and this looks like a court led by john roberts with justice sam alito taking sandra day o'connor's place, a clear view of the law and the role of the court in society and that's why you're seeing some of these decisions that we saw this term really pulling the court out of some of these disputes. the best case for that, paul, was a big dna case, an inmate up in alaska convicted of rape argued that he should have a constitutional right to his genetic material after he was convict today test his dna and he confessed to the crime, but he want today challenge it, the justices led by john roberts, a beautiful example of conservative jurisprudence, said this is not an issue for the court, the legislators are handling this, most of the states would allow this kind of access, we're not going to be policy makers, and that's the direction i think that the court is headed in. >> an in a couple of other instances, the herring case where they didn't turn it back, they paired it down throw out the evidence if the police err in the way they gather the efforts. and the voting case, didn't with an 8-1 de

did when chief justice, now chief justice john roberts, went before the senate in 2005, the vote was 78-22. and i think a ot of republicans feel that that was unfair that he got that many, 22. because as some of you might remember, in 1993 and 1994 when ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer came through as democratic appointees, they got 90 plus votes. so that sticks in people's craw, the republicans' craw that there were 22 democrats against john roberts. so i think there's a chance that some might vote against her just to sort of remedy that. but by the end of this hearing, there was a little bit of a love fest thing going on and we'll see probably the week of august 3, she'll have her vote on the floor. and, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if many of the republicans on the committee ended up being for her. gwen: three republicans announced today. >> right. >> joan, as much as they -- she avoided substance and the democrats didn't bother with it, either, there were a couple of issues people cared about. how did she come out on abortion and how did she manage the richey case whic

sam, stay with us, if you can, i want to bring on john roberts, who is also on the telephone with us. john, obviously, you worked at cbs for many, many years. tell us your story. >> i did, campbell, and i had the honor of meeting walter cronkite during the years i spent at cbs. but i remember the very first time i saw him was at a 5-year-old boy in canada, watching the cbs news when john kennedy was assassinated. i remember as sam was saying that moment where he took off his glasses and he looked at the clock and he said that president kennedy has -- has died, and i -- i -- you know, that was one of the, you know, the earliest moments that i can remember that i really wanted to pursue a career in news. then i watched walter all threw the days of the "apollo" space program, and i remember him saying on july 20th, 1969, that man has landed on the moon, and followed him from there. and i mean, it's just -- you know, it -- to think that he was the most trusted man in america really was, i think, an understatement, because at that time, anytime, anything ever happened, anything bad ever ha

and most of it was about refighting why democrats voted against sam alito and john roberts and even people obscure to the public like janice rogers. >> rose: does it in fact, as somebody has said, the republicans say it will be a victory for them if they can get as many votes against her as democrats got votes against john roberts? >> charlie, i've covered politics for a long time in america and i have never heard.... >> rose: when he says that to me i know i'm going to learn something. >> i've never heard a voter in waterloo, iowa, say "i give the republicans credit because they got as many against her as they did against john roberts." no. >> rose: all right. so set up her judicial profile for me and what to expect from her in these hearings. >> well, you know, she gave this opening statement today that was... it struck me as the ultimate in defense. when i heard that statement, it was pretty thin gruel. i thought to myself, she's not going to tell them anything. nothing. >> rose: can you get away with that if you've got the kind of judicial record she has? i mean, this is not coming wit

here's a guy, obama, who voted against john roberts for the supreme court and appointed this lady wholly does not look like she fits up to roberts' standards. >> on what level does she not fit up to roberts' standards? she's issued rulings in 3,000 cases, served in every level of the legal process. she sat through those four days showing amazing restraint as she was peppered with the same question over and orve again with brakes to check her blood sugar every two hours because she's a diabetic. i think maybe the members of the committee should be checking their blood sugar. maybe that's a good idea for some members of this panel as well. [ laughter ] >> check up on that, would you, mort did she say blood sugar or pressure? >> maybe both. >> she was boring, which is the way these supreme court confirmations unfold because they don't want to set themselves up as a target for anybody, but i think she came across as likable, and she's gonna get a goodly number of republican votes. >> she could have ex egeted by the way, even her wise latina because if she were talking about this particula

did when chief jutice, now chief justice john roberts, went before the senat in 2005, the vote was 78-22. and i think ot of republicans el that thatas unfair that he gothat many, 22. because as some of y might remember, in 199 and 994 whn ruth bder ginsburg and stephen breyer came rough as democratic apointees, they got plus votes. that sticks in peple's craw, the republics' craw thathere were 22 democrats against jhn roberts. so i think there'sa chance that so might vote ainst her just tsort of remedy that. but by the end f this hearing, there was a little bt of a love fest thg going on and we'll see probably the eek of august 3, she'll have h vote on the oor. and, ou know, it ouldn't surprise me if man of the reblicans on the mmittee endeup being for her. gwen: threerepublicans announcedoday. >> right. >>oan, as mh as thy -- she avoided sutance and the democratsidn't bother with it, either, there we a couple of sues people cared bout. how did he come ou on abortion andow did she manage therichey case which was a embarrassment that he got overruled byhe supreme court right before h h

serious. >> he's not because john roberts understands that the role of a judge is to be a judge. here's the problem, david. she makes the statement today that she's not going to be making policy from the bench. that's basically -- >> she did not say that. she said she was going to apply the law. that's what judges do, but in applying the law -- >> you think a judge should make policy decisions? >> you're not serious. you're not serious. >> i am. >> if you're telling me that john roberts doesn't make policy. >> i am telling you that he applies the law as a judge is supposed to do. he understands the difference between his role as a judge and his role as a legislator. sean: in the american legal system courts aren't supposed to make law or set policy. don't we have coequal branches of government? >> yes, but what happens when you do that. how do you make the rule? >> based on the precedent. >> you don't say i don't like the policy, i'm going to overturn it. >> that's policy. >> no, it's not. it's a constitutional analysis. you're -- >> how can -- >> sean, here's the problem. judge

it's just bizarre, the extent to which john roberts' shadow hovers over these hearings. and democrats it's like patty herst syndrome. they've completely bought into the notion that, you know, justice is justice and anything over and above that is horrible. you get these flickering moments. again today, al franken who has been a senator for less than a week actually making this pointed critique of the roberts court and saying to judge sotomayor, how can they talk about striking down the voting rights act? how can that not be activist? why haven't all the democrats been messaging that? it's really been this very confounding caught between a bunch of doctrine they can't explain. >> i guess that may be what al meant when he talked about wanting to be the people's proxy in these hearings. it's really great to have you on the show again. thanks, dahlia. >> thank you rachel. >>> coming up -- an update on what in our office we're calling operation iraqi baseball. >>> and sarah palin bravely comes out against her own position on energy. >>> and scary things in water which include

to advance their judicial philosophy, that judges should be restrained and modest, words that john roberts used. applying the law. not making a lot. part of that is to set a maker -- marker for the next supreme court justice. there is the anticipation with john stevens or ruth beiler ginsberg, two other moderate liberals, they might retire during the president's first term. judge sotomayor, as far as she is concerned, she has been briefed fairly well. she has sat for hours in the old executive office building across the street from the white house, with administration lawyers throwing questions at her. what ever they ask her, she has gone over her answers. she has been fully batted. she is on autopilot. megyn: sounds like she does not need to go through it. [laughter] >> it is exciting. no matter the votes, democracy in action. you never know what will happen. we are just a couple of minutes away, the battle for the seat on the nation's highest court. full coverage today of judge sonia sotomayor's senate confirmation hearing -- judicial confirmation hearing. many people have focused on thi

and then john roberts, 782-22. 58-22 for judge justice alito. that is all in "the wall street journal" this morning. wisconsin, independent. caller: i'm interested with all the partisan bickering we have going on this morning and we have not even heard the hearings get. she has not even been asked a question yet. it seems really over the top. i have a question about your guest on friday. she made a racomment about tryig to release terrorists into the streets of america. i think somebody has got to challenge that when that stuff comes out on your airwaves. that is crazy. i hope the judge gets a fair hearing and answers a questions and then i will make up my mind. host: at c-span.org, we have a whole area devoted to judge sonia sotomayor's confirmation hearings. there is a list of majority and minority witnesses. they include michael bloomberg and when the chavis -- linda chavez. long island, joe, independent. gcaller: i would like to apologize for the earlier caller. can a nation preserve its sovereignty? then she know the difference between lega

centre obama referred to an empty standard when he voted against john roberts.e stated that tough questions can be only determined on one score concerns, once broader concern -- perspectives. i believe that standard is antithetical to the proper role of the judge. the american people expect our judges to treat all litigants equally. that is why lady justice is always depicted blind. and why aristotle defined law as reason free from passion. we expect a judge to call out balls and strikes. maybe so, maybe not. we certainly do not expect them to sympathize with one party over the other. that is where empathy comes from. you must prove to the senate that you will hear to the proper role of a judge. and only base your opinions on the constitution and when appropriate, treaties. that is your oath. that is what the constitution demands of view. you must demonstrate that he will strictly interpret the constitution and our laws. will not be swayed by your personal biases or your political preferences, which you are entitled to. as alexander hamilton stated, the peculiar

both justice john roberts and justice samuel elito.'m peter jacobsen, and i've lost 31 pounds on nutrisystem. dan marino influenced me and he really pushed me to get on nutrisystem. yeah, i'll take credit for peter jacobsen. introducing the all-new nutrisystem for men, flexible new programs personalized to meet your goals. get on the program, eat properly, you're going to lose weight. it's actually easier than you think it might be. that was really good. thanks. i had awesome results and i've kept it off for three years. for a limited time, get an extra three weeks of meals free. that's right, you can get an extra 21 breakfasts, lunches, dinners, desserts, and snacks. that's 105 meals free. that's what guys like. "tell me, 'do this,' i do it, i lose weight." with prices as low as $12 a day, you'll save hundreds over other weight-loss programs. order now and get an extra three weeks of fantastic meals. that's right, 105 meals absolutely free. call or click now. >>> this is a live look inside the hearing room where those confirmation hea

her answers to questions on abortion seemed strikingly similar to those given by chief justice john robertsd justice samuel alito during their hearings. judge sotomayor remained elusive on other divisive issues like gun rights and gay marriage, citing previous supreme court rulings. she did, however, clarify her controversial comment that a "wise latina" would reach a better conclusion than a white male. >> it was a bad choice of words by me. because it left an impression that has offended people, and has left an impression that i didn't intend. >> bonnie: bay buchanan, her strategy did work. she's cruising towards quirmtsinconfirmation. is that because confirmation hearings are useless? >> no, we don't have somebody buying a seat, somebody's brother-in-law getting this. it has a person with character and legal experience. >> they do provide if american people a glimpse to someone who is being considered into the highest court in the land. it's important. >> just because there wasn't any political drama doesn't mean the practice is rendered meaningless. >> it's crucial we take this step wit

she said as little as possible as we've noted and tried to sound as much like john roberts, sam ali at that and clarence tomorrow thomas as possible. she said her duty is fidelity to the law. is the law what's written in the constitution or is the law as the president thinks what's in the deepest recesses of your heart? sonia sotomayor's empathy and her personal gender and ethnicity and her views and what her personal notions of justice. what is the law? that begs the question. she didn't really say anything. having listened to john roberts' eight-minute presentation and justice alito's brief presentation, it's not a little thing to get up and to define what is the law. everybody thinks that the law is what the constitution says it is. people disagree on what the constitution means. that's why we have 5-4 votes. >> she didn't say it's what the constitution -- what's written in the constitution and the history, she said fidelity to the law. and that, as i said, is a meaningless statement. >> would she have persuaded you if she said what i really care about is the constitution? are those

john roberts only spoke for six minutes on her first day. democrats quoted how inspiring her background was. a star student at princeton and yale and a prosecutor and federal judge. it seemed for a while that the subject empathy of the hearings. instead of applying facts and law. >> there was great deal of spin on that baseball metaphor but there wasn't a great deal of spin on a discussion of her actual positions that she's taken on cases. is that something we'll see later in the week? >> precious little mention of her cases today. it was mostly about her speeches. it was about her wise latina comment. it was about saying in the court of appeals is where you make policy instead of law. but we're going to hear -- that's what tomorrow and wednesday are about for going down cases and getting specific about them but one republican said today lindsey graham was a republican who said absent a meltdown she'll be confirmed. >> he said no republican would ever nominate you or something to that effect? >> he did say that the republicans choice for the

have complained that the roberts court, and i wonder why we're spending so much time attacking john roberts and the roberts court. i thought this was supposed to be about judge sotomayor. >> speaking of judge sotomayor, let me wrap things up with that. i want to get from you now, did you -- obviously you got a chance to listen to what she said there. it wasn't a long comment but she did right away, she hit it and hit it hard. she said fidelity to the law. loyalty to the law and then she went on to say my task as a judge is not to make the law. sounds like she, senator, is singing your tune. is that enough? >> well, she said all the right things in her statement. what i would like to do is have her reconcile what she said in her opening statement with the speeches that i alluded to earlier. that's where i'm going to inquire during my -- >> what about the ricci case? is that going to be something you will hammer away at as well? >> well, it is. i worry that the way she and her fellow judges sort of seemed to sweep that case by the firefighters under the rug, it took another judge to call them

sotomayor's 23% favorable rating is seven points higher, by the way, than samuel alito's and lower than john roberts when their confirmation hearings began. meanwhile, a little over half the people we polled believe it's important an hispanic be on the u.s. supreme court. wyatt andrews now with day one of the hearings. >> reporter: after waiting seven weeks to defend her record, sonia sotomayor, the nation's first hispanic nominee to the supreme court, began by giving credit to her mother. >> i am here, as many of you have noted, because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother juan and me. >> reporter: in a day confined to speech making, democrats and republicans revealed very different approaches to judging the judge. to democrats, it's all about her 17-year record on the federal bench. a record the non-partisan congressional research service said defies categorization along ideological lines. >> if the number-one standard that conservatives use and apply is judicial modesty and humility they should vote for judge sotomayor unanimously. >> reporter: but republicans plan to focus on he

justice scalia is quite active from the bench, and so is our chief justice, john roberts.ng a word in edgewise in the beginning, but i don't think imagine that she would be intimidated during oral arguments. >> and you had that interview with justice ginsburg in "usa today" where she talked about wanting another woman and the importance of another woman, and in particular over the argument of the case that was decided in favor of the young woman who had been strip searched and how offensive that was to justice ginsburg, that her male colleagues didn't quite get the invasive nature of that search. >> you know, it was interesting, during the q&a, in the oral arguments in that case from arizona involving a 13-year-old girl who was strip searched for prescription strength ibuprofen and who sued, saying that her fourth amendment rights to privacy had been violated, in the end, andrea, as you know, the supreme court sided with the young woman, but during the oral arguments, there was a lot of questions from justice ginsburg's male colleagues about, what was the big deal, essenti

>>. >> somewhere between 72 and 78 votes i would say. 78 is what chief justice john roberts got.o we will have more of a bipartisan vote than sam alito. she will either get two or three, most pessimistically four on the senate judiciary committee from republicans but somewhere between two and three. >> woodruff: any sense of that. >> sounds good to me. i mean it's my sense of it as well. >> that shell's mick up maybe a dozen republicans. >> i think -- >> a dozen to a dozen and a half. >> all right, we will leave it there, marcia coyle, tom goldstein, thank you both. >> my pleasure. >> thank you. >> lehrer: on our web site at newshour.pbs.org, you can watch all of the newshour's coverage and analysis of the sotomayor hearings. also there, a guide to the confirmation process and a lesson plan for teachers. >> lehrer: in other news today, wall street kept its rally going as technology stocks advanced. the dow jones industrial average gained more than 95 points to close above 8,711. the nasdaq rose 22 points to close at 1,885. there was action on the auto front in the u.s. house. it

it will be a victory for them ithey can get many votes agast her as democrats got votes against john roberts? >> charlie i've covere litics for a long time in america and i ha never heard.... >> re: when he says that to me i kn i'm going to learn somethin >> i've never hrd a ver in warloo, iowa,ay "i give the republicans creditecause they got as many against h as they did agnst john roberts." no. >> rose: allight. so set uper judicial prole r me and what to expect fro her these hrings. >> well, you know, she gave this opening statement today at was... it stru me as the ultimate in defense. when i heard that statement,t waspretty thin gruel. i thought to myself, she's not gog to tellhem anything. nothing. >> rose: can you get away with that if you've got the kind of judicial recd she has? i an, this is notcoming with a clean slate. >> s has a pretty... y know, for a democrat, she has pretty conservative reco. very much the mainstream record. they don't ve... in fact, on a lot of cminal law issues, yo could say that she's more coervative than some members of the supreme court, including justic

she ended up giving exactly the john roberts -- which is interesting. it shows that even if you have a popular president, incredibly strong majorities in the congress, you have to pretend, if you are a liberal, that you are not a liberal in judicial philosophy because the vast majority of american people are conservative in looking at the law. in the end, it ended up day after day of disingenuousness to the point of boredom -- if you ever want to make khalid shaikh mohammed talk, you make him watched those hearings and leslie. he will say anything. >> what about the chance president obama will one day look at this justice and said, amid a mistake. >> she will be the reverse on the court. not anything like the woman who was there testifying. >> i think she is more conservative on some issues that you anticipate, and we are going to see it right away. although, most justices, you don't get a good feeling for them after they are on the bench a few years. but you had the case this year that was 5-4 that said that you can't just submit a forensic report, you

john roberts said one thing, sonia sotomayor said the same thing. we'll have nine judges, they will say the same thing, they can repeat the script, get confirmed but it not exactly what they believe. >> it is a kabooki dance t really was. you know, david is absolutely right. she spoke thoughtfully. she spoke coherently. she spoke moderately, and she said nothing. and that's the formula. i mean the last time we had a real exchange, was bob bourke in 1989. it was a real intellectual cheng. >> he went down. >> he went down, so what was the lesson we learned. we say nothing. jim, it's all about abortion. i mean the reality is that senator leahey, senator grassley -- >> oh no, e o no. >> it all about abortion. we know that john roberts is pro-life. we knew sam alito is pro-life. we know is a sonia sotomayor is pro-choice. and it proves once again that the political process is preferable to judicial intervention well. were about to resolve abortion in this country. legislatively and politically in the early '70s. and the court intervened in 1973 and since

. >> why were they all talking about john roberts yesterday?and strikes and their most extreme example was the second amendment ruling where they found an individual right to keep and bear arms which, by the way, president obama agrees with as well. >> to the hearing of headlines yesterday and bring in editor in chief and founder tina brown. thanks for coming in. before we get to our op-ed, judge sonia sotomayor responded to the statement that she made years back about the wise latina and this is the statement that made many especially on the republican side, question her ability to make sound decisions that don't have anything to do with race or heritage. here is her response to the criticism. take a listen. >> i want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt i do not believe that any ethnic, racial or 0 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. >> okay. does that put an end to it, joe? an end t

she ended up giving exactly the john roberts -- which is interesting. it shows that even if the of a popular president, you have an incredibly strong majorities in the congress, you have to pretend if you are a liberal that you are not liberal in judicial philosophy because the vast majority of american people are conservative in looking at the law. but in the end, it ended up as day after day of disingenuousness to the point of, of what i would say, if you ever want to make a lead shaikh mohammed taught, you make and watched those hearings and leslie. he will say anything. [laughter] >> what are the chances president obama will one day look at this justice's sake, i made a mistake. >> she will be the reverse on the court. >> i think -- let me just say something here. i think she is more conservative on some issues than you anticipated and we will see it right away. although, most justices, you don't get a real good feeling for them until after they have been on the bench a few years. but we have this case of this year that was 5-4 that said that you ca

he wanted to meet with john roberts. christopher timmons was arrested they found an ak-47. ammunition and home made grenade. five months ago alfred brach drove on to capitol hill with a rifle is h piup vehe nto tro tap colitolrant ee ldtod osffertoice h had a deliveryore president obama. >>> hearings continue today for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. republican senators questioned the nominee about her views on abortion and gun control. and she stood fast refusing to divulge her personal beliefs. instead sotomayor said she will let the law guide her decisions and not make policy from the bench. the 55-year-old appellate court judge is due back on capitol hill tomorrow for more testimony. a vote by the full senate is expected in early august. >>> s.w.a.t. teams in falls church, moved in on a house tonight. 24 hours after a gunman holed up inside. the standoff ended with police helping a woman and a child walk out. we are joined from the neighborhood that is near tyson's corner. jane. >> well, wendy, a different ending for the gunman who police say shot himself in the

she eed up saying, giving exactly wt john roberts cringe, which isnsisting it it shows that even if you have a popular president, anncredibly stng majority in the congress, you have to pretend ifou are a liberal that you areot in libel in judicial phisophy because the vast majority of t american people arconservative looking at the law. ut in the end, it ended up, day after day disinnuousness to the point ord and where i would say, iftver want to make khalid shaikh mohammed taht the value macon watched those heangs and leslie. he will say anything. -- tal make him what those hearings enlessl. he was anythi. she will be the reversef the court not like anybody who was there testifying. then i think she is more nservative on some issu than you anticipate and you will see it right away. alou mo justices, you don't get a real good feeling until they are on the supreme court a few years. but we had this ca this year that was 5-4 that said you c't just setet fensic report, yohave to have e peon who didt. them of the lab technician. >> 5- justice scalia wro it, one of odd coition of liberals an

shended up saying, giving exactlyhat john roberts cringe, which is insisting it it shows that even if you have a popular president, incredibly rong majority in the congress, you have to pretend you are a liberal that you are not in liral in judicial plosophy because the vas majority ofhe american people e conservative in looking at the law. but in the end, it ende up, day after dayof disgenuousness to the pointof oer and where i would say, it ever want to make khalid shaikhohammed taughthe value macon watched those hrings and leslie. he will say anything. -- tk, make him what those hearings enlesy. he w anytng. she will be the reverse of e court -- n like anybody who was there testifying. th i think she is more consvative on some issues than you aicipate and you will see right away. althou most justices, you d't get a real good feeling until they are on the supreme court a few years. but we had this case ts year that was 5-4 that said you can't just set met forenc report, you ha to have the personho did it. them of the lab technician. >> 4. justice scalia wte it, one of odd alition of

and so, i think that the court will decide the case from a couple of terms ago where john roberts very nearly decided to campaign finance question and set the table for more aggressive steps. there are about five or six highly charged ideological questions where the court will continue the move to the right. why do i call it the jurisprudence of actuarialism? the court can be quite patient on when it is moving the law because it will be unlikely that they can give it the court's position to the left. justice souter was replaced by sotomayor. the next judge is still doing great, but in the next couple of years, he is likely to retire. after that, justice ginsburg is committed to staying on the court, but it is likely that if barack obama were to get a second term, he would replace. eight years from now, you have absent some unfortunate turn of health, the prospect of justice kennedy who is 73 or justice scalia who is about to turn 73 are within a few months of each other. the court is not going to change for eight years ideologically on the left, and the chief justice can afford to be q

court nominees who have dodged a lot of these more sensitive issues including samuel alito and john roberts during the bush administration. let's take another quick break. remember, cnn.com is where we're streaming these hearings uninterrupted if you want to watch it on your laptop or desktop, cnn.com. my doctor told me something i never knew. as we get older, our bodies become... less able to absorb calcium. he recommended citracal. it's a different kind of calcium. calcium citrate. with vitamin d... for unsurpassed absorption, to nourish your bones. >>> get right back to the senate confirmation hearings for sonia sotomayor. she's being questioned by arlen specter, a democrat former a republican of pennsylvania. >> and will participate in discussions with them on this issue. and those things i would do, senator. >> some of my colleagues have questioned whether, as you stated your panel in the maloney case was really bound by supreme court precedent. the seventh circuit reached the same decision your panel did and in that opinion written by a highly respected republican judge, the seventh c

i'm john roberts. thanksing being with us. of. >> i'm carol costello in for kiran. just one week. a lot of americans are trading in their gas guzzlers for more efficient models. a billion dollars for rebates is just about spent. christine romans on the latest effort to refuel the program. >>> the fallout from the beer summit, sergeant crowley and professor gates having a cold one in a conversation at the white house. where do they go from here? what was the vice president doing here? ed henry joins us live. >>> a blue book is taking big news. the taliban guide book for warriors. it includes guidance for suicide attacks and proper social behavior. what else is inside? first, the clash for clunkers rebate program may be running on empty. after one week, the $1 billion program has burned through $221 million. it' supposed to run through november first or until the money is gone. but yesterday, reports began swirling on capitol hill that the car's program would be suspended. late last night, the white house said, not true. here's their statement. "we are working tonight

. >> reporter: republican nominee, samuel alito and john roberts gave similar answers. judge sotomayor disagreed with president obama's statements that judges need empathy, as a senator he voted against roberts in 2005, explaining at the time that judges need some extra quality to decide the hardest cases. >> in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is applied by what is in the judge's heart. >> do you agree that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that the last mile has to be decided by what is in the judge's heart? >> no, sir. i don't -- wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. >> reporter: one republican noted that some lawyers have said they consider her a bully on the bench. beyond merely tough questioning. >> obviously you have accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are time for self reflection. this is pretty tough stuff that you don't see from -- about other judges on the second circuit. >> reporter: the questions and answers continue tomorrow. toward the end of the week the commi

. >>> at the top of the hour, filling in for campbell brown will be john roberts. john?ks very much. tonight, a cnn exclusive. hear from the oldest of the 17 children whose parents were killed in their florida home. we're learning about new developments in the case. susan candiotti is down there. >>> also ahead, how did an american soldier end up in the hands of the taliban? michael wehr takes us behind the scenes for an insider's view of what this young soldier and u.s. troops s afghanistan will be facing. all that and our matchup coming up at the top of the hour. >> thank you, john. but i did. you need to talk to your doctor about aspirin. you need to be your own advocate. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. you take care of your kids, now it's time to take care of yourself. ...or if you're already sick... ...or if you lose your job. your health insurance shouldn't either. so let's fix health care. if everyone's covered, we can make health care as affordable as possible. and the words "pre-existing condition" become a thing of the past..

. >>> coming up at the top of the hour, john roberts in for campbell brown. >> hey, kitty, great discussion. at 8:00, what really happened the day that michael jackson died? his personal chef was there. she is going to join me live. >>> has celebrity stalking gone too far? two police chiefs are charged with breaking into the home of the surrogate mother of sarah jessica parker and the small business owner who went toe to toe on president obama with his health care plan. >>> still ahead, we have heroes. stay with us. when i was told i had diabetes, i felt amazingly boxed in. (announcer) joe uses the contour meter from bayer. (joe) my meter absolutely adapts to me and my lifestyle. i'm joe james, and being outside of the box is my simple win. (announcer) now available in five vibrant colors. you know why i sell tools? tools are uncomplicated? nothing complicated about a pair of 10 inch hose clamp pliers. you know what's complicated? shipping. shipping's complicated. not really. with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service shipping is easy. if it fits, it ships anywhere in the co

four years ago, john roberts was confirmed as chief justice. he received 78 votes. a couple months later when samuel alito received 50 votes in favor. it was a party line vote. we'll keep a close eye on how many republicans move over for sonia sotomayer. >>> four u.s. banks shut down. two in california, one in georgia and one in south dakota. that makes 57 bank that is failed so far this year. your deposits are insured up to $250,000. it more than a billion dollars, bringing the total for this year to more than $13 billion. >>> there could be hope in sight for cash-strapped california. state lawmakers say they are close to solving the $26 billion budget deficit. california's president pro tem says a deal could happen as early as sunday night. last night legislators spent three hours behind closed doors with governor arnold schwarzenegger. now, one of the major issues being debated, how to repay billions of dollars to the state schools. >>> you can call it starbucks under cover. the company is opening a new store in seattle without any starbucks logos on it. part of

sitting in for campbell brown, john roberts. john? >>> tonight, here are the questions we want answers. the honeymoon. oh, yeah, it's over all right. others will simply focus on political points. >> there's no question, we are at a cross roads. >> the president taking punches as republicans ramp up the fight. is the health care battle just the start of a whole new political slug fest? how did this noted harvard professor end up in handcuffs? >> it was not professor gates' best moment and it certainly wasn't the cambridge police department's best moment. >> did race make the difference? >>> joe jackson in his first major live interview since micha michael's death. >> well, i'm thinking it's foul play. yeah, that's what i'm thinking. >>> and then there's this. >> and michael was never beaten by me at all. >> tonight, we're putting those and other claims to a truth test. >>> childhood obesity, the numbers are alarming, but is that any excuse to charge a parent with neglect? authorities are getting tough on this mom. >>> should having fat

i want to ask in conclusion, do you agree with chief justice john roberts when he says the best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race? >> the best way to live in our society is to follow the commands of the constitution. provide equal opportunity for all. and i follow what the constitution says that it's how the law should be structured and how it should be applied to whatever individual circumstances come before the court. >> with respect, judge, my question, do you agree with chief justice john roberts statement or do you disagree? >> the question of agreeing or disagreeing suggests an opinion on what the ruling was in the case he used it in. and i accept the court's ruling in that case. and that was a very recent case. there's no quarrel that i have, no disagreement, i don't accept that in that situation that statement the court found applied. i just said the issue is a constitutional one, equal opportunity for all under the law. >> i understand that you might not want to comment on what chief justice john roberts wrote in an opinion, even

he quoted you talking about john roberts, an article in the new yorker in which you say in every caseorate defendant over the individual plaintiff. the point he was making was there is activism, potentially on the court, but it's not limited to liberals. >> and the other point he was making is that john roberts in his opening statement famously said he sees himself as an umpire calling balls and strikes. and my point was, there is a lot more discretion in being a supreme court justice than there is in being a baseball umpire. and that umpire metaphor was brought up several times. and i think this is one of the things that nominees always do. and judge sotomayor did it yesterday, and said, well, i just apply the law. i don't have any political views. but you know what? when you're dealing with the constitution, there is no such thing as just applying the law. the law is too elastic, the law is too political when it comes to the constitution to just apply the law. your values, your philosophy, your politicses inform how you interpret the constitution. >> it's great to have you with us t

floor that it was wrong for then-senator obama and half the democratic senators to vote against john roberts, a superbly qualified nominee, solely because they disagreed with what senator obama described as roberts' -- quote -- "overarching political philosophy" and his -- quote -- "work in the white house and the solicitor general's office that consistently sided with the strong in opposition to the weak." unquote. today it would be equally wrong for me to vote against judge sotomayor solely because she's not on my side on some issues. courts were never intended to be political bodies composed of judges on your side who would reliably tilt your way in controversial cases. courts are supposed to do just the opposite: decide difficult cases with impartiality. the oath that judge sotomayor has taken twice and will take again when she sworn in as associate justice of the supreme court, says it best, and i quote it: "i will administer justice with respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent up

so y want to ask you in conclusion, you agree with chief justice john roberts when he says the best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race. >> the best way to live in our society is to follow the command of the copseitution, provide equal opportunity for all and i follow what the constitution says that is how the law should be structured and how it should be applied to whatever individual circumstances come before the court. >> with respect, judge, my question was, do you agree with chief roberts statement or do you disagree? >> the question of agreeing or disagreeing suggests an opinion on what the ruling was in the case he used it in. and i accept the court's ruling in that case. and that was a very recent case. there is no quoral that i have, no disagreement. i don't accept that in that situation that statement the court found applied. i just said the issue is a constitutional one, equal opportunity for all under the law. >> i understand that you might not want to comment on what chief justice john roberts wrote in an opinion, even though i d