abstract question with no -- no particular meaning to me outside of -- >> i think that's what american people want to hear, your honor. they want to know. do they have a right to personal self-defense? does the second amendment mean something under the 14th amendment? does what the constitution, how they take the constitution, not how our bright legal minds, but what they think is important, is it okay to defend yourself in your home if you're under attack? in other words, the general theory is do i have that right? and i understand if you don't want to answer that because it might influence your position that you might have in a case and that is a fine answer with me, but those are the kind of things people would like for us to answer and would like to know. not how you would rule or what you're going to rule, and specifically what you think about it, but just yes or no. do we have that right? >> i know it's difficult to deal with someone as like a judge who

is so -- whose thinking is so cornered by law. >> i know. kind of like a doctor. i can't quit using doctor terms. >> exactly. that's exactly right. but let me -- let me try to address what you're saying in the context that i can, okay? which is what i have experience with, all right? which is new york criminal law, because i was a former prosecutor. and i'm talking in very broad terms, but under new york law, if you're being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that. and that would be legal. the question that would come up and does come up before 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 and go home dr -- or

i go home. i don't want to suggest that, by the way. please! i don't want anybody misunderstand what i'm trying to say. if i go home and get a gun and come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under new york law because you would have alternative ways -- >> you'll have lots of explaining to do! >> i'd be in a lot of trouble then. but i couldn't do that under a definition of self-defense. >> okay. >> that's what i was trying to explain in terms of why, in looking at this as a judge, i'm thinking about how that question comes up and how the answer can differ so radically, given the hypothetical facts before you or not -- >> the problem is -- is we think -- we doctors think like doctors. hard to get out of the doctor's

skin and judges think like judges and lawyers think like lawyers. what american people want to see inside and what your gut says. and part of that is why we're having this hearing. i want to move to one other area. you've been fairly critical of justice scalia's criticism of the use of foreign law in making decisions. and i would like for you to cite for me, either in the constitution or in the oath that you took, outside of treaties, the authority that you can have to utilize foreign law in deciding cases in the court of law in this country. >> i have actually agreed with justice scalia and thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious, even in using foreign law with respect to the things american law permits you to. and that is in treaty, interpretation, or in conflicts of law, because it's a different

system of law. >> but i accepted that. i said outside of those. >> well -- >> in other areas where you sit in judgment, can you cite for me the authority, either given in your oath or the constitution that allows you to utilize laws outside of this country to make the decisions about laws inside this country? >> my speech and my record on this issue, because i've never used it to interpret the constitution or to interpret american statutes, is that there is none. my speeches have made that very clear. >> so you stand by -- there is no authority for a supreme court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of making decisions based on the constitution or statutes? >> unless the statute requires

you or direct you to look at foreign law and some do, by the way, the answer is no. foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law that doesn't direct you to that law. >> well, let me give you one of your quotes. to suggest anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or film law is sentiment that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, what you would be asking american judges to do is to close their mind to good ideas. nothing in american legal system prevents us from considering those ideas. we don't want judges to have closed minds. just as much as we don't want judges to consider legislation and foreign law that's developed through bodies, elected bodies outside of this country to

influence what -- either rightly so or wrongly so -- against what the elected representatives and constitution of this country says. would you kindly explain the difference that i perceive in both this statement and the way you just answered? >> there is none. if you look at my speech, you'll see that repeatedly i pointed out, both of the american legal system was structured not to use foreign law. it repeatedly underscored that foreign law could not be used as a holding as precedent or to interpret the constitution of the statutes. what i pointed out to in that speech is that there is a public misunderstanding of the word "use." what i was talking about one doesn't use those things in the sense of coming to a legal conclusion in a case. what judges do -- and i cited justice ginsburg, is educate

themselves. they build up a story of knowledge about legal thinking, about approaches that one might consider, but that's just thinking. it's an academic discussion. when you're talking about -- thinking about ideas, then it is how most people think about the citation of foreign law in a decision. they assume that a -- if there is a citation to foreign law, that is driving the conclusion. in my experience, when i've seen other judges cite to foreign law, they're not using it to drive the conclusion, they're using just to point something out about a comparison between american law or foreign law. but they're not using it in the sense of compelling a result. >> i'm not sure i agree with that on eighth and 14th amendment cases.

let me -- let me go to another -- just a short period of time. do you feel -- it's been said that we should worry about what other people think about us in terms of how we interpret our own law. and i'm paraphrasing, not very well, i believe. is it important that we look good to people outside of this country, or is it more important that we have a jurisprudence that is defined correctly and followed correctly according to our constitution and whatever the results may be, it's our result rather than a politically correct result that might pleas other people in the world? >> we don't render decisions to -- we don't render decisions to please the home crowd or any other crowd.

i know that -- because i've heard speeches by a number of justices -- that in the past, justices have indicated the supreme court hasn't taken many treaty cases and that maybe it should think about doing that becausary not participating in the discussion among countries on treaty provisions that are ambiguous. that may be of consideration to some justices. some have expressed that as a consideration. my point is you don't rule to please any crowd. you rule to get the law right under its terms. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. coburn. senator white house? >> we will come back with more of the coverage. a number of democrats, in fact, five democratic members in a row now. the committee is 12-7 in its membership so five democrats and perhaps the most interesting one

will be al franken. this will be his real chance to get on the national stage for the first time as a newly certified united states senator from minnesota so we have to watch for that. arlen specter is coming. whitehouse will be good, too. we will get right back to the questioning of the nominee in a moment. >> i was talking about some friends in providence when i was home. g b i never thought i would have a heart attack,

but i did. you need to talk to your doctor about aspirin. you need to be your own advocate. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. you take care of your kids, now it's time to take care of yourself.

t report dot com! tell your friends, tell your dad, tell your mom! never mind, they've been singing our songs since we first showed up with our pirate hats on! if you're not into fake sword fights pointy slippers and green wool tights take a tip from a knight who knows

call or click today. 's progressive. we are going to ken strickland, nbc senate producer up on the hill. ken? >> chris, what happened today, moments ago in the senate health education labor and pension committee the same committee that senator ted kennedy would have chaired but he is ailing. they passed a vote on a party

line vote and all of the democrats are going along with this that essentially gives the president what he wants in health care bill. approximate penalizes employers if they don't cover some of their employees. this is a first in a long road in a race to get health care bills passed in the house and senate before the august recess. a first in a long road for the democrats. >> give me a gps on that. give me a scenario between now and, say, october. what would be the steps you'd have to get to? the bridges would have to cross to get a national health care bill to the president's desk? >> there are five committees have jurisdiction over health care. this health committee is the first one passed a bill out of committee. four committees to go. also in the senate it's the finance committee. this is really the committee to watch. they are the committee that has the responsibility in the senate for trying to figure out how to pay for this. at least one trillion dollars over ten years and have yet to

offer their legislation. that could happen as early as next week but we don't know yet. yesterday in the house three committees there come together and offer their legislation. they are going to start the process of trying to pass those pieces of legislation out of their committees. the things to watch for is how is this paid for? the house they are basically saying we're taxing the wealthiest americans and in the senate, it's unknown and there has to be a merger on ideas and the president may have to step in and say this is how i want this to happen and until that happens it's a long road to go. >> great work. thank you, ken strickland, thanks for that update about what we're looking forward to in terms of the health care success or failure this fall. we will be right back in a moment for more coverage as the democrats, five of them now, in a row are going to ask their questions of the nominee for supreme court. we'll be right back. at 155 miles per hour, andy roddick has the fastest serve in the history of professional tennis. so i've come to this court to challenge his speed.

...on the internet. i'll be using the 3g at&t laptopconnect card. he won't. so i can book travel plans faster, check my account balances faster. all on the go. i'm bill kurtis and i'm faster than andy roddick. (announcer) "switch to the nations fastest 3g network" "and get the at&t laptopconnect card for free". women who drink crystal light drink 20% more water.

crystal light. make a delicious change. crystal light. geico's been saving people money and who doesn't want value for their dollar? been true since the day i made my first dollar. where is that dollar? i got it out to show you... uhh... was it rather old and wrinkly? yeah, you saw it? umm fancy a crisp?

geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. combines two powerful medicines for fast relief of your diarrhea symptoms, so you can get back out there. imodium. get back out there.

we're back in washington covering these important senate hearings on the third day. let's go to sheldon whitehouse. he is continuing his questioning of the nominee sonia sotomayor for appointment to the supreme court. >> i was very active in ensuring that her service was recognized by our court. it has a central role. it's important to remember is that it hasn't been fully incorporated against the states. many states limit jury trials in different ways. and so the question of what cases require a jury trial and what don't is still somewhat within the discretion of states. but it is a very important part of a sense of protection for

defendants accused in criminal cases and one that i personally value from my experience with it. >> and does the founders concerned about the potential vulnerabilities or liabilities about the elected branch illuminate the importance of the jury system? >> senator, as i see the jury system, i don't know exactly -- i don't actually -- and i've read the federal -- and other historical counts. the jury system was, i thought, the basic premise of it was to ensure that a person subject to criminal liability would have a group of his or her peers pass

judgment on whether that individual had violated the law or not. to the extent that the constitution looked to the courts to determine whether a particular act was or was not constitutional, it seems to me that that was a different function than what the jury was intended to serve. the jury, as i understood it, was to ensure that a person's guilt or innocence was determined by a group of peers. so the. to the extent that has a limit on the elected branches, it's to ensure that someone is prosecuted under the law and that the law is applied to them. in the way that the law is written and intended. >> and where the jury requirement applies to civil trials, the argument would be the same, correct? >> yes. >> again, on the question of the

american system of government, how would you characterize the founders' view of any exercises of unilateral or unchecked power by any of the three branches of government in the overall scheme? >> the constitution, by its terms, set forth the powers and limits of each branch of government, and so to the extent that there are limits recognized in the constitution, that is clearly what the constitution intends. the bill of rights, the amendments set forth there are often viewed as limits on government action, and so it's a question always of looking at

what the constitution says and how -- what kind of scope it gives for a government action at issue. >> would you feel, in light of all of the attention, very, very careful and thoroughly thought out attention that the constitution gives to establishing and enforcing a whole variety of different checks and balances among the different powers of government, that a judge who was presented with an argument that a particular branch of government should exercise or have the authority to exercise unilateral unchecked power in a particular area, should approach that argument with a degree of heightened caution or attention?

>> the best framework that has been set out on this question of a unilateral act by one branch or another, but usually the challenge is raised when the executive is doing something, the executive executes the law, takes the action, typically. the best description of how to approach those questions was done by justice jackson in his per curiam opinion in the youngstown case and that opinion laid out a framework that generally is applied to all questions of executive action which is that you have to look at the powers of each branch together. you have to start with what has congress said, express or explicitly. and if it's authorized to do something to let the president do something, then the president is acting at the height of his

powers. if congress has implistly prohibited expressly or -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> then the lower ebbs of his power. is there a zone of twilight which is the zone in between -- >> we're back with mark whitaker and andrea mitchell. mark, you have to wonder what each senator is up to here. they all have national audience in a rare moment on the stage really for the national tv audience for the politically interested people. let's think of tom coburn. he is a libertarian, he is an ob-gyn. interesting figure of a deficit hawk but certainly not your usual policy lirks politician. what does he put on display? these cultural questions. what would you do in the 38th week when you had a spina bifida

case in the womb. what about your gut notion about self-defense. what is this about using foreign law in your judgments? what do you think he is getting at? >> well, first of all, he is trying to get the judge to talk about general principles and general issues and she's not going to do it. she is just going to stay focused on individual cases. but, you know, in going back again and again to her speeches, it's almost as if these conservative republicans are treating her like a manchurian nominee. has been on the bench 15 years and has a long moderate record but at the end of the day, if she gets appointed to the supreme court, all of a sudden, it's going to become something very different. and coburn is a very independent guy in some respects. but this does play into a larger scenario on the right that there

is a secret agenda, not just with this nomination, but some with say with the entire obama administration, and it does go to this issue of are they going to take our guns away? are they going to allow foreign governments to come in here and we're going to have to follow their laws. this is a very -- it's a small group, but it is very volatile right now on the far right of people who have these views and some of these lines of questioning, i think, are playing into that apparently. >> let's cut it back to a middle case. maybe they have a point. not so much that she is a foreigner or alien force or someone un-american in some scary way but she is hooding herself, that she is keeping down -- andrea, she's not the same person who gave that speech to the duke university students. she's not the same person who speaks to fellow latinas about their hopes and dreams to be a bigger part of american society. she is being a very controlled

personality here in a way that is not fully illustrative of who she is. it's a fair criticism. >> so was alito and roberts. certainly. what they are all trying to avoid is another david souter is what the republicans are trying to avoid, which is exactly, you know, as mark was describing, someone who portrays themselves as one thing and then once -- >> do you think did it on purpose? >> no. . i think as a nominee, you don't know what you're going to face on the court and how you're going to react to the facts of a case and that he was just not -- >> she is what she is. she is not going to be a big surprise because she has, in many ways over the years on the bench and in her public speeches, revealed basically her sensibility. we know that. >> but not on abortion. that is one thing. when she was asked by senator coburn about abortion today and why would your former law partner, your mentor, think that you will rule this way on

abortion, she said, i don't know, because i haven't told anyone. the president didn't ask me that. i thought it was striking that dr. coburn, as a medical doctor, would ask 38-week, not even the most pro abortion rights person would suggest that you would do something to a child in the 38th week with spina bifida? we all know and love people with spina bifida. >> about the fifth month. >> we're talking about two weeks before fullterm. that's insane! that is the most extreme example. >> made well about br that right -- >> you're talking about a condition that is eminently treatable, surgically treatable. >> i think he wants her to say something horrible. maybe he doesn't. >> to be fair to the republicans, there is also a difference between being a supreme court justice and being an appellate court judge and the fact is the supreme court does have the power. >> sure, it does, okay. >> that --

>> ko nun drum she made the speech at the appellate level we make policy and for her to say we're strained by precedent doesn't fit what she has said before. >> you know what? there's a conflict there. if you make policy, you -- well, you make precedent. we will be back with our own discussion and, more importantly, of the hearings. we will be right back to the senate confirmation on sonia sotomayor to be a member of the supreme court. come on in. you're invited to the chevy open house. where getting a new vehicle is easy. because the price on the tag is the price you pay on remaining '08 and '09 models. you'll find low, straightforward pricing. it's simple. now get an '09 silverado xfe with an epa estimated 21 mpg highway for under 28 thousand after all offers. go to chevy.com/openhouse for more details.

try clearblue easy digital. no pregnancy test is more accurate. it's the first test with totally clear results in words. clearblue easy digital: results 5 days sooner. no test is more accurate. [ female announcer ] wishing for a baby? maximize your chances with clearblue fertility monitor.

an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines... to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow. thanks! no problem! we'll continue our live coverage of the hearings for the supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor in a moment. right now, time for a check with the other news of the day with contessa brewer who is at the news desk. >> seven penal behind bars arrested in the murder of a appellaty florida victims. victims 17 children and many adopted and with special needs. police say they got in and out with a safe in less than ten

minutes. investigators say they killed the husband and wife and the children saw at least three robbers. today they talk about how the family is coping. >> the family intends to continue their legacy in the community as that is what we were taught to do. the billings children are coping well. we have an incredible family and are more than capable of caring through with the plans our parents had in place. >> father and son are among the seven suspects. leonard gonzalez jr. alleged ring leader said his dad's confession can't be trusted because is mentally ill and one of the suspect is launched to the u.s. special forces operation. all people on board a iranian plane crash believed dead. the jet smashed into several pieces gouged a huge trench in a dirt field northwest of tehran and headed to armenia's capital city. investigators want to know why a piece of southwest jet came off mid-flight. the plane made emergency landing

in west virginia and no one hurt. government records show 11 cracks in the plane's fuselage were found and repaired during the aircraft 14-year checkup. meanwhile the piece that came off has been sent to ntsb lab for analysis. associates press reporting cia spent at least 1,dollars on a secret program to develop hit squads to kill al qaeda leaders. the highly classified program which never became operational was shut down by cia director last month. house intelligence committee chairman reyes says he'll decide sometime this week if he'll launch a full investigation into the cia operation and why congress was not briefed on it. president obama continues his push for health care reform and expected to make remarks at the white house at 1:00 eastern time today. just this morning health senate committee passed its version of the bill. the house democrats unveiled its version of health care reform yesterday. the house version is expected to cost $1.5 trillion.

secretary hillary clinton is back on the world stage following a four-week hiatus to nurse a broken elbow. she will have a speech this afternoon. later take off on around the world trip with stops in thailand and india. in the death of michael jackson, l.a. county coroner's investigation visited jackson's dermatologist yesterday to pick up additional medical records. the doctor is reportedly cooperating. tmz reports that l.a. police are treating this death as a homicide and are focusing on jackson's doctor conrad murray who was there when he died. contrary to published reports a lawyer for jackson's ex-wife says she will not give up her parental rights nor accept any money to give up her stake in this custody battle for michael jackson's three children. those are the latest head lins. chris, back to you. >> okay. thank you, contessa. dan abrams, let's bring him in. he is the nbc chief legal

analyst. dan, we were talking about the strange discussions, including the impact of foreign law on judicial proceedings. >> yeah. i think she gave a very smart answer to what was a trap in the question. the question was what gives supreme court justices the authority. where does it say that supreme court justices have the authority to use foreign law as precedent. and that was a very finely tuned question in the hope she would take the bait and answer the question in a particular way. what she did was, she said, of course, we can't use foreign law as binding precedent, meaning that it basically has to tell us what to do. but then when the follow-up questions came and she was confronted with her own statement about it, well, she said, basically, that they can use it to discuss analogies, et

cetera, in the courts ruling. i think it was an important question, because it's one thaw were talking about a moment ago is a very sensitive question of why the court sometimes mentions, it doesn't use it as precedent, but mentions what foreign courts have done in an effort to explain why a particular ruling has been issued. but the court is always very careful not to say we're using this as precedent and because another country did it, it means we have to do it. instead, sometimes they say, well, this is another reason why we think that this makes sense. so i think she gave a very smart nuance two-part answer to that question. >> the bottom line here, i grew up knowing about the conley reservation which protects american citizens from being basically affected by international tribunals but is there any real concern? i know justice breyer has looked at foreign law. is there any real possibility

that supreme court justices will refer to foreign law when they make a ruling? >> sure. >> any reality to this? >> look. they do make reference to foreign law and that is okay. what they can't do -- this drives some people crazy -- they say, wait a second. why are you referring to foreign law at all? well, what they're not doing is they're not saying because japan or italy decided it this way, we must decide it this way. no. what the court has done, on occasion, is say, look, as we look at this issue, one of the things that we saw was how there is a change internationally in the way this issue is viewed. that's okay to mentions it. it's not okay to say because another country has done it, we must view it that way and i think that sotomayor appropriately gaed distinguished between those two premises. >> what do you think it is

phobia that is out there. i wonder. it comes up when you ask people what percentage of u.s. spending goes to foreign aid and they'll say, well, 20%. they will give you answers like that when, in fact, it's minuscule in terms of our gdp. this fear that the federal government is somehow going to be cow to youing to the black helicopters are on their way. where in our history has there been any evidence that we have been in any way submerged by international law as a republic? where is the example where this has occurred? >> there isn't, but it's a great political issue for the reasons that you just stated, right? i mean, it's a great political issue and not a particularly strong legal argument. meaning as a political issue, you can try to get people to believe that somehow the courts have become sort of slaves to international proceedings. >> right. >> but the really is of course, that is not what is happening, it's a legal matter. i think this is, again, where

politics and law intercept. >> thank you very much, dan. let's go outside to jeff sessions, ranking republican on this committee. >> cannot be reversed. any city in the state in america could deny any individual american the right to bear arms because she says the second amendment does not apply to the states in their opinion. it's the supreme court, however, didn't decide that but they really sent a signal this was an open question and that the older cases may not be binding. she made no reference to that. she just flatly stated it's not a fundamental right and that it does not apply to the states. i'm troubled by that because she may well have a vote on that issue. because a case that comes up to the court may not be heard, it could be another circuit case and senator kyl asked her yesterday, she refused to say she would not sit on it or recuse herself. good to have senator cornyn here. he does a great job in these hearings, the supreme court

justice and attorney general of texas and, john, i turn it over to you. >> thank you. i want to say for my part judge sotomayor is a very charming and, obviously, very intelligent individual and i admire her service on the federal courts, the district court and the court of appeals. what we've been trying to do, though, is try to reconcile the sonia sotomayor that we have come to learn about in her speeches and that approach to judging and compare that to what we know about her judicial record, and we're left with a lot of questions, principalally because as a district judge and corporations judge she would have all of her decisions viewed by the united states supreme court. but as a member of the united states supreme court she would have no one review her decisions and she would be free to do basically whatever she wants. and if that means she would

embrace some of the philosophies and approaches that she's done in her speeches, then that would be very troubling, indeed, because that would, i think, give way to a kind of judge-made law that would provide a lot of unpredictability and, really, put judges in the position of legislators that happen to wear black robes and, by the way, you don't get to vote on life-tenured federal judges so i think it would result in the reduction and diminution in our rights as the american people to determine what laws govern us. so we have not yet, i think, had satisfactory answers to how do you reconcile those approaches, those two things. i hope, as the hearing proceeds, we'll hear more about that. let me just say, finally, i'm glad that some of the new haven firefighters, who are the plaintiffs in the ricci case, are here in the audience today. i hope the american people get to hear their story.

frank ricci, a dyslexic man who went great hardship and sacrifice in order to do well on this promotion examination that was ultimately disregarded by the -- by the new haven city council, as well as benjamin vargas, a 40-year-old man of puerto rican extraction was likewise denied promotion based on the color of his skin. i was shocked that the judge handled that case so dismiscibly on the court of appeals in a way it was virtually hidden from any of the other judges on the d.c. circuit and only was found because of the diligence of judge cabranes, one of her mentors, actually, in the law and then, of course, highlighted to a point it went up to the u.s. supreme court and was reversed and i believe justice was done. let me stop there and turn it back over to ranking member.

>> thank you. remain questions, for example, she indicated this morning to a question about foreign law that she agreed with justice scalia. well, she, in her speech that she made -- and we have a record of -- she indicates she agrees somewhat with justice scalia and thomas and pointed out one or two -- one thing they thought they made a valid pointed on, but then indicated in her preference was a theory of justice ginsburg who is the leading advocate on the citation of foreign law. those are questions, as we deal with a judicial philosophy and what she will be like on the court, give some insight, i think, in what kind of judge she would be, because constitutionally, you see, foreign law has no binding on us in any way and i'm sure everybody can agree on that.

but some think that you can use it to influence decisions in nonabsolute binding ways and cite it as authority in rendering opinions in the united states and that has created quite a controversy. justice ginsburg is on the other side and the american people i think on the other and in her speech she said she favored the ginsburg idea. any questions? >> [ inaudible ] say today that would be [ inaudible ]? >> well, i think the approach to law through -- according to the speeches, as the senator has asked, her statements about foreign law indicate to me not a decision on the firefighters case. it is a movement in that direction, i think, so and overall her speeches definitely indicate that, as the "wall

street journal" said today, and we're looking at the classical activi activist, in their opinion. >> we are getting a sense of the sentiment i think it's fair to say of some of the republican members. that was jeff sessions and we heard from john cornyn who is chairman of the republican campaign committee and he is responsible for getting republicans elected to the senate next year. a good way of looking at his, i think, personal point of view on this. let's go to pat buchanan who joins us now. this question as to whether a supreme court justice of the united states should look at foreign law and reviewing cases, what does it mean to people? >> well, what it means to conservative and traditionalists is that you're starting to move outside the sovereignty of the united states. you're looking at at an influence in any way by decisions in foreign courts, which were made to legislation in which americans were uninvolved. this sovereignty issue, chris, has raised its head for the last

15 or 20 years and very powerful among conservatives and they say this. a judge on the supreme court is to judge strictly and only on the basis of american law and the constitution of the united states. for what purpose would you consult foreign law? and how should foreign law, in any way, influence your decision? therefore, why would you consult it? i think it's a valid question when you have folks like justice ginsburg saying these things are all relevant to be taken into consideration. >> do you know her argument, pat? i mean, on the other side, what is her argument as to the relevance of a french court decision, for example, on a u.s. case? >> i don't know exactly why she says it's valid but i don't know why it should be valid, influential or even brought into consideration, when you have -- i mean, as -- i mean, the argument here is how should judges decide and on what basis and even judge sotomayor has been saying strictly on the

basis of law, on the basis of precedent, on the basis of the constitution of the united states. and i think there's a real fear, and certainly among conservatives and understandably so, chris. because in a lot, there are global institutions take the wto which simply invalidate american stated law and under the -- under the wto, they have the right to do this. and so a lot of americans are deeply concerned about that. they are concerned about the united states going into international criminal courts where they can arrest american soldiers and these are really burning issues among conservatives. >> right. what about the question the united states law involves not just our constitution, but all of the treaties agreed to by congress? >> well, this is why the wto and some of these other things are there to enable and to really reach in and alter american law. nobody denies that you got to -- that you can invoke a treaty which has the equal validity as the u.s. constitution. as you know in the booker

amendment battle in the 1950s they tried to change that and they were unable to do so. >> aren't you protect by the conley reservation? >> that reservation applies since 1946. that only applies to the world court. it says the united states will not abide by necessarily any decision of the world court. it doesn't apply to the wto. >> okay. thank you, pat. these are sentiments i know are in the country right now. concerns. i used the term black helicopter because that is perhaps the cartoon notion that at some point, american villages will be invaded by a foreign force which will take over basically. pat, you know that sentiment. do you believe it? >> "red dawn." >> we will be back with more coverage across the board of american sentiment as we watch these hearings. kraft tuscan house italian... delicious flavors... expertly blended... because great tasting dressings aren't just made,

they're crafted. including who i trust to look after my money. ♪ (woman) the dust might be settling... that's great, but i'm not. ♪ (second man) i guess i'm just done with doing nothing, you know? ♪ (third man) oh, i'm not thinking about moving my money. i am moving it. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 introducing the all-new nutrisystem for men, with flexible new programs personalized to meet your goals.

dan marino influenced me, and he really pushed me to get on nutrisystem. yeah, i'll take credit for peter jacobsen. he kept pointing at me, saying, "hey, you're putting on some lbs, my friend." i mean, he looks great, and i'm sure he'll tell you, too. well, i'm very proud of the weight i've lost and i'm very proud of what nutrisystem has done for me. i sing the praises of nutrisystem. now with more choices than ever, including fresh-frozen options, nutrisystem delivers affordable gourmet-style cuisine. get on the program, eat properly, you're going to lose weight. it's actually easier than you think it might be. now, that was really good. thanks. i had awesome results. i lost 22 pounds, it came off fast, and i've kept it off for three years. for a limited time, get an extra three weeks of meals free! that's right, you can get an extra 21 breakfasts, lunches, dinners, desserts, and snacks. that's 105 meals free! for even bigger savings, you'll get our auto-delivery discount plus free shipping and this limited-time offer

of three weeks of food free. that's an incredible value. it's pretty simple; that's what guys like. i mean, they don't want all the programs, reading all the books, going to meetings, and all that other stuff, right? they want, "tell me, 'do this,' i do it, i lose weight." and with nutrisystem you always get free phone counseling, free online membership, and free round-the-clock access to weight-loss coaches. i get the question "does it work?" all the time, and you know what, it works. we skip the store and deliver right to your door. with prices as low as $12 a day, you'll save hundreds over other weight-loss programs. order now and get an extra three weeks of fantastic meals. that's right, 105 meals absolutely free. plus, add our auto-delivery discount and free shipping for an even greater value. call or click now.

more on the sotomayor confirmation hearings coming up. i'm contessa brewer. we just heard from the escambia sheriff in florida that there has been another arrest and expect to hold a news conference on the additional arrest are. that brings the total number of people arrested for the murders of byrd and melanie billings to eight people now. among those arrested in this invasion-style robbery that allegedly ended in murder, there is a father and son, a 16-year-old, one of the suspects was a member of the u.s. air force special on operations unit. they don't know how he is involved with these other guys, but apparently, this is a well-planned invasion robbery that ended in the death of a wealthy florida couple with so many of their adopted children in the home at the time, nine children at home in the time. reportedly, at least three of the kids saw the robbers. now,er expecting a news conference coming up a little

more than an hour from this sheriff on this additional arrest. eight people now arrested in connection with the death of this couple. we will get you all the details throughout the day on msnbc. chris matthews returns after a quick break. araned income for life. that's right, guaranteed income for life. my annuity from fidelity means my retirement income is safe. it's guaranteed, no matter what happens. if guaranteed income for life sounds good to you, do what i did -- let fidelity be your guide. call fidelity at... for details about guaranteed income for life.

back with the hearings. go to norah o'donnell in the hearing room itself. norah? >> reporter: we had an interesting exchange back from this bake. senator klobuchar, very colorful, just said that she ran into judge sotomayor's mother in the bathroom and that she praised judge sotomayor for being so patient during thesings but her mother so patient, but boy, judge sotomayor has a lot of things that she would like to say. so so, that caused some interesting laughs here in the hearing room. senator klobuchar also saying that her mother has been calling her saying when are these men going to stop talking because i would like to hear from you and senator feinstein who is brilliant what are you going to say? adding levity before this latest

round of questioning, pretty interesting here. just a couple things i want to point out, chris about our coverage. we have note there had are 14 new haven firefighters here. they are here because frank richie, of course, is going to testify, as well as lieutenant vargas, so they are here in support of them t should be noted that very earlier this morning, judge sotomayor actually went over and greeted them, said thank you for them being here. of course, they are more the star witnesses for the republican side but nevertheless, she did acknowledge them and they are part of the scene here. chris? >> norah, thanks for that. back to amy klobuchar, of course, the senator from minnesota. >> which you have provided not only in this proceeding but you also provided it when you came before the senate for confirmation to the circuit court in 1997, 1998. and no senator at that time, do you remember them asking you about it or making any issue about it at the time? >> no. >> all right. thank you. now we can move on to what i want to talk