judge cabranes is totally puerto rican. so is judge sotomayor. and yet, she did not vote the same way as judge cabranes, the other puerto rican. see what i'm getting at here? yeah. when jeff sessions was himself trying to become a federal judge back in 1986, he at the time, in those confirmation hearings, admitted to calling a white lawyer a, quote, disgrace to his race, because that lawyer represented black clients. now that same jeff sessions is the republican party's standard bearer on who's qualified to be a judge or not. and he's making very clear what he sees when he looks at a nominee like judge sonia sotomayor, what about her most predicts how she would vote as a judge in his mind. who he sees as her peers, the appropriate people to compare her to. >> miguel estrada case. i said i had a letter earlier from miguel estrada. he was nominated by president bush. had you voted with judge cabranes, himself of puerto rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. >> there was a moment today that was not just about race,

sessions discussed her league in the second circuit and said, had you voted with judge cabranes, who was a conservative judge, himself of puerto rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. how poorly executed was that strategy when it produces, in an attempt to prove racism, it instead seems to prove racism on the part of the person asking the question? >> i've got to say, keith, and this is perhaps a little mean, but it reminded me of the terrible press release put out by the swim club in philadelphia about changing the complexion of the pool. it was way too revealing, and even some republicans staffers were shaking their heads at that, because the point of that about cabranes, her fellow judge on the second circuit, had nothing to do with his ethnicity whatsoever. and thus, senator sessions was kind of betraying the kind of race they thinking that he was criticizing sotomayor for and it did undercut his credibility at that point. >> skpand also, we quoted this characterization in the blog about the moment from "annie hall," just the mechanics, leave ou

>> senator, i can't speak to what brought this case to judge cabranes' attention.i can see the following, however. when parties are dissatisfied with a panel decision, they can file a petition for a rehearing and in fact that is what happened in the ricci case. those briefs are routinely reviewed by judges. and so, publishing by summary order or addressing an issue by summary order or by

circuit and only was found because of the diligence of judge cabranes, one of her mentors, actually, in the law and then, of course, highlighted to a point it went up to the u.s. supreme court and was reversed and i believe justice was done. let me stop there and turn it back over to ranking member. >> thank you. remain questions, for example, she indicated this morning to a question about foreign law that she agreed with justice scalia. well, she, in her speech that she made -- and we have a record of -- she indicates she agrees somewhat with justice scalia and thomas and pointed out one or two -- one thing they thought they made a valid pointed on, but then indicated in her preference was a theory of justice ginsburg who is the leading advocate on the citation of foreign law. those are questions, as we deal with a judicial philosophy and what she will be like on the court, give some insight, i think, in what kind of judge she would be, because constitutionally, you see, foreign law has no binding on us in any way and i'm sure everybody can agree on that. but some think that you can

real tension between cabranes and sotomayor. megyn: the concurrence is skating. from the supreme court, talking about these white firefighters that tried to get their promotions and were rejected. everyone is proceeding on the assumption that the reason that they did not get the assumption was because no african-american qualified on the exam. the city, to its credit, decided that it must be an unfair exam. judge alito pointed out how politics in new haven put enormous pressure on the mayor to throw this out, threatening him politically if it was not thrown out. there was a question about whether this was a political call, not having anything to do with the law. you could argue that the white firefighters were entitled to a summary judgment. to hear her tell it, it was a clear matter of failed law, she was following supreme court precedent. does any of this matter? do the people at home care? do the democrats respond, or do they gather at all -- bothered with it at all? >> it matters for the same question that chris made, does life experience matter? she is pract

. >> now, there was a question as to whether, i mean, at that time, professor cabranes didn't know whethershe would be interested in being in your office, and the district attorney's office. did you have to convince her? >> no. she had only applied at that point to private firms. i think, maybe i had to convince her. i don't know. we had a talk. she didn't really say i've got to think about that a lot. >> how many assistants would you have had that year, do you know? or in general. >> probably about 15. >> is that how many you have today? >> yes. >> i read somewhere that the salary at that time was $17000 a year. >> that sun-dried. >> was that considered good? at the time. >> not really. no. but as i told, you know, applicants the difference between coming to work for the district attorney's office and join to private practice, you go into private practice you are an employee. you are an associate. when you come to the district attorney's office, the the day you walk in ura partner you are close to the senior partners and junior partners. and there is one senior senior partner but you have