i would once again say, however, the stands in stark contrast to the way that miguel estrada, who perhapsould have been the first hispanic nominee on the u.s. supreme court if he had not been filibustered seven times and denied an up or down vote by democrats when they were in our position now, and in contrast to the disrespectful and unfair process by which previous nominees have been considered, i think this stands in stark contrast. we are committed to a fair and dignified process raising these issues, but doing our job under the constitution. >> i'm still confused why you think that she and the panel opined on whether the second amendment was fundamental or not when heller specifically applied to the states. >> may i read you two sentences? on page 3, she says "the 14th amendment similarly applies -- provides no room for appellate. legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights are seen without suspect classifications and carry with them a strong position of constitutionality and must be upheld if they are to be related to a legitimate state interests. a fairly read, s

miguel estrada was not treated respectfully during his confirmation proceedings, filibuster several times and denied an up or down vote on his confirmation. so i want to make clear that there's no problem in judge sotomayor was simply showing pride in her heritage as we all should as a nation of immigrants. but if it suggests a judicial philosophy that says because of sex or race or et ethnicity thaa judge is better qualified or more likely to reach better legal decisions, i simply do not understand that contention, and i would like the opportunity to ask her about it. one of her fellow judges contrasted their views by saying judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to have a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the law. i think that is exactly right. so we need to know whether judge sotomayor embraces this notion of color blind justice that most americans expect from the highest court in the land. and i hope she'll be given an opportunity, indeed, she will be given an opportunity to clarify her comments and let us know whether she intends to

i would, once again point however, this stance and park contrast to the way miguel estrada who would have been the first hispanic nominee to be on the united states supreme court if you haven't been to filibuster it seven times and denied an up or down vote by democrats when they were in opposition now and in contrast to this disrespectful and unfair process whereby which previous nominees have been considered i think the stands in stark contrast and we are committed to a fair and a process raising these issues but then doing our job under the constitution. >> i am still confused why you think that she will fight upon whether the second amendment was fundamental when the heller case accord specifically said it will not necessarily apply to the state and that is what in refusing to overturn -- >> may vary due to sentences on page three, alexis copy of the case which uses the word to the amendment similar provides no relief for a punt and privileges of the max that do not in to appear with fundamental rights or a single i suspect classifications karen with a strong presumption of c

i remember when miguel estrada, that brilliant lawyer that president bush nominated to the appellate courts and who was defeated after we had seven attempts to shut off a filibuster on the floor of the senate, but could never do so, he said during his hearings that he didn't like the term strict constructionist. he preferred the term fair construction. he was correct, i think, so the question is: is this a fair construction of the voting rights act that it would overturn these long-established laws when no such thing was considered in a debate on the legislation? that historic law, which limits felons voting, are to be just wiped out? even allowing felons still in jail to vote? i don't think so and neither did most of the judges who have heard these cases. with regard to the new haven firefighters case, i would just say, madam president, that we will be looking to -- to the end of that case in some length. stuart taylor did a fine amaltis of -- analysis of it in his writing, i believe in "the national journal," he found that no one found that the examination that these firefighters t

not come on the show because i went after him really hard and actually on this show also about miguel estrada and some of the other judges that were elevated specifically because they were hispanic african-american and i went after him an awful lot and he actually called up and said i want to be on man-to-man with gel and he did appear ago we talked and while i disagree with him on probably 9% and disagrees with me 90% of the issues we got a respect that goes back and forth. i think that is one makes the show work. >> host: joe, what have you learned about politicians since you started interviewing them on tv? used to be one of them, you knew certain things as a political figure, he used to be the guy in the house who is going for the foreman a pop on hardball, now you are the guy who is entering the guy doing the formative a pop on morning joe? what have you learned since being on the other side of the table about politicians and that you have a known? >> guest: i should not say this. thank you so much, connie chung said to newt gingrich's mother, just between you and me. there are notable e