have senator leahy back in e chair and we e going to go back to the hearingoom. >> sessionill be started cordingly. senor cornyn and then- whihouse. senator cornyn. >> judge sotomayor, youill recall justice jackson said of the supremcourt we're not final beuse we're infa shl. weare fallible only because we're final. hence, the importance of these hearings andour nominaon. >> this is senator jhn corn, republican, of texas. >> want toextend a worm welcome to you and your family. and of course, join my other colleagues who hav noted your honor distguished career, as i have said asften as i have been asked about your nomination in the weeks sie it occurred, i said yur nomination should makes all feel good as americans that people humble

orig can work hard, rough sacrifice andove and suort of their families achieve great things in america. that makes me feel veryood about our country and about the opportunity it provides to each of us. in th histor of the united states, there ha only been 110 peple who haveerved on the sureme court. 110. it amazing to think about that. this means that each and every sueme court nomination is a historic moment fr our nation. each preme court nomination is a time for national conversatn and reflection onhe role of the preme court. we have to ask ourselves, those of us who have the constutional obligatioto provide advice and connt, what is the proper direction of the supreme court in diding how we shod vote andonduct ourselves during the coursef the hearing. a of course, i think it's always useful to recall our

story tat the framers created a written constitution to make sure our constitutional ghts wereixed and certain. that the state convenons, who represented we, the pele, looked at at written constution and decided to ratify it. the idea was f course, that our rights should not be floating in the ether, but rath, be written down forall to see so we cod all understandhat oseights in fact are. this framework gave judges a role that is boh unique and verymportant. the role of jges was iended to be mest, that is self-restined and lited. judges of course, are nofree o invent new rights as they see fit, rather, they are supsed to eorce the constitution's

text and to leave the rest up to we e people, through the elected represeatives of the ople, such as the congress. it's my opion that ov time, the supremeourt has often eered off the course esablished by the frames. first, th supreme court has invented new right, not clearly roed in any constitutiona text. forexample, the supreme court s micromanaged the death penalty recoized in 35 states nd by the federal government itself. and created new rights spunrom whole cloth. it's announced constitutional rus governing everything fro punitive damages to sexual ctivity. it'selied on international law that you have hea some dcussion about th the people ve never adopted. the spreme court's even ken onhe job of defining t rules of the ga of golf. if you are cious, that's pga

tour vers martin fom 2001. some ople have talked about judicial activism. in one says, i think peoe say activism is a good thing if it's enforcing he rights and laws that have been passed by the leslative branch. on the other hand, asou know, inventing new rightsveering off ths course of forcing a written text and pulling ideas out of the etherre pretty far from enforcingthe written constituon that the framers proposed and the peoplenact. y opinion is that as t supreme cot has invented new rights, it has often neglected othe. this flip si is troubling to me, too. manof the original importan safeguards on gornment power have been wared down or even ignored, express constitutional limitatis like the takings clause of the fifth amendment designed to protecprivate proper and t commerc

clause's limitatis on the firsamendment and as wel as the second amendmentight to keep andbear arms, believ have been arficially limited. so, what is the fure like? where should e supreme court go from here? i think there are two oices. fir, the supreme court' could try to get back on course(8, that is thcourt could demonstre renewed respect for our original plan o governme and return us slowly but sely to written constitution and written laws rather than dge-made laws. th supreme court's recent second amendment dcision in d.c.ersus heller, i think i a good examp of that. or the court cld alternatively

veer off cour once again and follow its own star. it could continue depart from theritten constitution. it could further eode the establishedights that we have in the text of the constition and it could invent ev more brand new rights not rooted in the text and not agreed to by the americanpeople. your honor, i thk the purpose ofthis hearing is to determine which path u would take us on if coirmed to the united states supreme court. would you vote to retrn to written constitution and laws written by the eected representaves of the people,o or wou you take us further away from the written constitution d la legitimized by the nsent of the gornment? to help the americaneople understand which of ese paths youwould take us down, we need tonow about your record. we ne to know out the legal reaning behind some of your opinionsn the second ciuit, and weed tonow more about some o your public stements reted to your judicial

ilosophy and in looking at your opinions on the second circuit, we recogne that lower crt judges are bound by e supreme crt and by circu precedent. to borr a footll analogy, a lower court judge is ke the quarterbk who executes the plays,ot the coach that calls them. that means that mny of your cases don't really te us that much aut your judicial philoshy or what it could be in action if confirmed to the united states supre court. but a few o your opinions do raise questions that intend to ask y about, andw ty do suggest, i think the kinds of plays th would you call if you we promoted to t coaching staff. the opinions raise the question, would you ste the court in a direction of liming the rights that gerations of americans have regard as fundamental? so americans need to know whether y would limit, for ample, the scope of the secon endment and whether we n counton you to holdone of the fundentaliberties enshred in the bill rights.

they need toknow -- we need to know whetherou wouldimit the scopof the fifth amendment and whether you would expand t defition of public use by which government can take property fom one person and give i to another. we need to know whether you will uphold the plai language of the eql protection clause of the 14th amendment, promising that no state shall deny that any person within its jurisction the equalrotection of the laws. judge, somof your opinion suggest at you would limit some of these constitutnal rights and so of your public statements that have aeady been mentied suggest that you would invent rights that do not exist in the constituton. for example, in 2001 speech, you argue at there is no jectivity in law, but only whatou call a series o perspectives rooted lif experience of thejudge. a 2006 speech, you said that judges can and must change the law even introducing whatou cald quote, radical change, close quote, to meet nds of an

evolvingsociety. in a 2009 speech, you enrsed the use oforeign lawin interpreting the american constitutn on the grounds that it give judges quote, god ideas,lose quot thatquote, get their creative juices flowing, close quote. judge sotomayo no one can accuse you of not having been candid about youriews. not every nominee is so open about their iews. t many americans are left to wonr whether these various -- what these various stements mean, and what you're ting to get at with these various remarks. some wonder whether y are the kind of judge who will uphold the written constition or the kid of judge who will veer us off course and toward newights invented wch judges rather than ratified byhe people. these are some of my ccerns, and i assure youyou will have evy opportunity to dress ose and makclear which path would you take us down if you

were cfirmed to the supreme court. i thank you very much and conatulations once again. >> thank you very much. senator whitehouse. >> thank yo mr. chairman. judgesotomayor, welcom welcome toou and your family. >> woodruff: th is senator sheldn wtehouse, a democrat from the statof rhode island. and i join many many americans who are soroud to see yohere today. it's great country, is't it? and you represent its greatest atibutes. your recd leaves no doubt that you have the intellectual ability to serve ajustice. from meeting with yound from the outpouring of suort that i have experienced bh personally androm organizations that are worked with you, your demeamor and your collegiity are well established. i appreciate your years aa prosecutor, workingn the trenches of law enforcement. i'm looking forward to lrning more about the experience and

judgment you are pois to bring to the supreme court. in the last two-a-a-half months,nd today, my republican colleagues have talk a great deal about judicial modesty a restraint. fair enough to a int but that point comes wn these words bome slogans not real itiques of your record. indeed, these calls for restraint and modty and complain about activist judges are often code words seeking a partular kind of judgeho will dever a particularset of politicalutcomes. it is fair to inquire into a nominee'sudicial phosophy and we ll hear have a -- her have a seris and fair inquiry, but the pretense that republic nominees embody mosty and restrai where the democrat

minees must be actists runs starkly count tore rent history. i particularly rect the analo of a judge to an uire who merely calls balls and strikes. ifjudging we that mechanical, we would not needine supreme cou justices. the task of an appellate judge, particularly on court of final peal, is often tdefine the stre zone within a matrix of constitutional princip, legislative intent,nd statutory construcon. the umpire analogy is belied by chief justicerober, though he cast himself as an umpire during his confirmation heargs. jeffrey tubin, a well respeed legal commentator has recently reported th, and this is a quote, "in every major case since he became e nation's

17th chief justice, robts has sided wi the prosecution over the fendant, the state over the condemned, thexecutive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." somumpire. and it is a coincidence that is pattern, to continue bin's quote, has servedhe interests and reflected the values of the contemporary republican part some coincidence. for all of the talk of mosty an restraint, the right ng justices of the court he a striking rerd of ignorng precedent, overturng congressional statutes,imiting constituonal protections and discovering new cstitutional rhts. t infamous ledbetter decision, for inance, the louisville and seattle integration cases. the first limitation on roe . wade that oright disregards

the woman's healt and safety, and the d.c. heller dision discovering a constutional ght to own guns that t cot hanot previously niced in 220 yrs. somballs and strikes. over andver news reporting discusses fuamental changes in the law brought by the robert -- roberts' court's right wing flank. the robes court has not kept epromises of modesty or humility made when e bush administratiominated justis roberts andalito. i'd like to avoid code words and look for a simpleroblem for you during these arings, that you wi respect the role of congress as representatives of the america people, that you will decide cases based onhe law and the cts, that youwill notprejudge y case,but listen every party that comes before you, and that youill respect reside and limit

yourself to the ises that the cot must decide. in shart -- short that yo will use theroad disction of a supreme court justice wisely. t me emphasize that broad discretion. justice stevens has said, the work ofederal judges fr the days of john marshallo the present, likethe work of the english cmon law judges somimes requires the exercise of judgment, a faculty that inevibly calls into play noons of justice, fairne and cocern about the future pact of decision. look at our history. america's common law iheritance isthe acretion of generions over the individl exercises of judgment. our constitution is a geat document tt john marshall notedeaves the minor ingdients to judgment, to be dedud by our justicesrom the document'sreat principles. the libeies in our constitution have their boundars defined in the gray and overlapping areasby informed judgment

none othis is balls and strikes. it's been a truism since marbury versus madison th courts have the authority tosay what the law is. eveno invalidatestatutes ep acted by the elected branch of vernment when theyonflict with theconstitution. the issue is not whetr you have a wide fid o disetion. u will. as justice cardoz reminds us, you are not freeo act as a knight errant, roaming at will in pursuit of your ow ideal of beauty or goodss, yet he conuded, wide enough in all conscience isthe field of discretion that mains. the queson for this hearing is will you bring good judgment to hat wi field. will youunderstand and care h your desions affect the lives of americans? will you use your broad scretion to advance the promises of libertynd justice made by the cstitution? believe tat your diverse life experience,our broad professional backgrnd, your

exptise as a judge at each level of the systewill bring you at judgment. as oliver wendel hlmes famoly side "t life of the law has not beenlogic, it has been expience." if youride experience brings lifto a sense of e difficult ircumstances faced by the less powerful amon the woman snted from the bank from voicemail to voicemail a she tries to avoid foreclosure f her faily. t family struggli to get b in t neighborhood where the police only come with raid jackets . the coup up late at the kitchen table ter the kids are in ed sating out how make ends meet that moth. the man who lieve as little fferently, or looks little diffeent, or thks things shoulbe different. ifou have empat for these people in this job, are you a doing nothing wrong. the founding fathers set up the americanudiciary as check on the elected branches and as a refuge when e branches are rrupted or consumeby passing passis.

courts were designed to be ou guardianagainst what hamton and e federalist pars called "those i hue morse which the arts of designi men o the influence of particul con junctures sotimesisseminate among the people and which have aendency to ocasion serious opprsions of the minor party in the communit" present circumstances, those oppressions can befl on the poor a voiceless. but as hamilton noted, consider it men of every description ought to prewhatever will tend to beget or fortify that tempeng the courts as no man an be sure that he may not b tomorrow the victim of a spirit injustice by which i may be a gainer today. he courtroom can be the only sanctuar for t little guy whenhe forces of siety ar a him. against -- arrayed against when oper opinion and'lekted officialdomill let him no ar. this is a correct,itting and inteed function of the

judiciary andur nstitutional structure an the empay presint obama saw in you has a nstitutional proper place i that structure. if everyone on the cou always voed for the prosecution against the defendant, for the orporation against the plaintiffs, and for te government agast the condemne condemned, a vita spark of amerian democracy would be extinguished. courtroom is supposed to be a place wherehe status q can be disrupted, even up-ended when the nstitutionoraws may require. where the comfortable n sometimes be afflicted and the afflied finds some comfort all under the sternhelter of the la it is wort remembing the judges of the unitestates have shown greacourage over the years. coura verging on heroism in providing the sanctuary of careful attention which jame brice calle the cool d atmosphere dicial determination amidst the inflamed passions orinvested

powers othe day. judge sotomayor, i believe your broad and balanced background an empathy prepare you well for this constitutional and proper judiciarole. and i join my lesion in lcoming you to thecommittee and looking forward to your testimony. >> j, welcome. it is truly an honor to have you fore us. it says omething remarkable about our country that you are here and i assur you durin ur time beore this commiee -- >> this is senator tom cocurn, republica of oklahoma. >> not distinguish, however, w will thorough as we probe the areas where we have conces. there is no question that you hava stellar resume./ and if resumesnd judicial history were a that we went , we wouldn't need to have this hearing. but in ct, othe things add into th.

equally importanto us, providing consent on this nomation is our determine determinationhat you have a judicial phosophy that reflects whatour founders intended. the's great division about what that means. i so wanted to note that i thought th this was your hearing, not dge roberts' hearg, and that the paial birth abortion ban w law passed by the united states ngress, and was upheld b supre court. so, i have a diffent point of vieon that. as i expressed to you i our meeting, ithink our nation's a a critical point. i ink that we're starting to see cracks, and the reason saw that is because i think that the glue that binds our nion together n't our political philosophies. have very different polital philosophies. the thing that binds us together is an innate trusthat you can hafair and impartial judgment

this country. that weetter than any other nation wh we havebeen wronged havecorrected the wrongs ofour founding,ut we have stilled the confidence that in fact when you come before, the is blind justice, and that in factllows us the ality to overlook her areas wheree are not so good because it instills in us the confidence of an oppounity to have a fair hearing. and a just outcome. i am ncerned, and as many of my collgues, with so of your statements, and i don't know if the statemts were made to be provocative, or if they're tuly heart-feltn what you have sai saidbut i know that some of$ thse concerns will guide my questioning when w come to the

questiong period, andyou were very straightforward th me in our meetingnd my hope is that you will be there as well. i deeplyoncerned about your assertion thathe law is unceain. that goes complely against whai just said about the rule of law being the glue thabinds us togeth. and your praise for an unprix predict analysis item justic justice. i thi we want it to be pdictable. we wa it to be predictable in its fairness and the fact that how cases are viewed, d it doesn -- shouldn't matter which judge you get, it should mater what the law is and the facts are. and i'm worried thatwt our constituion may be seen to be maeable and evoing when i as someone who comes from the heartland sems to grasp and hold and the peoplehat i represe from the state of oklahoma seem to asp and hold

there is a fodational documen and thereare stutes and occasionally taties that should be the rle rather than our opinions. other atement such as "t court i of appea is where poly is made" that surprising to me, anas i look at oufounders, the court i to be a check, not policymaker. your assertion that ethnicity and gender will make someone a better judge, although i understa the feels and emotions behind tt, i'm not surehat thacould be factual correct. may be a better judge than some, but not beer judge than otrs. thre is no -- the oer atement, "there is no objectivetance but only a series of perspectis." no neutrality, no escape fro choice in judgin what that implies the fact it's

suective implies it's not objective. and if we disregardobjective consideration of facts, then all rule rgs subjective and we lose the glue that binds us t together as nation. ev more important, is your questioning of whher the applicaon of impartialityin dging including transcending personal sympaths and prejudices is possible in most cases or is even desirable. is extremely troubling tme. you have ken the oath already twice and may take it again. i want toepeat it again. it's bn said once this morning. here is the oath, i do solemnly swear or affir that iill administer jusce without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor a to the rich, and will faithfully d impartlly discharge and perform all of the duti

incumbentpon me under the constitution a the laws of the unitedtates, so help me god. it doesn' reference foreign law anywhere. it doesn't referen whether or note lose influence in the international community. we lost influence whene became a countryn the international community to several couries. b the ct that did not impede us from estaishing this great republic i thinkthis oath succinctly captures the role a judge, and i'm ccerned about some of your statements in rega to that. our judicial philosophy mght be, i'm not sangt is, inconsistent with impartial neutral arbiter theath describes. with regardo your judicial philoshy, the burden of proof rests on you, but in this case that burden has been exaggerated by some o yourtatements and also by some of presint obama's stat intent to nominate someone w is not

imptial, but instead favors certain grou of people. during the campaign, he promised nominate someone who has the hrt, the empathy torecognize what it's liketo be a young teen-age mom. the implicati is that our judges today don't have tha. do you realize how astounding that ? thempathy to uerstand what it's like toe poor. to be africaamerican or gay o disaed or old. most of our judges undersnd what it's li to be old. senator obamaeferred his empat standard -- wen he voted again chief jtice roberts. stated the tough ses can only beetermined on theasis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader pspective on howhe world works and the dep and breadth of one's emphy. i belve that standard is antithetical to the pror role of a jud. th american people expect our judges to treat all litigant equally, not to favor and not to

enter the urtroom already prejudicedgainst one of the rties. that's wh lady justice is always depied blind. and why aristole fined law as rson-free from passion we expect a judge to merely call balls and strikes. maybe so, maybe not. but we certainly don't expect them t sympathi with one party over th other, and th's where pathy ces fom. judge somayor, you must prove to the senate that you will adhere to theroper role after judge, and only basyour opinions on the costitution, statutes and when apppriate treaties. that's your oath. that's what the constituon demands of you. you st demonstrate that you will strictly interpret the constitution and o laws, and will not be swayed by your

person biases or your political preferences, which you are entitled to. as alexander hamilton stated in deralist paper number 78, the interpretation of thelaw is a proper and peculi provinc of the ourts. the constitution, however, st e regarded by the judges fundamental la. he further you the stated, it was indispeable in theourts of justices that judge have an inflexible and uniform adherence tohe rights of the constitution. a nominee who does not adhe to the standards necessarily rejects the role of audge as dictatedy the constiution and shoulnot be confirmed. iook forward to a respectful nd rigorous intchange with youuring my time to question you. i have several questions that i hope you ll be able to swer. i will try no to put new case where you he to answer a future opinio. i understand your desire inhat rega, and i respect it.

thank you for being here, an i applaud youaccomplishments. y god bless you. >> thank you, nator. we haveeen joined by the deuty majority leader, senar dbin, and just so those who can plaspecially you, judge, we'll hear from senator duin. we'll then recs until 2:00, nd we'll come back at 2:00 at which point senator clipatar will be recnized. >> this is senatorrichard durbin, democrat, of illois. >> aerurviving a broken ankle, and indivial meets with 89 different u.s. senors in he past few weeks, you are certainly battle-tesd. if the nomination hearing for

judge ruth bader ginsberg in 1993, my friend senatoraul simon of illinois, asked the following queson -- "youace much harsher judge an this committee, that'the judgment of history. and that judgmentis likely to relve around the question, did she restrict freedom odid she expand t? ask this question with respect to the nominations of chief stice roberts,justice ato, and i tnk it's an important question of any court nominee, particularly to t supreme court. he nine men and women on the supreme courserve lifetime appointments and ey resolve many of our most significant issues. it's the sreme court that defines o personal right to privacy, d decides th resictions that are to be placed on the most rsonal aspects of our ves. the court dides the rights of the victimsof discriminaon, immigran, consumers, the nine justices decide wheth coress has e authority to pass laws to protect our civil rigs and our enronment.

they dcide what checks will exist on the executive brancin war and in ace, cause these issues are so important, we need justices with intelgence, knowledge ofthe law, t poper judicial tperament and commitnt to impaial juste. more than that, we need our supreme courtustices to have understanding of a real wld and the impa their decisions will have on everyday people. we need jusces-whose wiom -- >> the officer -- the oicer wil remove the person the officer will remove the perso we will stand. the time will -- >> as i have said befe d both setor sessions and i have id, you are guests of the senate while yoare here. everybody is a guest of the senate. judge sotomayor deserves respct to be heard. the senator deserve the respect of being heard.

no outbust yous --out bursts will be allowed to interpt the ability ofhe senators or of the judge, or i might say of our guests who are sitting he patiently listeng to evything that is being said. i thank t capital policeor respondings quickly and as raidly and professionay as they always do. apologize toenator durbinor the interruption. now, youan go back to him. >> thank you, mr. chairman. more than, that we need our supreme court justices to he an understaing ofhe real world,the impactheir desions have on everyday peple we ne justic whose wisdom com from lifenot just from lawbooks. sadly, this important quity ems to be in short upply. th current supreme court has issued many decions that i tnk represent ariumph of ideogy over common sense. when chief justice roberts came fore this committee in 200 he famously said a supre court

jusce it like an umpire calling balls a strike. we have observed unfortunately, that it's a litt hard to sow hemo plate from right fid. being a supreme court justi we as easy as callng balls and strikes we wouldn't see my 5-4 decisions the court, but in the last year alone, 23 of the supreme court's 74 decisions wer decided by a 5-4 vote. the recent decision of ledbetter vers goodyear tire and rubber is a classicxample of the supreme court putngctivism over common sens the queson in that case was simple. fundamental. should women be paidhe same as men for t same work. liy ledbert was a manager at a goodyear tire plantin alabama. worked there for 19years didn't learn until shewas about to retire tat her male colagues in theame job were paid more. he brought a discrimination lawsuit the jury awarded her verdi. the sueme court in 5-4 decision reversed it, rew out the verdict. the basis for it, they saiw lilly ledbetter file her

discrimination complaint too late. hey said her complaint should have been filed within 180ays of the first discriminatory paycheck. tht decision defied common sense and realities aft workplace where few emplees ow what thr fellow employees are being paid. it contradicd the decades of past precedent. in the stafford versus united scho district versus reding. a 13-yeaold girl strip searched ater schoolecause of a false rumor she was hiding ibuprofen pills. several justices requested questions about t case that revealed a sunning lackof pathy about t eighth grade victims. ne of the justices suggested that being stri everyoned is no differe than anging clothes for gym class. justice ruth bader ginsberg helped her eight male colleagues uerstand why the strip search of a13-year-old girl was humiliating enough to violate

her constitutnal righ, the majority ruled that thechool officialsere immu from liability. 5-4 case in 2007. gonzalez versus carhart. the supme court overturn pastrecedent and ruled for the first time it was peissible to replace rtrictions on aborton th don't inclde an eeption regarding aoman's health. judge sotomayor, youave overcomeany obstacles in your lifehat have given you an understand fr daily realities and struggles faced by eveday people. you grew up in a housing complex in the bronx. you orcome a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes. at age eig and the death of your father at age nine. your motheworked two jobs so e could afford to send y and your brothers to catholic schools. and you earned sclarships to princeton and yal i know how pro you areof you mom a family. your first job out of law school was an assistanted distct attorney whe you prosecutd violent crime i went on toork in a law fi representing corporation that

gave u another valuable perspective. in 17 years as a fderal jud, you havedemonstrate and ability to see both sides of the issues. you rned a reputation as being resained and moderate and neutral. of the 110 individuals who have served the sreme court justes throughout our nation's history, 106 he been white mas. until thurgood marshall's appointment to the supremeourt a generation o, every justice throughout our nation'history had beea white male. president obama's nonation oyou to serve as t first hispanic and the thd woman on the supreme crt is historic. the president knows and we know that to be the first, you have to be meet a higher standard. before you can serven this court, the american pele, through tir elected senators will be ked to judge you. we owet to you and the constitution to be a fair jur thank you, mr. chairman. >> thankou very much, and1

judge, thank you, and enjoy your-eny your luch. we' look forward to wh you me back. wh you come back, we'll hear fr senatorsenator kauffman, senator specter. senator franken. i welcome nator franken to the kpitee ande will then have -- and then we'll have an introduction of you, and what erybody has been really waiting to hear. we'll hear from you. so thank u very, very much, judge. >> woodruff: judge sotomay managin a smile there at the end of a few urs, two-and-a-half hours of opening our cfirmationearing before the senate juciary committee. you see judge sotomayor lien down to gve a hug to her brother. she is now with herother, and hertepfather. we know i'm witharsia coyle of the national l journal.

the judge broke her ankle just a fe days after she was announced, and she has en is it fair toay hobbling. >> hbbling through the halls of congress meeting some9 senators one on one to talk out the nominations. >> in the eks leading up to these hearing doing wha they call due digence, getting around meeting all of the -- as you said, all bu 11 members of th senate. the judge -- shes speaking now to the chairman of the senate juiciary committee and to senator chuck scher on her way out for a lunch break. marsia, a couple of thgs about wh we have hed this morning. he republicans, there's seven of them, by the way, on this 19-membe committee, reflecting their numbers ovrall in the senate. they make up ahird of this comittee, keep bringing up thi empathy term thapresident obama used. help us understand e signifance o tt? >> it's amazing how certa words son become part of our

is going to bene of those. preside obama was talking about the need to have justices on the supreme cou who understand theimpact ofertain decisns on people's lives. think one in imptant that he hasentioned often is the so-called lly ledbetter ca in which the supme court ruled against a woman in a pay discrimination ce and the cou there read the atute that was at issue very strictly in terms of when paid discrination claim has to brought. justice ginsberg read a disnt from the bench at the ti saying tt look, this is't the y the world work with pay discrimination you usually don't know thin 1 0 days of receiving your paycheck that you have beediscriminated agnst. it tas time. people in the workplace don't really talk to eh other about

their salies and what theye making. so, how do you find o that soebody's making more money than you are. unfrly so. so, h's looking for someone w understands how th world works and he has used the term empathy. ny people seem to equate the ord empathy with sympathy. but i think others would sa empathy meansnderstanding other people's perspectives, other people's life experiences, not necessari sympathy for thm, but understanding it. but that's wt we're hearing the republicans seem to equate empathy with activism, d we're aring the counterpoint to tt from the democts who say, no, empathy is what i st describe described, one poi of view being i's understanding, n ympathy and it's not ctivism. if ou really want to knee what activism , they sayake a ok at roberts court a what it haseen doing recently.

we're going to hear a lotbout activism, d we have hearda lot aboutctivism over the years it constantl comes up in judicial cfirmation heargs not just f the supreme court but for all levelof the court. >> woouff: it's almost as many theemocrats are saying, hey, you republican you nt to talk about activism look at what this roberts -- >> tt's right. someby once said there is really no clear definition o activism, but whait has come to an over the years is a desion that basically i don't agree with. >> woruff: so, marsia, they are taking wt, about an hour and 20 minute lunch eak and they're going to cme back? and i believthere are four more democrats moreemocrats on the committ, 12 democrats, nd seven replicans. and we have heard now om opening statements from all of the republicans. we have four mordemocrats, and thn we will hear from judge tomayor. >> s. >> herself. >> yes. >> finally. >> i thi that's what everyone

is waiting for. i mean, only had a brf look at her wh president obama presented he she is not mad any statements, public statementsince he did present her to thepublic. so, this will be really an opportunity for he to create an impression. the arings are really our last opportunit to really get to know her, because if she is confirmed d takes the bench, we don't have many opportunities to see her >> woodruff: she mayot be mang as many speeches if hee isconfird. we saw the other day, inread she had giv something like 183 speeches overhe course of the last seven or eig years which is remarkable. yes. she feelsery strongly -- i thinkfrom what i have read, about speaking tooung lawrs andoung people in particular. not only about the law, bu about what you can aceve with hard work. her opening statements, it will be fun to listen to he judy. it will tl us i think a couple

of thin about he one, how articulate she? and give as you littlewindow to her temperament. and ten substantively, is sh going to try to dress any of the concerns that have heard by the republin senators and any of the issues that the democratic setors have raised. so, it's going to be ite interesti to see -- i always find it -- it's -- it tends to set the tone for the hearis that come, a good ening statemenor bad opening atement. >> woodruff: and we know that she, like everyther nominee to e supreme court, has spt a lot of tme preparing forhis hearing, going thugh what you sa they call muer boards -- >> yes. >> woodruff: literally friendly lawys, who are advising the whte house on thisomination o are bically throwing tgh questions at her. marsia, we are going to tak a break. our pbs "newshou coverage. we're going to cme back arou 2:00 in the afternoon wn the

ommittee is gathered, and w'll resume our live coverage at th point with e senate judiciary committee, liv conrmation hearings of jge sonia sotomor. i'm judy woodruff with marsia coyle. we'll be back at ound 2:00 easten. a whole w perspective

on our nation'capital... ingreat views," the weta gde. rrator: dawn in washington.. rhaps no time is more peacef than when thisleeping city slowly beginto awake. onof the best places toreet the day is from the base of the netherlands carillo

next to arlington national cemetery. it's home to the vw that is classic waington, d.c. a perfect postca image recognized throught the world. many of us don'take it out before the sun up... but if you're luy enough toive a stone's throw om the carillon, this early mning view is areasured everyday expience. the prospe house is well known for s unique perspective on whington. for resident dav berry, the noramic view from hisalcony more than just a prty picture. david: it's not just pretty. it sort ofeepens the way i lookt things. e fact that the monuments of our history are out therin front of me. it kind of gives me a nse that each of us this time is part that ongoing flow ofmerican history.

i do g sort of sentimental out it. when i finally lea this place, it's notoing to be easy. i'll look back anday, wow, that was the vi. narrator: when it comes to great views height clearly helps. it may sound surpring, but the waington national catheal is actually thhighest point in washingn. well, there's a adition in washingto that no ilding will be taller than the statue of lady lirty atop the united stat capitol, and that is indeed true if y measure from the grod up. but the central tower here at washington national catheal is 276 feet abe grade, but it's 677 feet abe sea level. so that kes this the taest point in the district of columbia.

narrator: th world-renowned cathedral towers over the city d is visible for miles. it's theixth largest in the wld, d its central tower is asall as a 30-story building. from the top, the's a great view... if you're lucky enough to get up there. duringhe annual flower mart, the public is lowed the rare oppornity to catch a glimp of this highest view two times every yeare open the central tor for tours. the first our flower mart weekd, and the second is in t fall when we celebre the cathedral's bihday. man: wcome to the washington national cathedral flower mt tower climb. have a good time. it's the only ti the public is allow to actually climb the 332 steps the central tower.

it's aextraordinary opportity see parts of the cathedral that most people don'tee. girl: i think it's really cool... well, i can see some the gargoyles and stuff. it's reay gorgeous. i love heights. i lo the view. it's reay awesome. narrator: although this is rare view for most whingtonians, for joe alon, it's just part of e job. as head stone mason, he's be caring for the catheal fr the ground all the way up for over two decades.

joe: we, my office is anywhere, i guess, where i need to b and it's usually up high, or suspended off othe side of something or up on a scaffold. it's got the best officeiew in town. narrat: for a great panoramic view of the city any day of the year... and with lesclimbing, head to the old post oice pavilion tower. located along the most halwed stretch of pennsylvaa avenue, the d post office was consided a technologil marvel of its time. woman: when the builng was built in the 1890s it was the tallestuilding in the distrt of columbia anwas one of the firstkyscrapers outside of chicago a new york. narror: and it still holds its own. at 315 feet high, the old post office rank in the top three tlest buildings in the cit-

perfect r sightseeing. man: good afternoo everyone. on behalf of the nional park service, i'd li to welcome you here to t old post office tower... narrator: a couple quick elevator rides up... and yove reached one of the ar's top vantage points. the clock tower ofrs a spectacular 360-gree view of theapital and surroundinsuburbs. woman: i am tally overwhelmed he. everything is fanttic. just to be here just tes me back into histy. it's really tomuch for me to take in aone time. narratorout of all the panorac views in d.c., there's one that topthe list... literay. for over aentury, citizens andisitors alike

have expienced views from one of the world's taest masonry structur-- the washgton monument. upon completion in 14, it was the world's hiest structure. that claim didn't last, but today it stillemains the tallest buding in d.c. standing at 555 feet, thwashington monument isell known for having the st panoramic view in town. for this popul destination, advance tickets can bebtained through the rk service... and it's highly recommended. man: i'd like to welme you to the washingtononument today. itasn't built for the eat view. that's jt a side bonus. we do want to remember t man. narrator: in thearly days, the ridep would have taken 12inutes. man: all rht, let me welcome everyone to the washington monume.

so this was the tallest ilding in the world until th built the eiffel tow. naator: today it takes quick 90 seconds to reach the t of town. considerg on a clear day the average visibity is 30 to 40 miles. the's a lot to look at om up here. boy: look at the white house! no, that's a reflector po! lioln memorial! narrator: througut time, the view fm the washington monumen s changed quite dramically... but there's one washingt view that's remainethe same foover 200 years. just 16 miles south of the cy, along thbanks of the potomaciver,

sits quite posbly the most famous hse in america... mount vernon. t of 8,000 acres of land-- this was the site george washington chose to call home. heould have picked a lot ofther important and betiful places to put his he. and yet, he want it right here because you ju don't get better than this ew of the potomac riv. narrator: li much of this tranqu estate, the view h remained the same foover two centuries-- enhaed only with the addition of a piazza thatashington designed hielf. man: what he wanted is the widest, most open por so nothing would be tween him and the rir and the maryla shore. naator: despite being a mi away... and in ather state... without that pristine shoreline... the mot vernon experience st wouldn't be the same. man: over the last 60ears,

this beautiful vw has been threatenedany, many times by development all and down the river. but fortunely, a lot of very woerful people have banded togethero save that view fromevelopment. it's almost miracle to those of us imount vernon who love this view smuch. narrator: keeping thmaryland shoreline unveloped will most like be an endless endear, but one that is ll worth this priceless pce of history. man: mount vernon welcomes a million people a yea anthe fact that a milln people can stand probably right where gege washington stood and see the hiory of this great rir and the histy of this great view is one of the most remarkae experiences in all of shington. narrator: when it mes to having enduring presidential views inside the city, one d. landmark is unparalled. for over aentury, the hay-adams has attracd prominent washingtians,

who no dou were drawn to its intimate views of lafayette park, st. hn's church and the ite house. the only thing that has rlly changed is the growth of t trees outside in lafette park. narrator: justbove the tree line is theederal suite-- one of the most requesterooms in the hotel. it has amenities that would catch even the mt distinguished guess eye. thfinest detail... an unobstructed view of e most well-known addressn the world. man: the view from the federal suite basically our guests' prate view of the white house. to be at close to it... it breathtaking. rrator: a breathtaking view that's rich with histo. n: some of the greatest historical icons have stayed at the hay-ams, from amelia earhart, martwain and charles lindbeh,