with justice alito, it was a similar experience. as we were going to the process, chief justice roberts was such a strong nominee and impressed the senate. there was a running joke towards the end that they felt sorry for the person who has to go through it next. amazingly, justice alito, in his own way, was just as stellar of a nominee. it was an incredible privilege to be able to help support both of those gentlemen as they were going to the process. the hearings are long. they take place over a few days. part of it was just the nominee being able to physically set under the hot lights and under questioning whether any one question, if you answer it the wrong way, could flare up and cause a controversy that that could imperil your nomination. it is pretty grueling. >> did anything happen that surprise you in either of those confirmation hearings? >> not really. like us said before, your goal as a team preparing the nominee is to not have any surprises at the hearing. we knew where the lines of attack would come and what types of qu

of all that has been written about our case, it was justice alito who best captured our own feelings who did not ask for sympathy or empathy, we ask only for evenhanded enforcement of the law and prior to the majority justice opinion in our case we were denied justin that. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. we will now hear from a peter kirsanow. he serves on the u.s. commission on civil rights and is a member of the national labor relations board received a recess employment from george bush and previously a burner with the cleveland law firm of it spanish cree linda copeland and hot off. he received his law degree from cleveland state university him and thank you mr. chairman, members of the committee. i am currently back at the practice group. i'm. my personal capacity. the use commission was established -- >> is that microphone on? >> among other things and to the national clearing house for information related to a denial of equal protection and discrimination and furtherance of the process my system revealed differences over its cases in which judge sotomayor participat

and we generally say it's routine, and justice roberts and chief justice roberts and justice alito andjustice brier and everybody else. then we'll come back for a round of 20 minutes each but during that round i will encourage senators if they feel all questions have been asked, i realize sometimes all questions may have been asked but not everybody has asked all the questions. that we try to ask at least something new. keep up the interest. and then we can determine whether we're prepared, depend can how late it is, do the panel or whether we have to do the panels on thursday. >> thank you, chairman leahy. i do think that the scheme you arranged for this hearing is good on the way we've gone forward. i thank you for that. we've done our best to be ready and in short timeframe and i believe members of this side are ready. talking of questions, autopsy no harm in asking, isn't that a legal rule to get people to reduce the time still some important questions, i think we will certainly want to use, most members want to use that 20 minutes, appreciate that look forward to being with you in

both justice roberts and justice alito made firm commitments to this committee. let me tell you what justice roberts said, he would recuse himself from matters which he participated while a judge on the court of appeals matters. and since you did acknowledge that the incorporation decision was the issue in your decision -- in your second circuit case, and the question that i asked was whether if that is the issue from the ninth and seventh circuits, you would consider yourself bound by that, it would seem to me that you should be willing to make the same kind of commitment that justice roberts and justice alito did. >> i didn't understand their commitment to be broader than what i have just said, which is that they would certainly recuse themselves from any matter, i understood it to mean any case they had been involved in as a circuit judge. if their practice was to recuse themselves more broadly, then obviously i would take counsel from what they did. but i believe, if my memory is serving me correctly, and it may not be but i think so, that justice alito as a s

with justice alito, it was a similar experience. as we were going through the process with chief justice roberts, obviously it is such a strong nominee and impress the senate. there was a little bit of a running joke with senators towards the end, like we feel sorry for the person that has to go through this next because we have set the standard for the nominee. justice alito and his own wheat -- and his own way was incredible. it was incredible to support both of those gentlemen as they were going to the process. the hearings are long. part of it is just the nominee being able to physically sick under the hot lights and under questioning where anyone questioning them if you answer the wrong way could flare up and caused a controversy. and it is pretty grueling. >> was there anything that surprised you? >> not really. like i said before, your goal as a team is to not have any surprises at the hearing. we knew where the lines of attack would come. we knew what types of questions they would get. certainly unexpected was the emotional t

i think justice alito was very interesting to watch this term both for this sort of incipient alliance with justice kennedy, and because i saw him in a lot of criminal cases this term splitting off from the chief justice and moving a little bit to the right of the chief justice, writing sprally in -- separately in a bunch of cases, and i think he has in the criminal context where i spend a will lot of my time, probably of all the justices he's the most interested in the criminal cases, he's very interested in criminal procedure cases, and it's giving him a lot of authority in that area, and i agree with dave. he writes very, very good, cogent, careful, solid opinions in that area, and i think he's really a force to be reckoned with, and i think this term saw him sort of coming out a little bit in that area as well as some others. >> i think the point about the chief, you know, not necessarily controlling everything is a good one. you know, two years ago it was a very guided court with a lot of -- divided court with a lot of 5-4 opinions, and everybody was saying, aha, the chief has rei

and with chief justice roberts and justice alito and justice breyer and everybody else.then we'll come back for a round of 20 minutes each. during that round i will encourage senators, if all questions have been asked -- i realize sometimes all questions have been asked but not everybody has asked all the questions -- that we try to ask at least something new to keep up the interest. and then we can determine whether we're prepared, depending on how late it is, due to the panels or whether we have to do the panels on thursday. >> thank you, chairman leahy. i do think that the scheme you arranged for this hearing is good on the way we've gone forward. i thank you for that. we've done our best to be ready in a short timeframe and i believe the members on this side are ready. talking of questions, there ain't no harm in asking. isn't that our legal rule? to get people to produce their time? there's still some important questions and i think we will certainly want to -- most members would awant to use that 20 minutes. appreciate that and look forward to being with you in the

both justice roberts and justice alito made firm commitments to this committee -- let me tell you what justice roberts said. he said he would recuse themself, and i'm quoting now, from matters that he participated while a judge on the court of appeal matters. and stins yince you did acknowl the incorporation decision was in your second circuit case, and the question i asked is whether that is the issue from the ninth and seventh circuits, you would consider yourself bound by that. it would seem to me that you should be willing to make the same kind of commitment that justice roberts and justice alito did. >> i didn't understand their commitment to be broader than what i have just said which is they would certainly refuse themselves from any matter -- i understood it to mean any case they had been involved in as a circuit judge. if their practice was to recuse themselves more broadly, then obviously i would take counsel from what they did. but i believe, if my memory is serving me correctly -- and it may not be, but i think so -- that judge alito as a supreme court justice has heard iss

both justice roberts and justice alito made firm commitments to this committee. let me tell you what justice roberts said. he said he would recuse himself, and i'm quoting, from matters which he participated while a judge on the court of appeals matters. since you did acknowledge that the incorporation decision was the issue in your second circuit case and the question i asked was if that is the issue from the ninth and seventh circuits, you would consider yourself bound by that, it would seem to me that you should be willing to make the same kind of commitments that justice roberts and justice alito did. >> i didn't understand their commitment to be broader than what i have just said, that they would recuse themselves from any matter. i understood it to mean any case that they had been involved in as a circuit judge. if their practice was to recuse themselves more broadly, then obviously i would take counsel from what they did. but i believe, if my memory is serving me correctly, and it may not be but i think so, that justice alito, as a supreme court justice, ha

justice alito said i bring a standing to stand in the shoes of other people. he said that in 1999. one comes to the bench with a blank slate and the thing i most dislike about senator sessions comments is that he makes it sound like the law is mechanically applied. the reality is, we have controversy. there is 5-4. 7-5. there are real differences as to what the law, how it could be interpreted. >> but the real controversy here is not between one judge and another judge or one justs and another, it's between sotomayor and sotomayor. she is saying one thing at one point and saying the very opposite today in these hearings. >> an accusation that is leveled at every supreme court nominee. they're having a confirmation conversion that any controversial opinion that they've held in the past, they try to whitewash. i think they all do do it to a certain extent and since all nine are on the court y don't think it's much of a disqualification. but that charge of a confirmation conversion is always something we see. >> hold your thoughts for a moment because we'll continue our coverage. cnn.

and justice alito. d it comes from a conversation i had dialogue i had at a similar hearing when judge souter was before us, now justice souter. involving the term vacuums in law. i think the term vacuums in law comes from souter himself as i'll read to you in just a moment. i probed judge souter about how he would interpret the constitution and statutory law and his response justice souter talked about the court filling vacuums left by congress and there's several quotes that i can give you from 19 -- i guess it was 1990, but i'll just read four or five lines. of judge souter speaking to this committee. because if in fact the congress will face the responsibility that goes with the 14th amendment powers, then by definiti definition, there is to that extent not going to be a kind of vacuum of responsibility created in which the courts are going to be forced to take on problems which sometimes in the first instance might be better addressed by the political branches of government. both prior to that and a

certiorari are applied and there is a search pool where the seven of the nine justices excluding only justice alito do not participate in the cert rule so that people applying for cert don't have the individual judgments when chief justice roberts was, before he became chief justice he said little disquieting, would you join the cert pool or maintain an independent status as justice alito do in having their own clerks and their own individual review on whether cert ought to be granted? >> i would probably do what justice alito did, although i don't know about becoming a member of the supreme court. i haven't decided anything. i am not even sure where i would live in new york or washington if this would happen. putting that aside, senator, my approach would probably be similar to justice alito, which is experience the process, take for a period of time and consider its costs and benefits and then to try the alternative or not and figure out what i think will work best in terms of the functioning of the chambers and the court. i can't give a definitive answer because i generally try to keep an open m

both justice roberts and justice alito made firm commitments to this committee. let me tell you what the justice roberts said. he said he would recuse himself and by quoting batters he put some pitted while a judge on the court of appeals. matters. and since you did acknowledge that the incorporation decision was the issue in your second circuit case and the question i asked was whether if that is the issue from the ninth and seventh circuits you would consider yourself bound by that it would seem to me that you should be willing to make the same kind of commitment that justice roberts and justice early today. >> i didn't understand their commitment to be broader than what i have just said, which is that they would certainly recuse themselves from any matter i understood it to mean any case they had been involved in as a circuit judge if their practice was to have recused themselves more broadly, then obviously i would take counsel from what they did. but i believe if my memory is serving me correctly, and it may not be but i think so, the justice alito as a supre

alito was crying in the background and judge alito, now justice said, of course i'm not. lindsey graham said of course you're not. that was a theme of that man's confirmation hearings. he was a part of the group and barely remembered it. she was on the board of this organization for 12 years, so is this hypocritical? >> not at all. i think there is a difference there. i think there has got to be a higher standard for whites in the majority in an and a lead institution like princeton when you have people acting to somehow say the introduction of women or minorties, blacks, puerto ricans, hispanics, whoever, is somehow not going to be accepted or somehow acting against that, given the history of the country, and i think that is obvious to me. >> two different groups and one deals with whites and the other deals with minorties and it's not hypocritical to focus on one because it deals with white membership and the other because it is minority membership? >> yes. if you're asking me in a country that has white majority and slavery and legal discrimination which was government

i think justice alito was very interesting to watch this term. both for the incipient alliance with justice kennedy, and because i saw him in a lot of criminal cases this term splitting off from the chief justice and moving a little bit right to the chief justice writing separately, actually voting differently in a few cases and i think he has in the criminal context where i spend a lot of my time he is probably of all of the justices she is the most interested in the criminal cases. he has the most backrub. he's interested in criminal procedures case is what most of them are not and it's giving him a lot of authority in that area and i agree with dave he has very good cogent careful doctrinal a solid opinions in that area and i think that he is really forced to be reckoned with and this term saw him sort of coming out a little bit in that area as well as some others. >> i think the point about the chief, you know, not necessarily controlling everything is a good one. two years ago it was a very divided court with a lot of flight-for decisions, la

remains the message that i think justice o'connor meant, the message that prior nominees, including justice alito meant, when he said that his italian ancestry -- he considers when he's deciding discrimination cases. i don't think he meant -- i don't think justice o'connor meant that personal experiences compel results in any way. i think life experiences generally, whether it's that i'm a latina or was a state prosecutor or have been a commercial litigator or been a trial judge, an appellate judge, that the mixture of all of those things, the amal gum of all them helped me to listen and understand. but all of us understand, because that's the kind of judges we have proven ourself to be. we rely on the law to command the results in the case. so when one talks about life experiences, and even in the context of my speech, my message was different than i understand my words have been understood by some. >> so you -- do you stand by your words of yesterday and -- when you said it was a failed rhetorical flourish that fell flat? that there are word that's don't make sense and that they're a bad idea?

justice alito's very first opinion, justice scalia slammed him for relying on legislative history.lcome to the supreme court. it will be interesting to see what kind of that opinion will be given. >> we thank the panelists and the audience, we will see next year. >> more on the supreme court's with justice stephen breyer and justice o'connor. they looked at how judges are nominated. breyer was appointed by clinton, and o'connor by reagan. this is about one hour 15 minutes. >> i am here at the aspen institute, i am here to speak about justice and society. if you can silence or telephones and blackberries, it would be appreciated. the last 20 minutes of this program, will be reserved for questions and answer. if you can take yourself to the stationary microphone, with a few statements this will help us to consider this in meeting all of the needs of our technicians. i want to introduce you to the moderator, his biography is on the back of the program. we are very happy to have him to moderate this session. >> among the people who tied for first among the people who do not need an int

of now justice alito. senator obama never voted to confirm supreme court justice. he even voted against a man who administered the oath to presidential office, chief justice roberts. if a compelling life story, academic and professional excellence and a top rating make a convincing confirmation, estrada would be a circuit court judge today. he is a brilliant respected lawyer, one of the top supreme court practitioners. he was opposed by groups and repeatedly filibustered by democratic senators. the ones who say today that the same factors should count in s judge sotomayor's favor. judicial appointments have become very contentious. some of the things that has been said about judge sotomayor have been unfair. there are now on newspaper reports reporting groups are engaged in a smear campaign, in one of her cases. a man who will be testifying later in the week. if that is true, it is beneath most -- contempt in this process as well. there must be a debate about the kind of judge america needs, because nothing

justice is put on the bench to make decisions. she is really quite middle of the road. >> if you put the same comment as alito said, she was a wise an rather than a wise man -- that's it. >> bonnie: wait a second. [simultaneous speech] >> bonnie: wait a second. bay, let me ask you this. with justice roberts or alito, was there questions about their temperament on the bench, that they seemed to be angry most of the time, that they -- in other words it seems to me in terms of sexism one thing they used against her, if you're aggressive as a man that's a positive, if you're aggressive as a woman that's a negative. >> it's who they are. if you look at alito and roberts, there is no temperament problem there. everything calm and cool in what they say and just expose that. she is someone who is aggressive in the courtroom. many people want to say, it is not the kind of temperament for the supreme court. >> you can't have it both ways. you can't highlight the fact that she's proud of being a wise latina woman and wise experiences and blah blah blah, but more expressive and emotional, and then turn around and not -- [simultaneous speech]

many democrats voted against the nomination of justice alito. senator obama never voted to confirm a supreme court justice. even voted against john roberts, a highly distinguished and well qualified nominees. compelling life story, a professional and academic excellence, and a top rating makes a convincing case, miguel estrada would be a supreme court judge today. he was fiercely opposed by democratic senators, ones that say that these factors should count in judge sotomayor's favor. whether i vote for or against her, it will be by applying the principles i have laid out, not by using tactics and standards used by these nominees in the past. judicial appointments have become increasingly contentious. some of the things that have been said about judge sotomayor had been intemperance and unfair. there are newspaper reports that left-wing groups supporting her, specifically the extreme left-wing way, is in gauged in a smear campaign against the plaintiff -- engaged in a smear campaign against the plaintiff in one of her past cases. if that is true,

>> we have a lot of precedent where in fact the hearings for judge justice alito were interrupted whening democrat, insisted on a break to look more deeply into his background as a member of a club at princeton. we had the clarence thomas hearings which were nonstop for several days and went straight through the weekend, as late as midnight on a saturday night, as i recall. there's plenty of precedent for going long and hard. it is a lifetime appointment. >> it does require and it's a real test of one's concentration abilities. this candidate is keeping pretty sharp here. we'll be right back to watch this. it's become something of a marathon. as andrea pointed out, we're not even a third of the way through this. we'll be right back. spectacular. women who drink crystal light drink 20% more water. crystal light. make a delicious change. come on in. you're invited to the chevy open house. where getting a new vehicle is easy. because the price on the tag is the price you pay on remaining '08 and '09 models. you'll find low, straightforward pricing. it's simple. now get an '09 silverado xf

then he joined 43 democrats in voting against the confirmation of now justice alito. in fact, senator obama never voted to confirm the supreme court justice. even voted against the man who'd mr. the oath a presidential office, chief justice john roberts, a distinguished and well qualified nominee. if a compelling life story, academic and professional excellence in a top aba rating make a convincing confirmation case mckeel a straw that would be a u.s. circuit judge today. he is a brilliant come universally respected lawyer, one of the top supreme court practitioners in america but he was fiercely opposed by groups and repeatedly filibustered by democrats senators, the ones who today say the same factors should count in judge sotomayor's favor. whether eidbo four against judge sotomayor it will be by applying the principles i have laid out. judicial appointments have become increasingly contentious. some of the things that have been said about judge sotomayor have been intemperate and unfair. there are no newspaper reports of left-wing groups specifically the extreme le

both justice roberts and justice alito made firm commitments to this committee -- let me tell you whatustice roberts said. he said he would recuse themself, and i'm quoting now, from matters that he participated while a judge on the court of appeal matters. and stins yince you did acknowl the incorporation decision was in your second circuit case, and the question i asked is whether that is the issue from the ninth and seventh circuits, you would consider yourself bound by that. it would seem to me that you should be willing to make the same kind of commitment that justice roberts and justice alito did. >> i didn't understand their commitment to be broader than what i have just said which is they would certainly refuse themselves from any matter -- i understood it to mean any case they had been involved in as a circuit judge. if their practice was to recuse themselves more broadly, then obviously i would take counsel from what they did. but i believe, if my memory is serving me correctly -- and it may not be, but i think so -- that judge alito as a supreme court justice has heard issue

i think justice alito is very interesting to watch this term, both for his incipient alliance with justicese i saw him in a lot of case this term slitting off from the chief justice and moving right to the chief justice. actually voting differently in a few cases. i think he has in the criminal context where i spend a lot of my time, he is probably of all of the justices, he's the most interested in the criminal cases. he has the most background. he's very interested in criminal procedure cases, which the rest of them really are not. and it's giving him a lot of authority in that area. i agree with dave. he writes very, very good careful, solid opinions in that area. i think he's really a force to be reckoned with. i think this term saw him coming out a little bit in that area as well as some others. >> i think about the chief not necessarily controlling everything is a good one. two years ago, it was a very divided court with a lot of 5-4 decisions. last year, not so much. everybody was saying, the chief has iranianed everybody in and he's now driving -- has now reined everybody in. this

, it means that justices sotomayor and alito are really only two justice that have personal tangibleexperience with the modern-day immigration system as far as being a judge goes and they are certainly going to be very aware of many problems plague our system. i know in a number of immigration cases the supreme court handled in recent years justice alito played a very active role at augment asking questions. it is clear he brings to these cases his perspective as a judge who for the last few years had been hearing increasing number of these cases and was i think a little bit flummoxed about what to do with it and how to approach the law given the deluge of these cases. that is something that i think judge sotomayor will bring to the court. as far as her position on business issues go, this is a very interesting area of law. i spent a lot of time reading her cases on business issues. i'm primarily a business litigator, and so it was very interesting to me to see her approach to these issues. it is hard to pin her down. she has a mixed record. there are some cases where she stakes out

. >> he was the chairman of the committee when chief justice roberts was confirmed when justice alito confirmed, now a junior democrat on the committee. we'll see how he responds to that role. >> you never know. let's talk, if we can, jeffrey, about cases that are going to be discussed. obviously we know this new haven firefighters case, this reverse discrimination will likely be brought up. >> absolutely. you know, we have a very extensive file here on all of judge sotomayor's rulings as a district court and circuit court judge, and as you pointed out, this was the case involving reverse discrimination claim by the white firefighters and, of course, just last month the supreme court ruled against sotomayor's position and 5 to 4 said these firefighters had been victims of reverse discrimination. the four descenters were justice breyer, ginsburg, and souter, so the question is, what difference would her appointment make? on this case, probably not much, but that's one of the things we're going to be watching today. >> we are going to be watching it all. very interesting, just the dynam

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

both justice roberts and justice alito made firm commitments to this committee -- let me tell you whattice roberts said. he said he would recuse themself, and i'm quoting now, from matters that he participated while a judge on the court of appeal matters. and stins yince you did acknowl the incorporation decision was in your second circuit case, and the question i asked is whether that is the issue from the ninth and seventh circuits, you would consider yourself bound by that. it would seem to me that you should be willing to make the same kind of commitment that justice roberts and justice alito did. >> i didn't understand their commitment to be broader than what i have just said which is they would certainly refuse themselves from any matter -- i understood it to mean any case they had been involved in as a circuit judge. if their practice was to recuse themselves more broadly, then obviously i would take counsel from what they did. but i believe, if my memory is serving me correctly -- and it may not be, but i think so -- that judge alito as a supreme court justice has heard issues

both justice roberts and alito agreed this rule was sensible. it appears according to a study done by the "new york times," the rule that both chief justice roberts and alito said was reasonable and i think the majority of us on the committee thought was reasonable. they said that suggested that rule has not been adhered to the rule of four because there have been a number of cases where four justices voted to for cert and wanted to stay the execution and the fifth would not and the person was executed before the case was heard. if you were on the supreme court, basically the same thing i asked justice robert and justice alito, if you were on the supreme court, four of your fellow justices said they would like to consider a death penalty case and they asked you to be a fifth vote to stay the execution. even though you didn't necessarily plan to vote for cert, how would you approach that issue? >> i answer the way those two justices did, which is, i would consider the rule of the fifth vote in the way it has been practiced by the court. it has a s

unlike justice alito, you don't come to the fabtable of record discents. she's in the mainstream. she's agreed with republican colleagues 95% of the time. she's ruled for the government in 83% of immigration cases against the immigration plaintiff. she has ruled for the government in 94% of -- >> senator schumer is delivering brief remarks. he will formally introduce her just before her statement. we'll take a break. our coverage will continue right after this. remember, cnn.com, you can see all of this streamed live uninterrupted. kelly saunder's nature valley, the place that inspires her to go faster... and slower, elk mountains, colorado. where's yours? 100% natural nature valley granola bars. the taste nature intended. >>> lindsey graham, the senator from south carolina is getting ready to make his opening statement right now. it's going to be significant to hear whether he will confirm or reject this nominee. >> an immigrant that came to this as a teenager and graduated in harvard in 1986 and a stellar background like yours. that's just the way it was. he never had a chance t

with both justices roberts and alito on the court, however, this rule seems to have changed. because in 2007, in carhart ii the court essentially removed this basic constitutional right from women. now, here's my question. when there are multiple precedents and a question ari s arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court re-examine all the cases on point? >> it's somewhat difficult to answer that question. >> i know. >> because before the court in any one case is a particular factual situation. and so how the court's precedent apply to that unique factual situation, because often what comes before the court is something that's different than its prior decision, not always, but often. in the carhart case, the court looked to its precedents, and as i understood that case, it was deciding a different question, which was whether there were other means, safer means, and equally effective means for a woman to exercise her right than the procedure at issue in that case. that was, i don't believe, a rejection of its prior precedents. its prior precedents are

justice alito's very first opinion, justice scalia slammed him for relying on legislative history. welcome to the supreme court. it will be interesting to see what kind of reception justice sotomayor receives. >> thank you to the panel into the audience. we will see you next year. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] bee >> today in moscow, president obama and russian president medvedyev signed a new arms agreement treatment. it will replace the one that expires in december, taking the two stockpiles down to the lowest levels. they held a news conference at the kremlin. you can see it in its entirety it is o'clock eastern here on c- span. tomorrow in moscow, president obama joins prime minister putin breakfast. later, he joins former president gorbachev. he will also meet with russian political and business leaders. on wednesday, president obama travels to italy for the g8 met with evens up through friday. then on saturday, the president flies to africa for a visit to the capital. >> next, health

appropriate to push the president's nom nominee, just as then senator obama did not so long ago when justice alito and justice roberts were in the same hot seat. >> i share his hope that we have arrived at a point where individuals can be examined and even criticized for their views, no matter what their race or gender. if those standards were appropriate when senator obama opposed republican nominees, they should be appropriate now that president obama is choosing his own nominees. >> questioning begins in earnest tomorrow with republicans having laid out a bit of a road map on topics they plan to hit on. gun rights and the second amendment and the role of international law, which judge sotomayor believes, if any, it should play in making decisions about our own u.s. constitution. bret. bret: shannon bream live at the supreme court. now let's get reaction from capitol hill and chief political correspondent carl cameron. carl, any real surprises today? >> not particularly, bret. the pan many broke down pretty much along party lines, but there was a great deal of discussion not just about judge sot

the chief justice, justice alito and justice thomas, the other conservative members of the court are all still very young. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. pleasure to have you back. >> it's great to be back. thks very much. >> charlie: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> charlie: v.s. ramachan is here. from the university of san diego. he believes that rare and unexplained disorders contain valuable insights into brain functions. in the 1990's he performed pioneering experiments on amputees suffering from the sensation of phantom limbs. using a store-bought mirror and a piece of cardboard he was able to cure them of pain in their amputated armies. he has since turned to a wide range of topics from perception to consciousness. i am pleased to have him here at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. delighted to be here. >> charlie: i want to read something you said. which i -- this is, like, five shows right here. "even though it's common knowledge, these days, it never ceases to amaze me that all the richness of our mental life, all of our feelings, our

in iraq when i asked now justice -- justice alito what's when a judge he would make, he said if you wantto know what sort of justice i would make what it was ordered judge i have been. so you have served now as a literal judge for the past 17 years, the last 11 as an appellate court judge. if we examine the record i believe it is plain that you are a careful jurist, respectful of president and author of dozens of modern and carefully reasoned decisions. the best evidence i believe is in frequency with which you have been reversed. you have authored over to an authority majority opinions in 11 years on the second circuit court of appeals but in only three of those 230 plus cases have your decisions been reversed by the supreme court - a very low reversal rate of 2%. doesn't this very low reversal rate indicates that you do have, in fact, an ability to be faithful to the law and put your personal opinions and background assigned when deciding cases as you have in your experience as a federal judge? >> i believe what my record shows is that i follow the law and that my small reversal rate

i haven't counted this many cameras since justice alito was sitting where you're sitting. ve had experience in the district court with television. you're replacing justice souter, who said that if tv cameras were to come to the court, they would have to roll over his dead body. if you're confirmed, they won't have to roll over his dead body. but the court decides all the cutting edge questions of the day. the senate is televised, the house is televised. a lot of people are fascinated by this hearing. i would like to see the court televised. you can guess that. thank you very much, judge sotomayor. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator specter. the next statement will be by senator franken and then we will call for the two people who are going to introduce you, and you then, judge, have a chance to say something. senator franken has been waiting patiently all day. i appreciate having you here. please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's an incredible honor to be here less than a week in my term as the united states senator, my first major responsibility is her

second, as with other nominees across the philosophical spectrum including justices thomas and alito,ge sotomayor has spoken of her family history and her personal struggles. these experiences help her to understand others and to do justice. they further qualify her for the highest court and she has said and done nothing that could reasonably be understood otherwise. third, judge sotomayor has participated in thousands of cases and authored hundreds of opinions. but much of the debate about her nomination concentrated on the difficult case of ricci versus stefano. whatever one may feel about the facts of this case, we know that the supreme court set a new standard for interpreting title seven. using this one decision to negate judge sotomayor's 17 years on the bench does a disservice to her record and to this country. fourth, i must speak to the attacks on judge sotomayor because of her service on the board of one of our nation's leading civil rights organizations. these attacks do an injustice not only to judge sotomayor and to the puerto rican legal defense and education fund, but a

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

, both of them he opposed and filibustered justice alito, we're looking for judges here whore going to be as chief justice roberts said, an umpire, call the balls and strikes, and what i worry about with regard to judge sotomayor is that her personal views, which she's expressed quite frequently, lead me to believe that she's -- lacks the objectivity you would prefer to have as a member in the supreme court. there's no appeal from the supreme court. that's the last word. >> do you see anything stopping her confirmation? >> i'm not going to predict the outcome. >> but there will be republican support? >> there were three republicans th who announced their support friday. as i said she's an outstanding individual and should be commended for her lifetime in public service. >> before you go it's been a disturbing development overnight, u.s. soldier captured by the taliban and they made a videotape showing him speaking about the hardships of the war. what's troubling as you see this, at a time of ramped up commitment of troops to afghanistan? what's troubling to you about seeing