is there something that explains but does not itself need to be explained? in many ways, all christians are saying is, "look, this is completely consistent with the christian view of god, it doesn't prove it, but it's consistent with it." > arguments from science, from philosophy, do not - indeed cannot - prove that god exists. so the most that can be said about the first cause argument is that it is consistent with the existence of god. is that helpful? is that progress? [telephone ringing] >>hello? > hi mom, how are you doing? >>how are you? >okay, fine. i'm sitting here... >my mother tells me to see a rabbi. so i see rabbi david shatz. professor of philosophy at yeshiva university stern college for women in new york. >>there are some people who look at the world and simply say, "okay, it's here. it's a brute fact that the world is here. we don't need to pursue anything further." and then you have other people who can look at the world and they say, "i can easily imagine the world not being here, the world must be contingent. therefore i have to look for s

why and explain where you stand? the answer is often mixed, of course. it is certainly mixed in our situation as well. it is very important that it always be evident to the public that we are not simply here to oppose, but to explain what we would do and why and how. there's no question that taken as a whole, what is emerging as the general agenda of the obama administration presented to us as a series of yes or no questions is going to require us to say no, in many cases. we should say no and then add to that by explaining our objections, offering alternatives, and reasoning with the public in a serious and responsible way. we should have the courage of our convictions to do that. it is important for an opposition party to know where its principles. , and when it is necessary, to say no. i think our challenges is to say no in a serious way, and are greater challenge is to develop ideas and alternatives to clarify to the public why we think we should say no, and what it would mean for the public to give us a try inst

let's just -- shall we just explain -- let's just explain for a second where this deceit about the 10% comes from. let me explain to the house. >> order. leader of the opposition must be heard. >> if you take the government's own spending plans, you take off debt interest, you take off the increase for unemployment, which sadly is going to go up, you are left with a 7% cut in every department. the government's own figures. if you exempt the nhs, you get a 10% cut. the government's own figures. if you take out -- thank you, school secretary. if you listeno the school secretary and you take out health and schools you get a 13.5% cut. that's the prime minister. mr. 13.5%, his own figures. let's see if we can answer the simplest of questions. is he going to have a full departmental funding review before the election, yes or no? >> mr. speaker, the first thing that he said is unemployment is going to continue to go up. that is the conservative policy. it's the prediction -- but that is when they say -- that is when they say -- that is when they say unemployment is a price worth paying. is h

let me explain. cal ripken and could become the iron man of baseball in 1995. we just want to invite you, as a baseball fan, to an oriole game. we promised that it will not be when the yankees are playing. >> a great invitation. good morning, senator. you can assure your fans that i have been to camden yards. >> the beginning of a new trend in baseball stadiums, you are certainly welcome. before this hearing the people of this country knew that the president had selected someone with incredible credentials to be the supreme court member. now they know that the person is able and capable, understanding of the law, understanding the appropriate role of a judge in the lock, doing well in responding to the members of the senate, which bodes well for your interaction with attorneys and colleagues on the bench in having a thorough discussion of the very important issues that will affect the lives of all people in our nation. i first want to start with the judicial temperament and the reference to the alman

can he explain this? this is a treasury presentation that has been given to us and on page 7, on page 7 it says very clearly what headings for current spending and capital spending, the headline is reduction in medium-term spending. so, can i ask the prime minister, if the treasury, if even the treasury is going around giving presentations around the country saying that public spending as a total is being cut why can't you get to the truth? >> because mr. speaker i have told them previously that current spending is going to rise in capital spending as i explained last week, last week will fall after 2011. that is, these are the public spending projections for the future, but i have to say to him, the debate on public spending is about this. how do we return to growth and jobs in the economy? the reason we have advanced spending to 2009/10 is so we can spend to get out of recession. we have brought proposals for homes and for jobs and for more money in 2009/10. the opposition have rejected this expenditure

some people think that explains a lot. my favorite story in urban america is a man that told a story that was told briefly at harvard. many moved to cambridge, it was in the fall. there was a congressional election. he and voted in that election and reflexively and voted against the democrats in the race. the next morning, it was curious how it turned out. he asked his wife at the breakfast table, how did the election? how did the republican do? she looked at the newspaper in london very quickly and said, there was another republican in that race. republican in that race. >> he said look, i know i voted against the democrat. she said, honey, you voted for the communists. which is the way it goes in urban america. it is an honor to be here today with so many thinkers and leaders. a little-known fact, those are the columns left over from barack obama oppose it acceptance speech in denver this summer. [laughter] i agree with everything that has been said this morning, but i want to start with a defensive point. can now be a l

speaks to them, it has always been a problem to explain the meaning of debt in the abstract. we're getting to the point where it is very real, the effect on the next generation is growing easier to explain. it still makes for a dull economic argument, but if conservatives can speak to the language and the effect of all of this, that will speak to some younger voters. >> every business person knows, the difference is that they see the tragedy is that everybody else sees and sees opportunity that could make meaningful change, make lots of money, whatever happens to be. your formative years and mine, when we were jr.s -- when we were our junior year in high school, what is the message that we have to be inculcating right now among young people in the conservative media and a movement? what are the parts of the message? >> as the government -- as the governor touched on, dad and entitlements are something that you think -- debt and entitlements are something that catch the eyes of the young people because it will be something they ultimately pay for. we really need four things in

now, that's going to be hard to explain.nk she will fudge it and successfully do so, but the fact that it was not off the cuff, it was not a random statement as you said it was said over and over again in her core belief. >> i think it's true that it was probably her belief and maybe still is it because she's recently said it, endemic of something you see in liberal politics and i'm a liberal and she's almost a victim of her generation, i feel like, of her time, a common way of thinking and i think that people of my generation maybe have gotten away from it. so it's even offensive for people like me to hear things like that and people of her generati generation don't think so. i think charles is right, she's going to fudge it, i misspoke, i meant to say we all gain more experience, look at clarence thomas in his hearings he talks about his upbringing, the poverty, with alito, discussed his blue collar background and how that forms it, and we are all a product of those experiences and ultimately, you have to look at my record

one, who is doing the explaining -- >> here it is. >> and what they're explaining. i can tell you that when you start talking about what this government is about to do or trying to do in the next two weeks, do you know -- you should appreciate this, chris. >> look, but, michael, this poll told people it would tax people who make more than $280,000 to pay for it. it would require employers to do it. it said it would have a government-run option. it has all the features in it. this is full information, michael, and there's still a majority of voters saying yes to the obama plan. >> no, they're not. >> you call it socialism. are most americans socialist? >> this plan is not in the best interests of this nation. >> that's a different statement. stick to your argument. >> absolutely. >> it's socialism. >> because what it is doing, it is taking over the means of production with respect to the health care and this economy, and it's taken out of people's hands the control that they have right now to go to the doctor of their choosing, to get the kind of services that they n

can you please explain how mr. didden could have filed the lawsuit in july of 2002 before he was extorted november 2003? and also, please explain why a july 2002 filing would not have been dismissed because there was no proof that mr. didden suffered an injury, only an allegation that he might be injured in the future. >> the basis of mr. didden's lawsuit was the state can't take my property and give it to a private developer. because that is not consistent with the takings clause of the constitution. to the extent he knew the state, and there is no dispute about it, that the state has found the public use for his property. that it had a public purpose. that it had an argument with the private developer to let that developer take the property he knew that he was injured because his basic argument was the state can't do this. it can't tape my property and give it to a private developer. the supreme court in kelo addressed that question and said under certain circumstances the state can do that if it's for a public u

though the student was asking if he would please explain the conversion. neil told him it wasn't true and tried to explain how the story had gone started and what he'd done to try to stop it and the student would not believe him. his father had told him that neil would deny it and so it is really parts of the conspiracy theories involved in more than one of them as the moon hoax being the number one conspiracy theory. but the suggestion is there is no way the u.s. government could have let it be known that in his most famous fashion not first man on the moon had converted to islam. so is a big part of the government conspiracy and the reason neil is so quiet over the years is the government put a lid on hand, they are not letting him talks somehow, kind of like have them under house arrest. but no matter what happens and i am not thinking that even though this is explained in some detail in the book i have hopes and aspirations that maybe this will settle things down, but popular culture being what it is an urban legends continue despite what we know to be

. >> thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks. no words i have ever spoken or written have received so much attention. as my speech made clear, in one of the quotes that you referenced, i was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do. i don't think that there is a quarrel with that in our society. i was also, in trying to inspire them, to believe that they could believe anything they wanted to become, just as i had. the context of the word that i spoke have created a misunderstanding, and i want -- a misunderstanding -- and to give everyone assurances, i want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, i do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. i do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences. >> reporter: but the explanation did not satisfy alabama's jeff sessions, the committee

i'm encouraging lawyers to do more work in explaining the system, in explaining what we are doing as courts. >> in a 2001 speech at berkeley, you wrote, "whether borne from experience or inherent 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, i

explain to people. what do we mean when we talk about a jobless recovery? >> for various reasons these will begin to rise when a recession is over however we don't see a lot of job growth. that lags behind. in 2002, when we were coming out of the last recession and also in the early 1990's, we had just that where g.d.p. and production and sales all went up and jobs did not grow. >> suzanne: you will have to excuse us. we have apparently a fire-safety test here on the floor of the new york stock exchange. just bear with us for a second. can you? >> yes. >> suzanne: can you explain for me the paradox of a jobless recovery? how is it possible that you can still be having an economy that's recovering and all these people are still losing jobs? >> yeah. the actual job losses will begin to abate for large sectors of the job market. in particular, the service sector. that's where 90% of us work -- nine out of 10 people work there and i expect that as the recession draws to a close, this summer, that we'll start to see jobs growth in the services sector, and certai

now, that's going to be hard to explain.think she will fudge it and successfully do so, but the fact that it was not off the cuff, it was not a random statement as you said it was said over and over again in her core belief. >> i think it's true that it was probably her belief and maybe still is it because she's recently said it, endemic of something you see in liberal politics and i'm a liberal and she's almost a victim of her generation, i feel like, of her time, a common way of thinking and i think that people of my generation maybe have gotten away from it. so it's even offensive for people like me to hear things like that and people of her generati generation don't think so. i think charles is right, she's going to fudge it, i misspoke, i meant to say we all gain more experience, look at clarence thomas in his hearings he talks about his upbringing, the poverty, with alito, discussed his blue collar background and how that forms it, and we are all a product of those experiences and ultimately, you have to look at my rec

could you please explain how mr. didden could have filed his lawsuit july 2002 before he was exported in november 2003? and also, please explain why a july 2002 filing would not have been dismissed because there was no proof that mr. didden had suffered an injury, only an allegation that he might be injured in the future. >> the basis of mr. dayton's lawsuit was, the state can't take my property and give it to a private developer, and because that is not consistent with the takings clause of the constitution. to the extent he knew the state, and there is no dispute about this, that the state had found a public use for his property, that it had a public purpose, that it had an agreement with the private developer to let that developer take the property, he knew that he was injured. it was his basic argument, the state can't do this. it can't take my property and give it to a private developer. the supreme court in kelo addressed that question and said, under certain circumstances, the state can do that if it is for a

it is to have them explained to me why they are right.n the second circuit -- is to have them explain to byd are right. the processes in the second circuit -- explain to me why they are right. it is not just me, but darkhorse is generally described -- but our court is generally described as that there are peppered with questions. lots of lawyers are unfamiliar of the process in the second circuit, and they find that tough bench difficult and challenging. >> if i may interject, judge, they fight you difficult and challenging, more than your colleagues -- they find you difficult. and the only reason i mention this is that it stands out. there are many positive things about you, and these hearings are here to talk about the good and bad, and i never liked appearing before a judge that i thought was a bully. it is hard enough having to be a lawyer without a judge beating you up for no good reason. do you think that you have the temperament problem? >> no, sir. i can only talk about my relationship with the judges at my court and would be more

now, i think it is right that i explain -- it is right that i explain to the house what equipment isavailable, what we're doing on helicopters, what we're doing on other equipment and what we're doing on the numbers of our armed forces. they are legitimate questions and should be answered by the government. i hope the all-party agreement on what we do in afghanistan and what we have to do to defeat afghanistan will remain in being. i hope that we will recognize in this particular exercise operation panthers claw, we are doing everything we can and will continue to do that to support our brave and courageous armed forces who are both professional and determined and will have all our support. >> mark todd. >> will my right honorable friend reflect on the decision of the ministry of defense to appeal against the judgment which would allow hearings of cases of nuclear test veterans seeking compensation against the ministry for injury that they or their relatives may have suffered as a consequence of their exposure to nuclear explosion? >> i will, of course, look at this. but as he knows,

i also as i explained was using a rhetorical. i know he couldn't have met if judges reach different legal conclusions that one of them wasn't wise. that couldn't have been her meaning because reasonable judges disagree. on legal conclusions in some cases. i was trying to play on her words. my play fell flat. it was bad. it left an impression that i believe that life experiences command a result in the case. that's clearly not what i do as a jung. it's clearly not what i intended in the contest of my broader speech. it was to believe that their life experiences added value. >> well, i can see that perhaps as a layperson approach to it. as a judge who took the oath that you repeatedly made statements that consistently argues that this ideal and >> you are watching highlights from the senate judiciary committee hearing on the nomination of judge sotomayor. we will resume and a moment with questions from russ feingold. the next step is a vote before the nomination gets sent to the senate floor. democrats hope for a final vote confirm

the best dollar explains i've ever heard. >>> here's megan. >> thank you.re moving as you know -- well, moving, as you know, always frustrating. if you weigh 600 pounds? how is it done? >>> if you're going to a long way on your trip with your kids you may want to look into buying satellite tv for your car. we'll explain. >>> but first, here's a look at the latest business news with vanita niar >> reporter: good morning. topping your "moneyscope report." wall street turns to technology earnings today as it looks to extends its week loang rally. apple companies sales and profits topped wall street expectations thanks to a boost from the iphone. it sold over 5 million of them, seven times more than the same period last year. mac computer sales were up as well. >>> shares of yahoo, on the other hand, set to slide today. the company reported its sharpest drop in advertising revenues since the dot com bust. that overshadowed a solid profit game for the company but the improving bottom line is a sign. the new ceo is beginning to turn the company around. >>> federa

and i am encouraging lawyers to do more work in explaining the system, in explaining what we are doing as courts. >> in a 2001 speech at berkeley, you wrote "weather born from experience or cultural differences, a possibility that i have less, our general andced our genre will make a a difference in our judging, closed quote. a difference is physiological if it relates to the mechanical, physical or biochemical functions of the body, as i understand the word. what do you mean by that? >> i was talking just about that. there are, in the law, there have been upheld in certain situations that certain job positions have a requirement for a certain amount of strength or other characteristics that maybe a person who fits that characteristics and have that job, but there are difference that may affect a particular type of work. we do that all the time. >> we're talking about -- >> -- a pilot who has good eyesight. >> we're not talking about pilots, we're talking about judges, right? >> no, no, no. what i was talking about that was the process was talking about the difference in the process of

and as brian just explained the purpose of the book is to show, to demonstrate economic is a song in and free market works and is a science. it is a recent science if we look back in history you had extraordinary man with extraordinary intuition like adam smith explained more than two centuries ago the free trade was good. but it was more like in the intuition what is quite recent and economics is the science is that most of the arguments and certainly most of the arguments in this book are based on facts we can measure. we now work on data and build mathematical models. we confront the mathematical model with economic reality, and we know the model is right or the model is wrong. it's demonstrated wrong we build a new model and so on. so economics works as science since quite a recent perk of. when i started studying economics even teaching economics it was a matter of opinion. people would think free trade was good and other people would think free trade was bad. and some would advocate inflation as a way to create growth for a sample it was before milton friedman. and so it was a

let me explain. the major baseball strike you allowed the season to continue to cal ripkin could become the iron man of baseball in september 1995, so we just want to invite you as a baseball man, we want to invite you to an oreo game and we promise it will not be when the yankees are playing so you can root for them. >> that's a great invitation and good morning, senator. you can assure your baltimore fans that i have been to camden yards. it's a beautiful stadium. >> glad to hear it. that was a lighthearted moment during todays third day of grilling. another round of questioning is tomorrow. >>> well never before seen video 25 years after michael jackson suffered serious burns during the shooting of a pepsi commercial. new video of the accident is being released. >>> ocean city beach rescue a boy trapped beneath the sand and the life guard tells his story. >>> you probably use the atm machine many times a week but now a major scam and a major maryland city may have you thinking twice before you do

can you plese explain how mr. didden cou have filed the lawsuit in july of 2002 before he was extorted november 2003? and also, please explai why a july2002 filing wou not have been dismissed beuse there was proof that mr. didden suffered an injury, only an allegation at he might be injured in the future. the bas mr. didden's lawsuit was the stat can'take my property and give it to pvate veloper. beause that is not consistent th the takgs clause of the conitution. to the extent he knewthe state, and the is no diute about it, that the state has found the public use for his property. that it had a public purpose. that it had an argument with the private developerto let th developer tke the property he knew that he as injured because his basic argument was te state can't do this. it can'tape my prorty and give it to a private develer. the supreme court in kelo addressed th question and said und certain circumstances the state can do that if it's for a public use and a public purpose. and so his lawsuit essentially dr

i put those in to give it and if they explained, they were gaining steam.y doesn't he do it and why does it take guys like hair and hunting, the government is not sophisticated anymore. we all know it's painful. the only thing i saw from the testimony is let's get indictments women have czars for everything and i feel like it's russia in the 1800s. why can't we have a federal government justice czar who goes after the people who brought down the world. they are human beings and where they live and if they need the names, they can call me. >> i'm sure they will do just that. >> let's go back into the hearings. they had a conflict of interest and is it possible that there is so conflict of interest that they don't realize that you are helping people that you are associated with and reputing yourself for america's ethics? >> let me make several comments. i asked for the t.a.r.p. and i asked for authority to purchase illiquid assets. we changed opinions because the situation changed dramatically. >> in 10 days? >> you betcha. if you look at what happened in tha

you know, also i mean, i'm explaining it clearly, my father explained it, the newspaper people explained it, it tended to come and go. when the cbl, the contract buyers league, finally really pushed this thing into the headlines, you know, then it became known, of course, by then the fha had changed its policy and was insuring. you know, i think it's much easier to try and blame some -- an individual's pathology of racism than to look at an economic structure that really enriches a lot of people and screws over people who don't have as much and don't matter as much and that's why the southern sheriff is a great symbol. you can make fun of him. it seems like it's a problem in his head if only he knew better, he wouldn't act that way but the contract seller -- it's not -- you know, many of the contract sellers, in fact, said, you know, we're not racist. we love black people. we sell to them, you know? nobody else will. so, you know, they often said, you know, we're just businessmen, you know. and i think many of them, in fact -- i don't think they were, you know, vicious racists as much as

i also, as i explained, was using rhetorical flourish that fell flat. i knew that justice o'connor couldn't have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn't wise. that couldn't have been her meaning because reasonable judges disagree on legal conclusions in some cases. so i was trying to play on her words. my play was -- fell flat. it was bad. because it left an impression that i believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what i do as a judge. it's clearly not what i intended. in the context of my broader speech which was attempting to inspire young hispanic, latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process. >> well, i can see that, perhaps, as i -- a layperson's approach to it, but as a judge who has taken this oath, i'm very troubled that you would repeatedly, over a decade or more, make statements that consistently, any fair reading of these speeches, consistently argues that this ideal and commitment, i believe every

we will explain. we will let conan o'brien to you all about . that is coming up. 5 ú millions of men 45 and older... just don't feel like they used to. are you one of them? remember when you had more energy... for 18 holes with your buddies? more passion for the one you love? more fun with your family and friends? could be an easily treatable condition called low t. c'mon, stop living in the shadows. you've got a life to live. so don't blame it on aging. go to isitlowt.com to find out more. greta: get ready. here it is. the story that will unglue you. at a posh resort for about 700 executives for the social security and administration. joining us is a man who was inside the party. josh, was this? >> well, it was a manager's conference to help alleviate stress and deal with the multi generational staff for the social security administration. we took our cameras undercover and went inside. the video shows what we saw. for a good 20 or 30 minutes, it was more like a dance party than it was any type of

also, as i explained, i was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. i knew that justice o'connor, reaching different legal conclusions, judges could disagree on legal conclusions in some cases. i was trying to play on her words. by play on words fell flat. it was bad, because it left an impression that i believe that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that is clearly not what i view as a judge, clearly not what i intended in the context of my broader speech. i was attempting to inspire young hispanic latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process. >> i could see that as a lay person approach to it, but as a judge that has taken this oath, i am troubled that you wouldn't repeatedly, over a decade or more, make consistent statements saying that any fair reading of these statements consistently argues that this ideal and commitment, i believe that every judge is committed to putting aside personal experiences and biases, making sure that the person before them gets a fair day in court. judge,

as you explained yesterday.our parents came to new york from puerto rico during world war r, and after your father died, your mother raised you alone. your are a life-long new yorker and a yankee fan. but many of my constituents live in rural area and small towns, and they root for the brures and the packers. some might think you don't have a lot in common with them. what can you tell me about your ability as a judge to empathize with them, to understand the every day challenges of rural and small-town america and how supreme court decisions might affect their lives? small town american and how a supreme court decision might affect their lives. >> yes, i live in new york city and it is a little different than other parts of the country. but i spend a lot of time in other parts of the country. i've visited a lot of states. i've stayed with people who do all types of work. i've visited and vacationed on farms. i've lived and vacationed in mountain tops. i've lived and vacationed in all sorts -- not lived. i'm usin

they explained he recruited among other things two of his own sons. the mother of those boys, daniel boyd's wife, sabrina, is offering explanations for the accusations being made by the government. daniel boyd fought in afghanistan in the early 1990s but settled in north carolina. he and his two sons were among seven people arrested monday on terrorism charges. his wife tells cnn, they are innocent. >> i know that my husband and my sons are free of guilt and i am hopeful that the truth will come to light. >> reporter: in court documents shall the government says the group stockpiled a cash of high-powered weapons. she says they were responding to news reports that guns and ammunition were becoming scarce. >> we will say we do own guns in our home as our constitutional right allows us. i don't think there is a crime in that. >> reporter: the government says the group trained for jihad in rural north carolina. sabrina boyd says her husband was just helping his boy scout sons with marks manship. >> one of the merit badges they use to become an eagle scou

bernanke. >> can you explain that? >> well, let's say that i can't -- but i have a kind of look at life that is marked parallel and a look at economics and financial methods that are more comparable. i think it must have been quite difficult situation for mr. bernanke when the financial crisis turned and maybe you can go back in your memory, it took quite a while for paulson and the bush administration to realize that this was really bad. this is not just a minor crisis that would go away in three months' time and i think there have been very interesting articles amongst "the new york times" about what bernanke had to do to convince paulson and other people in the bush administration that this was serious and is needed urgent personal reaction to prevent from getting into something really bad. >> there was a lot of resistance to government intervention in general which now we have seen pretty much told. practically anything goes of the moment is what it seems so what was the source of that resistance? was at the chicag

i also, as i explained, was using a rhetorical that fell flat.knew that justice o'connor couldn't have meant that if judges reach different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn't wise. that couldn't have been her meaning because reasonable judges disagree. on legal conclusions in some cases. so, i was trying to play on her words. my play was -- fell flat. it was bad. because it left an impression that i believe that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what i do as a judge. it's clearly not what i intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young hispanic, latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process. >> well, i can see that perhaps as a lay person approach to it, but as a judge who's taken this oath, i'm very troubled that you would repeatedly over a decade or more make statements that consistently, any fair reading of these speeches consistently argues that this ideal and commitment, i believe every judge is commi

if those who have tried to explain justice kennedy's jurisprudence are to be believed, this is not much help at all, because justice kennedy is according to other commentators, a flip-flopping, inconsistent jurist, who is far more likely to pepper his opinions with pompous, meaningless rhetoric than with well-defined legal doctrine. my book challenges that conclusion. now i don't claim that justice kennedy has an overarching judicial philosophy, for he himself has said that he doesn't have such a jurisprudence. rather, what i demonstrate is that in certain areas of the law, one can find consistency in his opinions. a consistency that comes from his employment of a modest libertarianism. now, i suspect that to many people in this room, the idea of describing kennedy's jurisprudence as libertarian may come as a surprise. because kennedy does not shy away from using an expansive type of judicial review. however, imagine a libertarianism that uses the authority of the state's judges, neutral decision makers, to ensure that government actions by other branches of government pass far more str

and senator ensign when challenged by the "las vegas sun" to explain this said he had no idea. can you imagine, rachel, someone said here's $10,000, why don't you take a trip to the middle east and you say sure. i'm not going to ask who's sending me. of course he understood what he was doing. he had been a part of the group for a lochk time. congressman frank wolf, congressman john carter. all of these guys had been traveling on the international foundation, which is one of the family's nonprofits, they had been traveling on the dime of that organization and yet not really being very forthright with us about what they're doing. >> the international foundation is the name of the one that usually -- is that what you said, the international foundation? >> yeah, the family believes, as david coe, one of the leaders, the son of doug once explained, we operate like the mafia. and one of the ways we do that, just like the mafia has shell companies, the family has multiple nonprofits, the international foundation, the fellowship foundation, the c street foundation. and they use these t

let me just explain how it's given.ally it's hooked up to this iv setup and placed in a pump and the physician dials in the amount that should be given to the patient. another way to give it is to take a syringe and put it into a saline bag and drip it in. it's hand controlled. if you open it up too wide, what happens is, patient's breathing becomes shallower and to the point where they would stop breathing. if you stop breathing you would go into cardiac arrest and i would imagine that if the toxicology reports show this diprivan in his system at some point, it's really going to change the picture of everything. >> dr. dar, how long would diprivan stay in his system? >> well, it is metabolized in the liver so we could potentially find metabolized that are existing in his body tissues, blood samples were taken i presume during autopsy, so if it's there they will find it. >> joining me right now from washington, d.c., dr. marty mccarey, physician and professor of public health at johns hopkins. dr. makary, welcome. what

i can only explain what i'm doing. which is, when i ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right, lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the second circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging. >> if i may interject, judge, they find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues. i never liked appearing before a judge that i thought was a bully. do you think you have a temperament problem? >> no, sir. >> do i have to compare it to john mccain's temperament? and if you had miguel estrada in a sonia sotomayor confirmation hearing drinking games, hope you enjoyed your two-day bender. possibly the most absurd of several republican strategies officially entering into the record of the sotomayor hearings, complaints about the democrats having successfully filibustered the nomination of one of president bush's appellate court nominees apparently because he, too, had a hispanic name. >> and i'm p

. >> take 15 seconds and explain this to me. why. >> mermaids, i felt like there's something deeply, deeply terrifying about them. everybody else thinks they're mystical and nice, i always felt threatened by the idea of mermaids. i'm with brownback on this. >> huh! >> thanks, keith. >> you're welcome. >> all right. well, most awkward segue ever. thanks for tuning in. colonel lawrence wilkerson will be here this hour to help us try to unravel the mystery of what exactly dick cheney was up to with the cia program that he allegedly directed should be hidden from congress. there's also incriminating news tonight about governor mark sanford. there's some stunning news about senator john ensign of nevada. and there's some outrageous news about goldman sachs. elizabeth warren will be here with us this hour as well. that's all coming up. >>> but we begin tonight with what is starting to feel like the jeff sessions show, even though it's supposed to be the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. in the absence of

people have contacted me to explain some of this. i give them a sense of what it is like to use its and does it work. this kind of journalism is very popular across many publications. not only in technology but in other fields. we have been very successful with columns on investment and health. >> is there a printed newspaper in 10 years? >> i do not know the answer to that. it certainly is changing faster than what i would have set three years ago. part of that is hastened by the overall economic climate, but the point isn't to say but newspapers or state television stations. the point is we need to have journalism and journalists. it does not matter to me if people are reading be on a screen or on a dead tree. it just does not matter. >> what is the difference between the number of visitors on newspaper and website? >> the circulation is about 2 million. >> i cannot tell you how many people read my column. the traffic is quite respectable of the web. -- on the web. it is easy to measure as well. i would guess that partly because i

i'm just attempting to explain that the u.s.versus sanchez was using fundamental in its legal cents but whether or not it had been incorporated against the states. with respect to that question, moreover, even if it's not incorporated against the state's, the question would be with the states have a rational basis for the regulation and has in place. and i believe the question was whether or not a prohibition against felons possessing firearms without question, if my memory serves me correctly. if it doesn't. but even justice scalia in the majority opinion and heller recognized that that was a rational basis regulation for a state under all circumstances, whether or not there was a second amendment right. >> welcome in this district of columbia versus heller if the supreme court observed that, quote, it has always been like the interest of the second amendment like the first, and fourth amendments codify a pre-existing right, and of quote, and the court observed, quote, by the time of the founding the right to have arms had beco

we'll explain and have those stories when we come back. yoaru tcwa ng9 hinews now at noon. having the right tools is crucial to being able to manage your diabetes properly. it's very important for me to uh check my blood sugar before i go on stage. being on when i'm feeling low can be like a rollercoaster. it does at times feel like my body is telling me to do one thing... and, my mind, my heart is telling me to do something else. managing my highs and lows is super important. with my contour meter i can personalize my high/lo settings so it really does micromanage where my blood sugar needs to be. i'm nick jonas and never slowing down is my simple win. >>> some lobbyists are putting people to work. they are being hired to stand in line to get tickets for congressional hearings, but not everyone is happy. lisa sylvester explains. >> reporter: outside of a gnat committee on environment and public works hearing on climate change the line to get in stretches on. a few people arrived in the wee hours hoping to get a seat, not for themselves but for lobbyists. they are paid line

i don't know how to explain it. we saw adam in the pre game trying to explain. >> i just explained it. it is a matter of attitude. they believe they can beat us. they go out there and sometimes, they have your number. but it's right there. it's no different than anything whether you are playing horse shoe, tennis, pink pong, if you feel you're going to dominate your opponent, you will. >> johnny: this is our moment. you saw it in the 9th inning, wes helms comes up to face him as a pinch hitter and, boom, a couple of runs come in. gload gets another base hit. macdougal comes in. can't turn the double play. run scores. ross singles, rbi to make it 5- 3. that's big clutch hitting. what i think is the big difference, they get good balls to hit in those situations. as you see a little bit later in the breakdown, you see that we are swinging balls out of the strike zone. tavarez takes the loss. he is at 3-6 now. josh willingham a good game, and a good series. we'll talk to bob and rob about that in a moment. zimmerman als