter of interpreting the constitution. -- it is hard to say who is right. having a different view, i would be interested to know if you care to respond as to whether you would be with what happened in the minority, and perhaps a voice as strong as yours in the conference room could produce a different results. could have a real attack on what we are legislating on cap and trade. with a few items i have left, i

would like to produce some questions on televising the court. i do not know why there's so much interest here to there, having counted as many cameras since the justice alito was sitting where you're sitting. have had experience in the district court with television. you are replacing justice souter, who said that if tv cameras were in the course, there would have to roll over his dead body. if you are confirmed, they will not have to roll over his dead body. the court decides all the cutting edge questions of the day. the senate is televised. the house is televised. a lot of people are fascinated by this hearing. i would like to see the court to televised. thank you, judge sotomayor. >> thank you, senator specter.

i just want to understand -- the next senator will be senator franken and then the two people who will introduce you. then the judge will have a chance to say something. senator frank has been waiting patiently all day. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is an incredible honor to be your less than one week into my term as the united states senator. my first major responsibility is here, this historic confirmation hearing. i am truly humbled to join the judiciary committee, which has played in will continue to play such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice. chairman leahy, for several years, i have admired your strength and integrity in leading this committee. i am grateful for your warm

welcome. and the consideration they have given me. i am honored to serve alongside you. thank you, member sessions. i plan to follow the example of my differengood friend and pred, who was willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work that the american people. i look forward to working with you and my other republican colleagues in the senate to improve the lives of all americans. to all the members of this committee, know that i have a lot to learn from each of you. like so many private citizens, i have watched a least part of each and every supreme court nomination hearings since they have been televised. this is the first confirmation hearing that senator kennedy has not attended since 1965.

>> the summit will suspend. officers, please remove whoever is causing the disturbance. as we have said, this is the united states senate. we will show respect to everybody was here. we will show respect to everybody here, and certainly to judge sotomayor, the senators on both sides of the aisle, and we will have order in this room. senator franken. >> thank you. this is the first hearing since 1965 that senator kennedy has not been present. i know he is off the committee now, but we do miss his presence. these televised hearings have told america a lot about our constitution and the role that

the courts play in upholding and defending it. i look forward to listening to all of your questions and the issues the u.s. your constituents care about. to judge sotomayor, welcome. i expect to learn from you as well. as has been said, you are the most experienced nominee to the supreme court in 100 years. after meeting you in my office last week, i know you're not to stay an outstanding jurist, but an exceptional individual. as others have said, your story is inspirational and one which all americans should take great pride in. i welcome your family as well. as most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. that may mean in the most junior senator. it also means i am the mossenatr

who most recently took the oath of office. last wednesday eyesore to support and defend the constitution of united states -- i swwore to support and defend the constitution of the united states. i take his oath very seriously as we consider your nomination, judge sotomayor. i may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of americans. yet all of us have a huge stake in who sits on the supreme court. we are profoundly affected by its decisions. i hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues and concerns of the people of. . -- the people of minnesota. this hearing will help folks living in the twin cities and

the lidaluth to get a better idf what the court does and how it affects the everyday lives. justice souter, who will replace, if you are confirmed, once said, "the first lesson, simple as it is is that what ever court we are in, at the end of our task, some human being will be affected. some human life will be changed by what we do. so we better use every power of our minds, and our hearts to get those rulings right." i believe justice souter had that right. in the past month i have spent a lifetime to give about the court's impact on the lives of americans in reading and consulting with some of

minnesota's top legal minds. i believe that the rights of americans, and the citizens and voters, are facing challenges on two separate fronts. i believe that the position of the congress, with respect to the courts is in jeopardy, even before i aspire to represent the people of minnesota in the united states senate, i believe that the framers made congress the first branch of government for a reason. i believe in judicial restraint. except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branches designed to show deference to the congress and not to make policy by itself. yet looking our recent decisions

on the voting rights and finance reform and a number of other topics, and appears that the appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years. there are signs that judicial of activism is on the rise in these areas. i agree with senator feingold and senator whitehouse. we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians are running for office. and when they talk about what kind of judge they want on the supreme court. seeing that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. justice clarence thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than justice stevens and more than justice breyer combined. i am concerned that americans are facing new barriers to

defending their individual rights. the supreme court is a last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong. it is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age or gender or color. it is the last place a small business owner can ensure fair competition in the market. it is a last place an investor can go to try to recover losses because of security fraud. is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet. it is a last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote. it is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights. what i see on each of those fronts, or each of those rights,

the past decade has made it a little bit harder for american citizens to defend themselves. as i said before, i am here to learn from you. i want to learn when you think is the proper relationship between congress and the courts, between congress and the executive. i want to learn how you go about the rights of the individual, the small consumer, the business owner. and i want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of an court issues like voting rights and open access to the internet and campaign finance reform. we will have a lot more time together. thank you. >> thank you.

what we're going to do -- we will have two people who will speak each for five minutes to introduce you. i will administer the oath of office -- the oath of the committee to you. how about that? and then we will -- centered schumer, you're recognized for five minutes. senator dole and gramm, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

today is a great opportunity to recognize that the nomination of one of the most qualified candidates in the supreme court in american history could not have happened anywhere else in the world. judge sotomayor's story is a great american story. it is also a great new york story. consider this. in no other country in the world could a woman who grew up in a working-class family, received an education at the best institutions, having thrived there and gone on to be a judge and now a nominee to the highest court. this is because we do not have a caste system in this country or even a class system. 250 years ago, we throw away the centuries old framework. we started fresh, now ranks, no titles. a farmer and self-taught lawyer

from illinois became perhaps our greatest president. and so the american story goes, and judge sotomayor from the bronx -- judge sotomayor embodies what we all strive for as american citizens. her life and her career and not about race, class, or gender. although, as for all of us, these are important parts of who she is. her story is about how race and class at the end of the day are not supposed to predetermine anything in america. what matters is hard work and education. those things will pay off no matter who you are or where you have come from. it is exactly what each of us wants for ourselves and our children. this moments historic.

judge sotomayor was born to parents who moved to new york from pr during world war ii. her father was a factory worker with a third grade education. her mother worked and racised her children on her own. sonia sotomayor graduated first in her high school class in 1971. she returned to the school to speak and to encourage future alumni to work hard, get an education, pursue their dreams. when sonia sotomayor was growing up, nancy drew stories inspired her sense of imagination, developed her sense of justice, and showed her that women could and should be outspoken and vocal. now, in 2009, there are many

more role models for young student to choose from. with judge sotomayor foremost among them. judge sotomayor went on to employ her enormous talent at princeton, where she graduated and received a the kind prize, the highest honors. this is an award that is given not just to the smartest student in the class, but to the most exceptionally smart student who was also given the most in her community. she graduated from yale law school where she was in law review editor. because we have such an extensive judicial record before us, i believe that these hearings will matter less than the several previous nominees, or at the least, that these hearings will bear out what is obvious about her, that she is modest and humble in her

approach to judging. as we become even more familiar with her incisive mind and balanced views, i am certain that this hearing will prove to all was already clear to many. this is a moment in which all americans can take great pride, not just new yorkers, not just for the region -- not just hispanics, not just women, but all americans who want for themselves and their children their ratings of the law by a judge that understands how well we are a nation of individuals, we are all covered under one law. people felt at the founding of america -- judge sotomayor's personal story shows that today

, we are still got to know what experiment -- god's noble experiment. >> center schumer -- senator schumer and senator dole joel brand, go ahead -- senator gillibrand. >> for the privilege to speak on behalf of judge sotomayor. president obama has chosen one of the country's outstanding legal minds with the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i take great pride in her nomination, along with the rest of my state and our delegation, and my colleagues from the house.

as a woman, i take great pride in this historic nomination. in the words of justice o'connor, it took a very long time, about 171 years to get the first woman on the supreme court. i thought we would very likely always have two and eventually more. i am very thankful for president obama and his recognition of their portents of women's voices on the nation's highest court. sonia sotomayor's center rear our study in excellence, commitment to learning, a dedication to the law, and a constant pursuit of the highest ideals. her store is also the quintessential american and new york story. a deep appreciation for hard work. judge sotomayor saiserving as an

editor of the yale law journal before pursuing her career in the law. judge sotomayor's experiences make her uniquely qualified for the supreme court. judge sotomayor keen understanding of case law and the importance of precedent is derived from working in nearly every aspect of our legal system as a prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge, and as an appellate judge. as prosecutor, judge sotomayor thought the worst of society's ills, prosecuting a litany of crimes. the manhattan district attorney robert morgenthau described her as fearless and an effective prosecutor and a champion of the law. sonia sotomayor's years as a corporate litigator exposed her to all facets of commercial law, including a real-estate, employment, contracts, an agency law. judge sotomayor was appointed to

the u.s. district court by president george herbert walker bush, presiding over 450 cases and turning a reputation as a tough, fair minded, and thoughtful jurist. she would replace justice souter as the only member on the supreme court with trial experience. participated in over 3000 decisions, offering 400 published opinions, with only seven being brought up to the supreme court, reversing only three of them, two of which were closely divided. the confirmation brings more federal judicial experience than any justice in 100 years, more than any judicial experience in 70 years. as a testament, many independent, national, in legal law enforcement groups have already endorsed her nomination,

including the aba, giving her the highest rating of well qualified formidable intellect and record of deciding cases based on the facts and legal issues before her, also -- also faithful in following the law in that she has a healthy respect for the limited role of judges and the balance of power for the executive and legislative branches. they also stated that she is a model turned out -- jurist, mindful of the rights of all u.s. citizens. mindful as a legal advocate for civil rights, she certainly must not be seen as a disqualification, but as the hallmark of individual commitment of founding principles of justice and freedom. like ruth later ginsberg,

participation in the aclu women's rights project, judge sotomayor's leadership role in the legal defense fund demonstrates her commitment to the constitution. the rights and core values of and -- of a quality as being an inalienable american right, not ascribed by gender or color. her entire breadth of experience uniquely informs her ability to discern facts as she applies the law and follows precedent. her commitment to the constitution is unyielding. as she describes her judicial philosophy, she says she does not believe that we should end of the constitution under any circumstance. we should do honor to it. her record on the second circuit demonstrates the paramount importance of this conviction. the importance of her

professional story and personal story cannot be understated. many of our most esteemed the justices have noticed the importance of their own diverse background in being an effective judge. they understand that their gender or ethnicity is not a determining factor in a judicial ruling, but another asset that they bring to the court, like education, training, and previous legal work. anthony scalia said that he is the product of the melting pot of new york, growing up with people of all ethnic backgrounds, with no racial prejudice is, at least as antagonistic as the average american, probably much more so towards racial discrimination. justice clarence thomas said that his journey was one that required him to at some point touched on virtually every aspect and level of the country for the people who could not

read and write to the people who were extremely literate. >> senator, we will have to post your statement to the record so that judge sotomayor can be heard. >> may i conclude my remarks? >> if it can be done in the next few seconds. >> 20 seconds? i strongly support judge sotomayor as nomination and firmly believe her to be one of the finest jurist in american history. >> thank you. judge, we will let the senators step back, if they like. step back, if they like. please raise your right hand.

do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> please be seated. i thank my colleague from york for the introduction. i appreciate it. i have no new both for some time. judge, you also introduced a number of members of your family. now the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank senator schumer and senator gillibrand for their kind introductions. in recent weeks i have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting 89 senators, including

all of the members of this committee. each of you has been gracious to me, i have so much enjoyed meeting you. our meetings have given me an illuminating to our of the 50 states, and invaluable insights into the american people. there are countless family members and friends who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. i am deeply appreciative for their love and support. i want to make one special note of thanks to my mother. i am here, as many of you have noted, because of her aspirations and sacrifices for my brother and myself. i am very grateful to the president and tumbled to be here today as a nominee to the united states supreme court. the progression of my life has

been uniquely american. my parents left puerto rico during world war ii. my father, a factory worker, passed away when i was 9 years old. on her own, my brother -- my mother raised my brother and me. she taught us the the key to success in america is a good education. she set the example. studding alongside my brother and me at the kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse. we worked hard. i poured myself and to my studies at cardinal spellman high school, earning a scholarship to lawful while my brother went on to medical school -- law school while my brother went on to medical school. all of these achievements we

learn as children and they continue to guide my life's endeavors. i tried to pass on this legacy by serving as a mentor and friend to my many got children. and to the students of all backgrounds. over the past three decades i have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives. as a big city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge, and as an appellate judge. my first job after law school was not assistant district attorney in new york, where i saw children exploited and abused. i felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the needless deaths of loved ones. i saw and learned the fact that child law enforcement has in protecting the public in my

next -- public. i am next legal job, i focused on commercial matters. litigating issues on behalf of national and international businesses, advising them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks. my career as an advocate ended, my career as a judge began when i was presented to the united states district court of southern york by george h. w. bush. as a trial judge i decided over 450 cases, perhaps my most famous being the major league baseball strike of 1995. after six extraordinary years on the court, i was appointed by president clinton to the united states court of appeals second circuit. there i have enjoyed the benefit of sharing ideas and

perspectives with wonderful colleagues as we have worked together to resolve the issues before us. i have served as an appellate judge for over a decade, the citing a wide range of constitutional, statutory, and other professions. throughout my 17 years on the bench, i have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interest of anyone litigant, but only to serve the larger interest of impartial justice. in the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. simple, fidelity to the law. the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law. it is clear, i