she was talking about judge cedarbaum. she said in our private conversations, the judge has pointed out to me that seminal decisions on race and sex discrimination have come from supreme courts composed entirely of white males. i agree that's significant. but i also choose to emif a sighs that the -- emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the supreme court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. i mean, is there any doubt that she drew distinctions in the past between those groups? >> i don't think there is any argument about this. i think she is trying to back off. what she said was -- i thought this was really telling. she thought president obama was wrong in talking about the heart being important. she says judges are there to apply the law. that's it. she is going through a whole day of backstepping. it's worth talking about. bret: we have much more with the panel and obviously much more with the hearing when we come back. we'll take a short break. from at or

so i would just say to you, i believe in judge cedarbaum's formulation. >> my friend, judge cedarbaum is here this afternoon, and we are good friends, and i believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts. >> happen to have mr. mccluen right here. and now you're getting an idea why senator sessions was rejected in this committee in 1996 for a federal judgeship. despite sotomayor's many explanations that included the full context of her speech and otherwise answering senator session' half-hour's worth of questions, the man who could not win confirmation from the committee, apparently hearing only what he wanted to hear. >> so philosophy can't impact your judging, i think it's much more likely to reach full flower if you sit on the supreme court than it will on a lower court where you're subject to review by your colleagues in the higher court. >> the democratic chairman of the committee, senator leahy of vermont, then raising the ricci case. judge sotomayor's rulings in the new haven firefi

. >> i believe in judge cedarbaum's formulation. and she said, and you disagreed, and this was really the context of your speech, and you used her harsh statement as sort of a beginning of your discussion, and you said, she believes that a judge, and no matter what their gender or background, should strive to reach the same conclusion, and she believes that's possible. you then argued that you don't think it's possible in all, maybe even most cases. >> one rule of thumb when you're choosing someone to be your ally against somebody else, make sure your chosen ally agrees with you. and isn't say, sitting in the hearing room in support of the person you're trying to use them to attack. >> my friend, judge cedarbaum is here this afternoon, and we are good friends, and i believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts. >> in fact, judge sotomayor's one-time mentor and long-time friend, judge miriam cedarbaum, was in the hearing room. she then

cedarbaum became her mentor. like. >> everyone in this building is a friend of judge sotomayor's. that is when she has a party, which she loves to do, she invites the people who clean our chambers, the guards downstairs, people who work in the kitchen, everybody in the courthouse. >> reporter: cedarbaum says over the years they developed a personal friendship with a shared love of opera, ballet, art, and music. on the professional side, sotomayor has referred to cedarbaum in some of her speeches, including one that's gained widespread attention. >> i didn't know that until recently, when it became of such interest to the press. >> reporter: cedarbaum had given a speech pointing out the differences between male and female judges and their approaches to cases. in several speeches, sotomayor took up the issue and questioned whether those differences should be ignored, including in 2001, saying, i would hope that a wise latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclus

i will say to you that i believed in judge cedarbaum's speech, and you use her statement as the beginning of your discussion. she believes that a judge, no matter the gender or background, should strive to reach the same conclusion. she believes that that is possible. you can argue that you do not think it is possible in all, maybe even most cases. you deal with the famous " of justice o'connor, in which a wise old man should reach the same decision of a wise old woman, pushing back from that. you said you do not think that that is necessarily accurate. you doubted the ability to be objective in your analysis. so, how can you reconcile your speeches, which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a mere aspiration that may not be possible in all or even most cases with the oath that you have taken twice, which requires impartiality. >> my friend, judge souter bomb -- cedarbaum, is here this afternoon. we are good friends. i think that we approach judging in the same way as, looking at the facts and applying the law in each case. also, as i explained, i was using a rhetorical flourish that f

so, i would just say to you, i believe in judge cedarbaum's nomination.e said and you disagreed and this was the context of your speech and you used her statement as sort of a beginning of your discussion and you said she believes that a judge, no matter what their gender or background should strive to reach the same conclusion and she believes that's possible. you then argue that you don't think it's possible and in all, maybe even all cases. you deal with the famous quote of justice o'connor in which she said the wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman and you pushed back from that. you say you don't think that is necessarily accurate. and you doubt the ability to be objective in your analysis. and, so, how can you reconcile your speeches which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a be possible in all or even most cases with your oath that you've taken twice, which requires impartiality. >> my friend, judge cedarbaum is here this afternoon. and we are good friends and i believe we both approach judging in the same way. which is

physiological or cultural differences, a possibility i abhor less or discount less than my colleague, judge cedarbaum, our our national and gender origins will make a difference in our judging." a difference is fizz logical if it relates to the mechanical, biofunctions of the body, if i understand the word, what do you mean by that? >> i was talking about just that. there are in the law. there have been upheld in certain situations that certain job positions have a requirement for certain amount of strength or other characteristics that maybe a person who fits that characteristic can have that job, but there are difference that may affect a particular type of work we do that all the time. you have to be a pilot that has good eye sight. >> we're talking about pilots and not judging, right? >> the context of that was talking about in the process of judging and the process of judging, for me, is what life experiences brings to the process. it helps you listen and understand and it doesn't change what the law is or what the law commands. a life experience as a prosecutor may help me listen and understand

she said the judge cedarbaum has pointed out to her that cases coming from judges of white males haved argue that people that have changed the landscape for civil rights were largely people of color and women. is that directly contrary to what she said to the senate? >> absolutely. maybe it was white men that decided the case, but it was people of gender and color that argued the case. it gets back to the issue of identity politics. i have to say that in that area, especially in the ricci case, i felt that senator corn andn had nin had a missed opportunity. we had a better job of explaining it. a case that most americans can understand and sympathize with, the ricci case. a bunch of white firefighters the did very well on the promotional exam, blacks did not do well, so the city threw out because they claim that they would get a discrimination case. it seems to me that i would say, explain to these people why you ruled the way that you did in a summary order. i would have made it as personal as possible about these fire fighters. frank ricci suffers from dyslexia. he spent over $1,000