she agreed most frequently with justice sotomayor roughly 70% of the time. she disagreed mostly with justice thomas. they are agreement rate was about 62%. one other dynamic that the numbers don't capture, and those of you who have been to the court this year and if you have the opportunity in the next year or two to go, i strong low urge doing it. or at least listening as now the new court has made these all oral arguments available on mp-3 for download. it's a remarkable thing to hear the chief justice, justice alito to have oral argument. these three have all been in the solicitor general's office. they know painfully well what it's like to argue on the other side. they are really good at asking the question you don't want asked. it's an interesting dynamic on the court right now. it makes oral argument tremendously thrilling and terrorfying for the advocate. one maybe perhaps slight corrective to what general meese said and it's odd for me to be defending the ninth circuit. i haven't been in that position for a long time but this year the ninth circuit n

the mechanic, absolutely. >> bush is going to ask about sonia sotomayor.i really like what she's doing to bring herself out into the world. she's diabetic, childhood onset type one day peace. she's been pretty a good in the community working with kids are talking to kids, going to baseball games. i think it's a really salutary team when someone is sequestered at the core will go into the world. as a writer, as a journalist reporter, i am looking for a quote in that opinion i find it difficult to get a good quote out of a sotomayor opinion and i find your writing bland. as a questionnaire, i like her a lot. here's one question that she asked in the prison overcrowding case asking of their representatives in the state of california. when you're going to avoid or get around people sitting in for days? with that sort of blunt concrete detailed language, it may not be striking to the heart of the matter is a little flame to the cloud they think. but it is her background. she likes the details and she is really persistent. she will not let go of and not forget o

. >> another dimension, it has been called to mind in this question that justice sotomayor was cross-examined in a rather aggressive way concerning her statement that a woman, i think she went on to say hispanic woman -- >> wise latina. >> you are running way ahead of me. could understand a lot of things much better than people, certainly such as i, and perhaps even you. so we are talking both about, so to speak on ethnic and cultural background and gender. they are affecting the way people understand what justice is. >> well, she -- i thought she answered the question pretty well. she got confirmed. the fact is that at the same time, the justice alito understands some of those cultural issues. it is interesting. the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have catholics and jews. >> i have been very worried about that, i will tell you. [laughter] >> i mentioned it because i thought it was keeping you up at night. the fact is that i have no doubts that they each will do what they said in their nomination, which is

justice sonia sotomayor wrote nine contrary opinions. one of them was simply meant to underscore her agreement with the majority opinion. i would question the merits of those sorts of opinions. might just as elena kagan be engaged in judicial modesty, holding herself back? finding her role in oral argument -- as neal katyal said, she is a superb questioner. it was determined that she, except for justice thomas, who is completely checked out of the whole deal, she is the least common questioner, having asked half as many questions as justice sonia sotomayor, but listen to the questions. "i do not understand the premise of your argument. in the halliburton case, "mr. sterling, i was not sure what are you you were making in your brief turcott." when justice elena kagan said she does not understand your argument, it is time to panic, because she understands you all too well and is about to destroy you. [laughter] >> while looking at the number of questions is important, i wanted to drive that how penetrating those questions are, so -- what i

>> i wanted to cite another of justice sotomayor's questions. the law struck down refers to the violent actions against human figures that take place in the video game. she asked, "what if the video game figure is half human, half vulcan?" so she does have some respect -- questions of perspective. >> i think there is an issue with other justices about star trek after that. they all told a joke and if you are on the lecturn, oyou must laugh. victor, ron, do you guys have the first question? wait for the microphone so that the heritage internet yours and c-span viewers can hear the question. >> i think this was a combat force to work on our regionalism. i know that it is common to say that the framers did not think about equal protection. of course. they had slavery that. brown vs. board of education, the brief of thurgood marshall argued this in terms over regionalism. wants to originate slavery, it is really hard to justify the government making decisions and casting our burden because of your color. i do not think it is a fair claim to say that

we're extraordinarily proud of someone who's doing outstanding work on the supreme court, sonia sotomayortly, hundreds of latino officials from across government met with latino leaders from across the country at the white house. and i know some of you were there. and i think all who attended would agree that we weren't just paying lip service to the community. our work together, not just that day, but every day, has been more than just talk. but i told the gathering at the white house was, we need your voice. your country needs you. our american family will only be as strong as our growing latino community. [applause] >> and so we're going to take these conversations on the road and keep working with you because for more than four decades, nclr has fought for opportunities, for latinos from city centers to farm fields. that fight for opportunity, the opportunity to get a decent education, the opportunity to find a good job, the opportunity to make of our lives what we will has never been more important than it is today. we're still climbing out of a vicious recession. that recession hit

i'm from the fourth district of louisiana, shreveport, ocean city, the sonia sotomayor parish. that is where the shale deepwater horizis. only three years ago, we had no idea what it was or would be in the future. it's had a tremendous impact on our economy. $11 billion so far. jobs. poor parishes that are now doing well economically. we see police departments, infrastructure, all of these things being improved. local government. high-paying jobs. and we're beginning to meet the country's needs in terms of natural gas. i can tell you that we have not seen any significant problems. and so it really is beyond me to wonder now with a 9.2% unemployment rate, with energy costs as high as it is ever bent, and the country in such a desperate economic situation and a technology that is 50-60 years old, and has been proven safe and the epa said was safe, why in the world would we be thinking about getting this type of technology which is so essential not just for gas but for the future of oil domestically? my question, for instance, do you -- what is a typical depth of drilling iin the

similarly, during her confirmation hearing, justice sotomayor was asked about the application of foreign or american law, and she was one of these dissenters. she stated -- quote -- "i do not believe that foreign law should be used to determine the results under constitutional law or american law except where american law directs." end of quote. in the leal case, foreign law should not have been used to resolve the case because american law did not direct that foreign law apply, and when justice kagan appeared for her confirmation hearing, she stated that in deciding cases -- quote -- "you're looking at law all the way down. not your political preferences, not your personal preferences." end of quote. however, the law in the leal case is clear. executive branch policy arguments and unenacted bills are not law. i'm not saying that the solicitor general or these justices who dissented lied at their confirmation hearings or made a mockery of the confirmation process, but judiciary committee members foresaw cases like leal and asked the nominees to address the role of foreign law in constitu

that was the dissent of justice breyer joined by justice ginsberg and sotomayor.it was divided on this issue of the access that judge walker wanted to permit, and then i guess as often the case in federal district courts, judge walker had something of a last word on the subject because he permitted the reporters to send tweets from the courtroom of the proceedings so it's an interesting issue that's developing in the federal courts, the use of the broadcast media. in the state courts, it's a lot more settled, and virtually all state courts allow the broadcasting in at least appellate courts. now, in practice, that doesn't happen too often first because i think there are not as many requests at the -- even at the appellate level. my experience in the supreme court of virginia was that the probably two criminal cases a year, maybe three at the most, would there be a request for a broadcast. in the state courts, there are very few trials broadcasting and this is something that we'll be discussing as a group here, the inherent difficulties and how quickly things can g