kerry: certaly much longer than justice alito, justice roberts or any of the others that we considered very rapidly. mr. schumer: it would be clearly longer than roberts -- much longer than roberts, but longer than alito, but alito had the thanks gichthanksgiving and chrs breaks that we were celebrating in that time. mr. kerry: there is no rationale here that we've seen for why this justice's entire record is public and pored over already, requires the longest judgment in history particularly given what is at stake. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague and i think his points are well taken. as i mentioned before -- as i mentioned before the bottom line here is any lawyer worth his salt, and there are many very qualified lawyers in the minority on the judiciary committee, could research this record within a month easily -- easily right now in the buildings here in washington and in the buildings in new york and in the buildings in birmingham, alabama, are lawyers who have far more extensive research to do and less time in doing it well. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for a question? mr

and then subsequently after justice alito replaces justice o'connor, they succeed, and justice roberts writes for the court, that something won't be considered -- would be considered an election communication unless it can be interpreted any other way to attempt to get you to vote for or against a candidate. that sets the stage to this oral argument. the question is how is the court going to deal with this? i think there are three possible roots that come out of the oral argument. one is the simplest route that makes almost no law at all, saying this actually doesn't turn out to be that kind of communication you said the wisconsin for life law, that the constitution will protect something unless it is a direct or a functional equivalent of an attempt to get you to vote for or against someone 60 days before an election. i'm not sure how plausible that is given what the film -- as i said, it says not a nice word for 90 minutes against mrs. clinton. secondly, i think the court might try to expand the as-applied challenge of wisconsin for life, and suggest that movies really have a differe

the only other justice who had a comparable experience was justice alito. it means justice sotomayor and alito are the only two who have personal, tangible meerns with the modern-day immigration system as far as being a judge goes. they are going to be aware of many problems that plague our system. i know in a number of immigration cases justice alito played an active role. it's clear he brings to the cases his perspective as a judge, who for the last few years had been hearing these cases and was flommuxed about what to do with it and how to approach the law given the deluge. as far as her position on business issues, this is a very interesting area of law. i have spent a lot of time reading her cases on business issues. i'm primarily a business lit gator so it was interesting to me to see her sporns. it is hard to pin her down. there are some cases where she has a pro business issue. on the other hand there are no short anl of cases where she has gone the other way. there are securities litigation where she staked out a pro plaintiff view , and it is hard

again justice scalia called their bluff attacking justice alito's opinion. of course in both cases justice scalia wanted to overrule the cases in question expressly but at least he was honest about his intentions. there's parents involved in community schools vs. seattle school district 1. in thahat case the court rejectd local school authority in the area of voluntary integration of public schools. area of voluntary integration of public schools. the chief yeah, it works for us. yeah. hey, if they ranked "sportscenter" anchors, where do you think i'd be ranked? - i don't know. - come on. i'd rather not get into it. come on, pick a number between one and 10. well... i'm not sure you'll be in the top 10. i'm in the top 10, roger. ♪ >> you get the name on that thing. it's the greatest summer of your life. >> ludwig scores. >> it's anyone's game. >> [crowd noise]. >> scores! >> [cheers and applause]. >> scores. >> game 7 is a 1 game, winner takes the trophy home. >> i will meet you in the school yard, baby for all of the marbles on friday night in detroit. >> wh

think the court didn't expect that to be so controversial, and the chief justice assigned it to justice alito who, of course, had just replaced justice o'connor. so it was just this immediate comparison that how, you know, alito was writing this decision and how different it would have been if o'connor had been on the court, and that, of course, led to that very pointed dissent, outraged dissent by justice ginsberg. okay. the other case that i wanted to highlight just because it also, i think, is such a fascinating big-picture issue in terms of the way we look at the courts and the laws, this dna case out of the state of alaska. this is in your materials, the decision just came down. william osborn was convicted of rape, and postconviction he wanted to get access to his genetic material for dna testing, and the state of alaska refused. and so he argued that he had a constitutional right, substantive to due process right to access that genetic evidence for his dna testing because he thought he could prove his innocence even though he had at one point confessed. so this case sharply divided the

justices in this case. three liberals joining scalia, kennedy writing the dissent, bryant joining alito. when we looked at the role of the justices and how they change the courts, we will see sonia sotomayor having her own impact. the confrontation close -- plus has had a lot of influence. if you look back to the first term of the supreme court, there is a case called white versus illinois. it is about a man who was convicted in a sex abuse case. the girl accused -- who accused them should have to go in and testify against them or so he was arguing. they analyze that in the way the evidence was reliable and here's a. thomas wrote a concurrence. he urged the court to rethink the way we look at this entire issue. he looked at it historically. he talked about the trial of sir walter raleigh for treason. they did not want to have trials by affidavit. justice scalia " at some length from that -- quotes at some length from that. i only bring a sub because when we think about the courts, this goes back to something we were talking about at the beginning in transparency in. you do not know what i

justice alito went out of his way to really put an elbow in that. and he said, justice ginsburg said he deserves sympathy. the law is not about sympathy. the law is about fairness and justice. it is a very pointed and sharp conclusion. i just want to point out that the chief justice -- there's a reason they do not sign on to one another's concurring opinions. the chief justice did not sign onto alito's opinions. do not forget that president obama has trotted out this work into the -- trotted out to this word empathy. we have talked about that word for weeks, making ourselves crazy about what it could possibly mean. one of the very interesting things yesterday was this use of the word by ginsburg that say the fact -- this sympathy goes out to the sky. he seems like a great guy. i feel bad that he did not get what he wanted, but that is not the law. and here is alito who said, sympathy has nothing to do with it. look at this as framing some of obama's conversation that we're having about sonia sotomayor. host: the editorial cartoon in "the washington t

the timetable on justice alito, almost the same, from the day he was nominated by president bush until the date that we voted here in the senate -- or at least the majority of our colleagues did -- almost the name number of days. i realize some of our colleagues are unhappy that we're providing the same kind of timetable for judge sotomayor that we provided for justice alito and chief justice roberts. i for the life of me -- i don't see what the beef is. just as i feel that we're fortunate to have someone with dr. grove's credentials to serve as our census bureau, i think we're lucky to have someone with judge sotomayor's credentials to serve on the supreme court. i had the opportunity to meet with her. i know a number of my colleagues have, too. and i must say, among the things i most like and respect about her, she grew up from nothing. she was a kid broken in the bronx, raised in -- she was a kid born in the bronx, raised in the bronx, a very humble beginning. and she was -- she worked hard, won herself a scholarship to princeton, went there, excelled, and later went off to law scho

but the last nominee, whose record was much like this nominee, justice alito, was coming up in late -- in december -- and the democratic leader then on the judiciary committee, senator leahy, asked that it be put off until after christmas. and the republican chairman at that time, senator specter, despite president bush's desire it move forward, he said, no, i think that's a reasonable request and we put it off. there was some 90-some-odd days before that confirmation occurred and well over 70 days before the hearings began. i just want to say, mr. president, first and for foremost we are committed to a fair and just hearings but we need to examine the record of 3,500 probably more than 4,000 cases. in addition she has given a lot of speeches and written law review articles and those need to be analyzed because make no mistake about it, this is the only time, the only opportunity, this congress and this the american people have, to play a role in what would town ou turno be a lifetime appointment, a federal bench of independence and unaccountability for the rest of their life. so i th

other justice who has had a comparable experience during his tenure on the circuit court wuss justice alito, it means justices sotomayor and ali to are the only justices with personal, tangible experience with the modern day immigration system, as far as being a judge go, and they are going to be very aware of many problems that plague our system. i know that in a numb of immigration cases the supreme court has handled in recent years, justice alito played an active role in argument, asking questions. it's clear he brings to these cases his perspective as a judge who for the last few years had been hearing increasing numbers of these cases and is, i think, flummocksed about what to do with it and how to aprotch the law, given the deluge of these cases. i think that's something judge sotomayor will bring to the court. as far as her position on business issues go, business is a very interesting area of law. i spent a lot of time reading her cases on business issues. i'm primarily a business litigator. it was interesting to me to see her approach to these issues. it's hard to pin down. she has

decade, we've gone from a three votes in opposition to justice ginsburg and then on the other side, justice alito who at the risk of overgeneralization is a mirror image of justice ginsburg, he's on the conservative side but both were circuit court judge he had 42 votes in opposition. there's one interesting comment made during the roberts hearings. there was one senator who took to the floor i thought to offer lavish praise in support of justice robert's nomination, he said, and i quote, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that judge roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land he is humble, he is personally decent and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. that senator wevent on to vote against confirming chief justice roberts. the senator i just quoted is now president obama. so it will be interesting to see how the senators freet the situation when the shoe is on the other foot and you have a nominee with a distinguished background, excellent credential, yet there are no doubt many senators who may disagree with her philosophically. i think it will be int

among the four conservatives, chief justice roberts 12, justice thomas 13, justice alito 13, justice scalia 14. on the liberal end, breyer 18, beginsberg 22 or 23 depending how you count ver vote in the strip search case where she dissented from the final being of qualify immunity, suiter 24, stevens, same caveat as justice stevens, same caveat as justice beginsberg, 26 or 27. to some those up, they have collectively dissented 52 times. on the liberal side, they have collectively dissented 90 or 92 times. justice kennedy has cast for dissenting votes in the entire term. kennedy's role as the so-called media and justice is quite extraordinary. i covered it for 30 years. i have never quite seen anything like this. is it a polarized court of the 72 decisions that have come down so far? 21 have been eight -- have been on a vote of 5-4. of those 24, 16 have been -- with justice kennedy casting the deciding vote. of those 16 in which justice kennedy cast the deciding vote, he went with the conservative side 11 times, and the liberal side five times. that is a statistical overview. i think

in agreement with me were justices stevens, kennedy, briar, and alito. sutton, there was a credit card issuers resort to a federal court to compel arbitration of a dispute with a cardholder. although the issue were itself had convinced that in state court. the cardholder had raised a counterclaim governed by federal law. justices scalia, kennedy, souter and thomas joined me in holding that the issue had to stay on the state court track and their petition for arbitration would not be in federal court. the fourth circuit, whose decision we reviewed was on a different ground of the fourth circuit. third and by far the most prominent of this, the court revisited a case and substantially cut back on the scope of automobile searches. once the scene has been secured, police may search the interior of the car if and only if they reasonably believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the defendant was arrested in other words, no search for drugs when the arrest is for speeding. careful listeners would have noticed that i emerged in these c

justice alito, the most experienced on the bench before coming to the corn and experienced with federal prosecutors. so we are also a diverse bunch. having said that, obviously some great justices did not bring that experience. they were great judges and justices. you have to figure out exactly what it is without looking at labels. in the past, with had a lot of politicians for the court, and if they are willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think sad is a great resource. but i guess they were talking last night about sam chase, drawn from the political dance, and he remained a politician and the court suffered because of that. >> an additional question? yes, sir? >> chief justice, what are your favorite books, and what do you like to read in your spare time? >> i do not like to read brief in my spare time. [laughter] i like detective novels, mystery novels, the sort of things you read on the beach. i like historical biography. saw all of the efforts to probe for weaknesses, and one person asked me the name of 15 or 16 chief justice -- i would have been devastated, b

justice alito, the most experienced, i think, on the bench before coming to the court, and also experience as a federal prosecutor, so we have the same label of being federal jums but we're also a pretty diverse bunch. having said that, obviously some great justices in our history did not bring that experience, and were great judges and justices. i do think it's important when you talk about this to figure out exactly what it is you think is lacking on the court, and not just look at the labels. in the past, we've had a lot of politicians appointed to the court, and if they're willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think that's a great -- that can be a great source, but i guess after talking last night about chase, he was drawn from the political branches an remained with the federal court and the court suffered because of that. >> additional question? yes, sir. >> mr. chief justice, what are some of your favorite books, and what do you like to read in your spare time when there is any, in addition to your beefs? >> i do not like to read briefs in my spare time. i like d

of the record of the last two nominees to the supreme court, chief justice john roberts or justice samuel alito. now, i mention chief justice roberts and justice sam alito who did not give us anywhere near as clear a record or complete a record but i don't recall a single republican saying we did not have a complete record before we considered their nominations. of course, their nominations were by a republican president, for those two men, their nomination was by a republican president. for those two men, for the supreme court. this woman is nominated by a democratic president even though she has given a more complete record, somehow that's not enough. it was more than enough for the two men nominated by a republican president; not enough for this woman nominated by democratic president. but we have judge sonia sotomayor's record for the federal bench. it's a public record. we had it even before she was designated by the president. as i said, we have her record. from when she was first nominated to the federal bench by federal george h.w. bush and we have her record after she became a member o

spoke those words in january 2006 on this floor when the senate was debating the confirmation of justice alito. it is our duty to thoroughly review all of the nominees. this review should be thorough and fair. it should cover various backgrounds and judicial records. the senate must also work to ensure that the nominee will decide cases based upon the bedrock will law as opposed to their own personal feelings and political views. part of this confirmation process, i have the opportunity to meet with judge sotomayor. i agree that she has an impressive background as well as a compelling personal story. what we have to do is look at the record. when it comes to understanding the constitution, as it relates to the second amendment to bear arms, that is an area where i have significant concern. ossining on the second quarter of appears -- appeals, she has a narrow view of the second amendment. she has little explanation or reason. for example, she has ruled twice that the second amendment is not a fundamental right. the first time she did so was in a footnote. it was stated as fact without any expl

they also said president obama is resistance -- resistant to justice alito and roberts. . the republicans are split over how to deal with this. democrats have the votes to clear her nomination. it is a battle on the right of how hard they should push the -- the republicans feel like they should fight and other issues like climate change and health-care reform. there are some on the right that are pushing hard for a filibuster and a thorough examination of her record. howhenwhen the votes come in, se will be confirmed. host: the chairman of the judiciary committee said the hearings will start monday, the 13th. is that the actual start date? republicans said they did not get a date. guest: he is pushing pretty hard on this. he wants her nomination cleared by the august recess. a lot of them say that is to quit. if she were to be confirmed, that would be in the ballpark. republicans were not too pleased with the lack of a heads-up. to some degree on this issue, republicans can only complain. host: based on those hearings for judge roberts and alito, how long will these last?

among the four conservatives, chief justice roberts 12, justice thomas, 13, justice alito 13, justice scalia, 14. on the lib al end of the court, justice briar, 18, justice ginsburg, 22 or 23, depending on how you count her soet in the strip search case where she voted to find it a constitutional violation but dissented from the qualifying immunity, justice souter, 24. just see develops, 26 or 27. they have chectsively dissented 52 times and on the liberal side of the court they have dissented 92 times. justice kennedy has cast four dissenting votes in the entire term. so kennedy's role as the so-called median justice is really extraordinary and i covered the court, as dick indicated for many years, for 30 years, and i have never quite seen anything like this. it is a polarized court. of the 72 decisions that have come down so far, 21 have been by a vote of 5-4. of those 21, 16 have been by the usual four versus the usual four, as i outlined earlier with justice kennedy casting the deciding vote, an of those 16, and with justice kennedy casting the deciding vote, he went with the cons

, who of course, had just replaced justice o'connor, and so it was just an immediate comparison that alito was writing this decision and how different it would have been if o'connor had been on the court. that, of course, led to that very pointed dissent, outraged dissent by justice ginsburg. ok. the other case that i wanted to highlight is because also, i think it is such a fascinating big picture issue in terms of the way we look at the court and the way we looks a our lives is the d.n.a. case out of the state of lass scasm the decision just came down, involving a william osbourne, convicted of rape and post conviction, he wanted to get access to his genetic material for d.n.a. testing and the state of alaska refused so he argued that he had a constitutional right, a stawb stan tiff right to access that genetic material to his d.n.a. testing because he thought he could prove his innocence, even though he at one point confessed this case sharply divided the court by a vote of 5-4, but the reason i find it so fascinating and i strongly encourage you to take a look at this opinion is it's j

justice alito noted that when he was on the third circuit, he voted in favor of tell televising the proceedings. >> if confirmed, he would want to consult with his colleagues about it. >> chief justice roberts left the question open. strenuously objects and such an objection has been launched by justice souter. can i tell you the day that you see a camera come into our courtroom, it is going to -- it is going to roll over my dead body. close quote. quite a dramatic statement. well, justice souter has announced his retirement. and perhaps in the absence of that kind of strenuous objection, it would be a good time for the court to reconsider the issue. i intend to ask judge sotomayor in her confirmation hearing whether she agrees with justice souter, justice stevens in televise -- that televising the supreme court is worth a try. whether she agrees with justice breyer, that televising the proceedings is a valuable teaching advice. whether she agrees with justice kennedy, that televising the court is inevitable. and she can shed some light on the issue because her courtroom was part of a pilot pro

as you know, justice roberts and justice alito were all asked about cases they had decided and theirreasoning was examined in that, but i do not think is appropriate for us to try to insist that she stayed how she might rule on the case in the future because -- that she state how she might rule on a case in the future because i think that would be an improper act by the congress. and i would also suggest that there may be a question of whether or not she should sit on a case in the future if it is one that she has personally already ruled on. it could be a case coming up. who knows? >> but she did --ç they did say that this was an individual right. i think she should have to respond to the question, "do you believe that is an individual right?" i think she can be asked that question and appropriately so pure -- and appropriately so. >> [inaudible] >> [unintelligible] is this somehow more fertile territory? >> i think there has been a lot of discussion about the teach -- the speeches that she has made. the president has even said that she misspoke, but if she did, she did about half

hes was going to be chief justice, but the last nominee, whose ord was much like this nominee, justice alito, was coming up in december, and the democratic leader then on the judiciary committee, senator leahy, asked that it be put off until after christmas, and the republican chairman at that time, senator specter, despite president bush's desire to move forward, he said no, i think that's an unreasonable request and we put it off. it was some 90 some odd days before that confirmation occurred, and well over 70 days before the hearings began, so i just want to say, mr. president, first and foremost, we are committed to giving this nominee a fair, good, just hearing, but to do so, it requires that we have an opportunity to examine her record of some 3,500, probably more than 4,00 cases. in addition to that, she has give an lot of speeches and written law review articles. those need to be analyzed. make no mistake about it, because this is the only opportunity this congress and the american people have to play a role in what would turn out to be a lifetime appointment, an appointment to a fed

judge sotomayor is more than three weeks, more than 30% shorter than the time for considering justice samuel alito's comparable judicial record. there was no legitimate reason for this stunted and rushed timetable, but that is what the majority has imposed on us, and that is where we are today. so i want to take a few minutes this morning to take a look at judge sotomayor's judicial record on a very important issue to me, and i think many others in this body: the right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment to the constitution. some can be quite selective about constitutional rights, prizing some while ignoring others. some even trumpet rights that are not in the constitution at all, as more important than those that are right there on the page. it appears that judge sotomayor has taken a somewhat dim view of the second amendment. two issues related to the scope and vitality of the right to keep and bear arms are whether it is a fundamental right and whether the amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government. on each of these issues, judge sotomayor has chosen

a hearing within the same schedule of those who went before her like chief justice roberts or justice alito. so if she is given the same standard of fairness, that hearing will go forward. i certainly hope it does. and i think she will do well. >> and i'd seen -- >> the senator from alabama. >> such a fabulous lawyer and an excellent senator. and i think just would respectfully talk about some of the ideas that he suggested. one he raised a question of brown versus board of education, where the supreme court held separate was not equal. and that somehow this is a justification for a judge setting policy. they thought it wasn't good policy. but i would see it differently, mr. president. i would see brown versus board of education as the supreme court saying that the constitution of the united states guarantees every american equal protection of the laws and they found that in segregated schools, some people were told they must go to this school solely because of their race. some people must go to this school solely because of their race. and that, in fact, it wasn't equal. there were several

distinguishing two justices on the court, justice scalia and thomas, on the one hand, and roberts and justice alito on the other. are those parings and, as fair comparisons? is there and grab some jurisprudential difference in the way each of those pairs of justice is operates? fourthly, what about justice kennedy? justice o'connor used to be in some encases the with our critical loads, justice kennedy is not implying that rollout. what should we say about place of justice kennedy on the court? fifthly, is the accord today more receptive or shouldn't say less receptive to non-traditional legal sources. in the warren court was a famous line in brown vs. board of education for having a social science data in its with nouns. is the present court less receptive to data have that kind and in this respect one might think of the arguments over the use of comparative or international law did it which as you know has been somewhat controversial and what about methodological the beit? to the justices enter into debates over things like textualism, regionalism, and questions of that kind? seventh, what true a

have to say that i think senator obama's opposition to the confirm, of chief justice roberts and justice alito was most unfortunate. i have to say that i disagree with candidate obama's comments about what he would look for when appointing judges. that highly difficult legal cases can only be determined on the bases of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works, and the depth and health of one's sympathy. all of those are good qualities for elected officials and appointed executive officials but not the qualities needed for judges. we need judges who will set aside their personal political views and who will apply the constitution and the law fairly and impartially with the cases pending before them. the christian science monitor had an editorial on february 18th agrees. the newspaper noted that candidate obama said judges should use the constitution for social policy. judges, candidate obama said, must have the heart, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or african-american or gay or disabled or old. the newspaper noted that whil

timely hearing, within the same schedule of those who went before her like chief justice roberts or justice alito. if she is given the same standard of fairness, that hearing will go forward. i certainly hope it does. i think she'll do well. mr. president, i ask the following statement be placed at a separate place in the record and within the debate on the travel promotion act of 2009. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. this bill that we're considering on the floor at this time could not come at a better time. october 2, the international olympic committee will select a site for the 2016 olympic games and chicago is one of the final global candidates, one of the final four, in the world. winning that bid would bring six million tourists from all over the world into the united states and generate as much as $7 billion in tour unfortunateist . this bill will welcome international visitors to our country and demonstrate to the world that the united states is open for visitors. that can only help improve the chances that the 2016 olympic games

he was joined by justices scalia, thomas, of lido, and chief justice roberts. -- alito, and chief justice roberts. the morgue liberal judges were in the dissent. justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. she you read a summary from the bench. she said that the city had adequate basis to fear that it would have been successfully sued by the black firefighters. she had somewhat of a different standard for the employer to meet. she said that the majority's strong basis in evidence test went too far. she said that the city had ample evidence that its test might be flawed. her reasoning was a little bit different from soda meyer and the other courts. her and the district -- sotomayor and the other courts. they were intending to avoid being susceptible to a lawsuit. she said that instead what the city needs to do is focus on the evidence about whether it could be sued successfully. she said that the city's actions were justified. >> of this was watched because of the role of sotomayor in deciding cases at the second circuit level. what does this mean for her nomination? >> you will hear a lot of disc

the press tends to focus on splits with the chief justice, justices scalia, kennedy, thomas and alito ranged on one side, justice stevens, sutor, ginsburg and breyer on the other. but it is not always so. true there were nine of the 175-4 splits, nine of those -- 17, 5-4 splits did end up in the usual way. but in five or those justice kennedy, stevens, sutor and breyer come prosed -- composed the majority and there were unusual lineups as well. i will mention three. the first was oregon v. i.c.e. it posed one of many post-apprendi questions. consistent with our current sixth amendment jury its prudence, could a judge rather than a jury find the fact essential to the imposition of consecutive sentences. i answered yes. and in agreement with me were justices stevens, kennedy, breyer, and alito. second baden against discover bank involved a credit card issuer's resort to a federal court to compel -- to compel arbitration with the dispute or a card holder. although the issue it accept had commenced in state court, the card holder, however, had raised a counter claim governed by federal la

justice kennedy wrote the opinion joined by justices scalia, thomas, alito. what we think of the court's more liberal wing justices were in the dissent. >> who wrote the dissent, and what did it say? >> justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. she read a summary of it from the bench, which is an unusual step that only happens a few times a term. she said that the city had adequate basis to fear that it would have been successfully sued by the black firefighters. she had a somewhat different standard for an employer to me. she said that the majority's strong base in evidence tests went too far. she said the city had ample evidence that its test might be flawed, and her reasoning was a little bit different from the lower court. the appeals court's focus on the city's intent, that it did not intend to -- that it was intended to avoid being susceptible to a lawsuit, and she said that instead, the city needs to focus on the evidence about whether it could be sued successfully. again, the bottom line was basically the same. she said that the city's actions were justified

suggested a timely hearing, within the same schedule of those who went before, like chief justice roberts or alito. if she is given the same -- the same standard of fairness, i think that she will do well. >> i will say to my colleague, a great lawyer and excellent senator, i think, i would respectfully talk about the ideas that he suggests. he spoke about brown vs. board of education, where the supreme court said that separate was not equal, and some say this is a justification -- justification for a judge setting policy. i would see this differently, i would see this as the supreme court saying that the constitution of the united states guarantees every american equal protection of the law, and they found that in segregated schools, some people were told that they must go to school because of their race. there were several constitutional issues there, i do not think that was an activist policy-making decision. i think the supreme court correctly concluded that these schools, in which a person was mandated to go to one or the other based upon their race, violated the equal protection clause of th

and in agreement with me were justices stephens, kennedy, breyer, and alito. second, baden against discover bank involved a credit card issuer's resort to a federal court to compel arbitration for a dispute with a cardholder. though the issue itself had commenced that fray, in state court. the hard hold -- the cardholder raised a counterclaim governed by federal law. justices scalia, kennedy, souter and thomas joined me in holding that the issuer had to stay on the state court track and their petition for arbitration, not in federal court. if so inclined. the fourth circuit, whose decision we reviewed, had come out the other way, as had the second circuit, although on a different ground than the fourth simbingt. third and by far the most prominent of this set, in arizona v. gant, the court revisited new york v. belton and substantially cut back on the scope of automobile searches incident to an arrest. once the scene has been secured, the court held, police may search the interior of the car, if and only if they reasonably believe that the vehicle contains evi

that, judge alito had three cases reversed by the supreme court and is now a member of the supreme court. judge roberts had a case reversed out of the supreme court as the setting chief justice of the supreme court. i think that there is little political significance to whatever the court decided today, in terms of judge sotomayor. it rendered a fairly definitive opinion that she follows judicial president -- president. it is interesting the people that criticize her, in essence, i think you have seen a new interpretation of a piece of legislation by a court. her critics are criticizing her ruling based on judicial precedent. it is interesting to watch the gymnastics. > i think it is an interesting, new interpretation of law that has been reviewed by many judges, in many courts, judges supported by republicans and democrats. >> on global warming, republicans have questioned about endangerment even before it was announced in april 17th. in the course of one a senior analyst said i have these findings, i would like to distribute these as part of the process. and the administration said the findings don't need to be distributed. the president pledged when he signed the stem cel

justice. on the supreme court who, then senator obama voted against. senator obama voted against the confirmation of john roberts, votes against the confirmation of samuel alito to the supreme court. based, i believe, primarily on judicial philosophy because they believed in strict constructionist that a court was to be a court and not a legislative body. then senator obama voted against both john roberts and against samuel alito. in our meeting, my meeting with judge roberts, he talked about baseball. and about the courts. in his analogy on baseball and gave a great anatural genuine he said -- quote -- "it's a bad thing when the umpire is the most watched person on the field o now, imagine that, watching a baseball game and the thing you're watching the most is the umpire because the umpire is a umpire and a player. how confusing. how difficult. and what a wrong way to have a going. he, of course, judge roberts, was alluding to the current situation where the legislature can pass a law, the executive sign it, but everybody waits holding their breath to see what the courts will do with it. unfortunately, judge sotomayor seems to me far too interested in being

judge alito had three cases reversed by the supreme court and is now a member of the supreme court. judge roberts actually had a case reversed by the supreme court as the sitting chief justice of the supreme court. i think that the notes that -- i think that denotes that there is little political significance about what the court decided today in terms of judge sonia sotomayor except to render a definitive opinion that she followed judicial precedents and she does not legislate from the bench. it is interesting to watch today the people that criticize her, in essence, i think you have seen a new interpretation of a piece of legislation by a court. her critics are criticizing her ruling based on judicial precedent in support of something where a court has interpreted in a new way the law. it is interesting to watch the gymnastics. >> you are saying today was an example [inaudible] >> i think it is an interesting, the new interpretation of a law that has been reviewed by many judges in many courts. i find it somewhat interesting. >> on global warming and greenhouse gas regulation, republicans were saying it opens the question whether or not the epa reached a decision about en

justice department i think in that era was very concerned about judicial nominations. interestingly enough that was the time it went to very young lawyers joined the team named john roberts and sam neill alito. they began to cut their teeth in washington affairs at that time. you had, of course, the first george bush, to nominations to the court, one of whom will step down this summer. and then, of course, bill clinton put to moderate liberals on the court, but turnover during that time then there was the longtime remember 11 years went by in which there were no vacancies on the court. quite historic. during that time if you were to sort of a some of the red wings scored you have to say that there were some extraordinary movements. i have mentioned several of them, but there wasn't a solid phalanx of conservative votes. this was a time during which in effect to the center held justice o'connor's a load mattered a great deal so roe vs. wade was not overturned, affirmative action survives from body to do cruder for example substantively process i've mentioned. and then in 2005 the extraordinary sequence of events within a few weeks in time where president bush nominated john roberts to phil o