the problem is just as justice o'connor said. people try to get around the problem with statutory gimmicks. this is an area where you have to think clearly and simply. i would be very nervous of some gimmicky statute. i would think the way to do it is a constitutional amendment. we have an interesting story. there was an old judge. the court said there is a judge who is old. we think he is lost. will you please go to tell them that it is about time for him to step down? someone goes to see him at his house. now he says, you remember this justice? the judges pointed out to you that his career had gotten along in years. he was having a hard time and it was time for him to retire. they ask you to go to him and explain that to him. he says, yes. i remember. [laughter] [unintelligible] >> that is great. justice o'connor, if i recall correctly, in an affirmative action case, you said that one of the reasons we still needed affirmative action in some form is that in order for our institutions to have legitimacy, they needed to reflect t

beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench in 1981 it was very clear roe vs. wade the 1973 decision establishing a woman's right to have an abortion, was under siege. and each time a new opinion came out, of the court, the court appeared to be less and less committed to sustaining the right to terminate an abo -- in an abortion and in fact it finally got to the point where the majority was down to 5. 5-4. and, there had been indications of -- particularly in 1989, that o'connor might well provide a vote to overturn roe vs. wade. and indeed, the administration, reagan administration, had tried several times to persuade the court to directly overrule it. i chose this particular case for a book about oral argument, because of the audacity of the counsel who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement very much fearing that roe was in jeopardy, had shaped this case to be a genuine test case, and we often too loosely talked about test cases, almost as if everyone was a test of some new jurisprudence principle and it was put together by a women's

. >> sandra day o'connor was the pioneer followed by ruth bader ginsburg in 1993.nt into the abc news vault this morning for a look at their confirmation hearings. >> announcer: from abc news, this is "world news tonight" with peter jennings at the foreign desk in london, max robinson at the national desk in chicago and from our desk in washington, frank reynolds. >> good evening. the constitutional procedure that could lead to the first woman on the supreme court formally began today. the senate judiciary committee opened confirmation hearings on the nomination of judge sandra day o'connor. most of the questioning was friendly. still there is opposition to her. >> reporter: well before today's hearing started, antiabortion activists were gathered by the capitol to demonstrate that no matter what happened inside, there was passionate opposition to judge o'connor outside. the nominee arrived at the senate by another entrance surrounded by friends and promptly got her first question not from a senator but from a reporter. >> are you ready? >> i hope so. >> are you ne

[applause] >> justice o'connor, if i can turn to you again for a moment. i suspect you are tired of being reminded of your first miss. i am interested in one of your last items because i would to stanford law school. you are the last person confirmed who did not go to harvard or yelled law school. [laughter] >> one of the best also. >> do you think that that is simply a factoid or does it say something about perhaps a two narrowcasting of the net? >> i think that it is desirable for president selecting supreme court justices to look beyond harvard in jail, if i may say so. >> but why? >> and to look much more broadly and not to require that the only people considered are those who have served on the lower federal court as a district or appellate court judge. i think some diversity of background and experience is a good idea on the u.s. supreme court. all nine of the justices at president are products of the u.s. court of appeals. and i guess most of them are harvard and gail, aren't they? >> yes, sir. >> what about stanford? >> it used to be stanford now a

andy barr and john o'connor are with us. andy barr, give us the dimensions of the new luck surely living scandal with sanford. >> well, first of all, a little bit of the backstory here, you remember when this first came out, there was questions about other trips, whether he used state-funded money, initially his staff returned the money he used to travel to argentina, but then a lot of reporters here went back through the records and found that he was going on a lot of trips using a lot of state money to provide business class, first-class, to fly all over the country, obviously, not all to meet his mistress there in argentina, but certainly brings into question the fiscal credentials he had, which is the one thing that really brought him from being a member of congress to really one of the people on the brink of being a leader of the party. >> john o'connor, christians are very good and practiced at forgiving sin, how about republicans forgiving lavish spending? >> it seems to be a little less forgiving there, especially in

you deal with a famous quotation from justice o'connor in which she said that a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old women and pushed back from that, saying that you do not think that is necessarily accurate. you doubt the ability to be objective when in your analysis. so help can you -- how can you assert that impartiality is an aspiration that may not be possible in all or even most cases which york both you have taken twice? >> we basically are good friends and believe we approach to judging in the same way. we can apply the law to each fact in a case. i also, as i explained, was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. facts. 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

chairman. >> i was using a rhetorical that harkined back to justice o'connor. her literal words and mine have a meaning that neither of us, if you were looking at it, in their exact words, make any sense. justice o'connor was part of a court in which she greatly respected her colleagues. and yet those wise men, i'm not going to use the other word, and wise women did reach different conclusions in deciding cases. i never understood her to be attempting to say that that meant those people who disagreed with her were unwise or unfair judges. as you know, my speech was intending to inspire the students to understand the richness that their backgrounds could bring to the judicial process in the same way that everybody else's background does the same. i think that's what justice alito was referring to when he was asked questions by this committee and he said, you know, when i decide a case, i think about my italian ancestors and their experiences coming to this country. i don't think anybody thought that he was saying that that commanded the result in the case. these

to have the first woman, justice sandra day o'connor. i think as a diverse nation, diversity is very, very important. you bring excellent credentials, academically, professionally, your service on the court. but the constitution requires the process for this committee and then the full senate to consider in detail your qualifications under our consent function. most of the questions which will be asked of you in the course of these hearings will involve decided cases. i intend to ask about decided cases, but also, about cases that the supreme court decided not to decide. and on the rejection of cases for decision that's a big problem. the court, i would suggest, has time for more cases. and chief justice roberts noted in his confirmation hearing that the decision of more cases would be very helpful. if contrast the docket of the supreme court in 1886 with currently, in 1886, there were 1,396 cases on the docket. 451 were decided. century later, there were only 161 assigned opinions, 2007, there were only 67 signed opinions. i start on th

waited too long until 1981 to have the first woman, justice sandra day o'connor. i think as a diverse nation, diversy is very, very importt. you bring exceentcredentials, ademic academically, professly. your service on the ur but the constition requires t process fothis committee and then the full sente to consir in detail your qfications under ouconsent. st of the questions which will be asked o you will involve decided cases. i tend task aut decided cases, but al about cases that the supreme urt decided not to decide. and on theejtion of cases per desion. it's a big problem. the court i would suggest has time for more cases and chief justic roberts in h confmation ing is essentially d more cases would be very helpful. ifou can draft the docket of the supreme court 1886 recurrently, in 86, there were 13096 cases on the docket. 1 were decided. senchlys later, 2007, only7 signed opinions. i start on th cas which are not cided although i could star in many, many are. could startwith the circuit splitshere one court of appeals in one section of the untry goes one way

thank you john o'connor and andy barr. >>> up next, sarah palin is tweeting.he promises to be less politically correct when she leaves the governorship in nine days. more on palin's tweeting next in the "sideshow." depression is a serious medical condition that can take so much out of you. i feel like i have to wind myself up just to get out of bed. then...well...i have to keep winding myself up to deal with the sadness, the loss of interest, the trouble concentrating, the lack of energy. if depression is taking so much out of you, ask your doctor about pristiq®. (announcer) pristiq is a prescription medicine proven to treat depression. pristiq is thought to work by affecting the levels of two chemicals in the brain, serotonin and norepinephrine. tell your doctor right away if your depression worsens or you have unusual changes in mood, behavior, or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase suicidal thoughts and behaviors in children, teens and young adults. pristiq is not approved for children under 18. do not take pristiq with maois. taking pristiq w

the day she was saying that she was agreeing, and that justice o'connor could not have possibly meant what she said. does that wash? >> it was a confused and contorted answer, frankly. a couple of weeks ago he said that she thinks she probably would have said it differently if she had had it to do all over again. if she did not take that opportunity to say that she misstated that, she kept saying it was taken out of context. senator sessions did a good job of forcing this on her. i think that it was left open, a question for republicans to go down on. experiences affecting facts that she chooses to see, that is also something that republican senators will seize upon. >> that particular " was one that we had not seen very much, -- bret: that particular quotes not one we had seen very much -- quote was not one we had seen very much. senator sessions came back to tell her that she had said it seven times. >> she is running into problems. in answering her questions from senator leahy, she attempted to explain it away. later she said look, this fell flat and did not work. she tried to do b

it pushes us in a direction of reaching the o'connor goal of eliminating it in our lifetime or younger people's lifetime. >> a political question, i have en no polling, but my guess would be that this was a popular decision politically. would you agree? >> it was but i don't think anyone understood what the court was saying. they say if you think he will get sood and liz you cannot do it, but -- if you think you will get sued and lose you cannot do it. she said there are other tests and other cities use these tests. the results are less racially skewed. >> in sat tests asians do extremely high on math. does that mean that the test has something wrong with it? >> if no black person could pass the sat test, wouldn't you say it was skewed? >> no college in america it metts only on s.a.t. tests. that is what -- no college in america admits only on sat tests. >> minorities past but they did not score quite as high. what this decision said was you better not withdraw a test after you get it. you can change this test all you want until you get it. once you get it, you are stuck with it. >> in

what justice o'connor has been doing is just wonderful. you of the first supreme court justice i have laid eyes on. i have learned a lot about the court from you. i wonder if it would not be a win-win situation for our country if supreme court justices had a fixed tenure of, say, 20 to 25 years and then after, you could go on tours like this. >> have you tried to change the constitution lately? it is tough. >[laughter] >> i know that that is a long shot. i believe if there were campaign preps by the nine of you, it would be an engaging conversation. as great as the greatest teachers and principals are, you as examples of our judicial system is on parallel. >> justices can step down. i did. maybe it will take care of itself. >> let's say you had an 18-year term. it would be fine. it would make no difference whatsoever. you have to have a long term. you don't get used to the job until three or five years. it is a job where experience helps. 18 years? fine. i get very nervous when people want to find statutory gimmicks in order to get around

you quoted justice o'connor to say a wise old woman or wise old man would reach the same decisions.ou said i'm not sure i agree with that statement. and that's when you made the statement that's now relatively famous. i would hope a wise latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion. so here you're reaching a judgment that not only will it make a difference but that it should make a difference. you acknowledge that they made a big difference in discrimination cases bt took a long time to understand -- it takes time and effort. in short, i accept the proposition that difference will be made by the presence of women and people of color on bench and my experiences will affect the facts that i choose to see. i don't know exactly what the difference will be in my judging but i accept that there will be some based on jegender in my latina heritage. you said that you weren't encouraging that. and you talked about how we need to set that aside, but you didn't in your speech say that this is not good. we need to set this aside. instead y

justice o'connor controls the system that works. the cauchy can monitor efforts like prosecutors to remove jurors on a basis other than the merits of the case and control evidence coming through, of making sure. that is important. that is not the problem. the problem is that the court never sees. we have remarkable problem now with nothing to do with race or gender or class. it is the blogging, tweaking, texting jurors who want to figure out for themselves why the person is charged, doing their own research, and you only find out after the fact. judges give instructions, but you do not know what they do after 5:00 when they get home. it is not original. around the country, more and more jurors wonder what it is about. that is a frightening idea that jurors are taking it among themselves to figure out what the case is really about. no one is going home with them. and there were nine jurors on a chat in one case going back and forth about the evidence. you cannot discover, because people will never tell you. but that is what they're d

i was trying to play on the words of justice sandra day o'connor, the wise woman comment and she said it was bad, it fell flat. >> politically how important was it she said it was bad? >> i think it was important apology because lindsey graham pointed out at the beginning he might vote for her. the republican lindsey graham but indicated that she needed to come off of that, he said, that she needed to apologize about it and as close you could expect her to come to an apolicy guy. she tried to explain it and it wasn't work with sessions and said it was bad. on the firefighters case that you cite, she kept saying this was narrow ruling, in fact, she was not making law, she suggested that the -- 5-4 decision, the majority of the supreme court made law by finding a different issue and a different standard that they went beyond the 78-page legal brief that had present her and three-judge panel in the appeals court. she was requested about her comments at duke law where she had said the students, students considering do you want to be a district judge or appeals judge what is your long-rang

. >> you deal with the famous " of justice o'connor, where it is said that a wise old manç shoud comeision as a wise old woman, and you push back from that -- you deal with the famous quote of justice o'connor. >> i knew that justice o'connor could not have meant that if judges reach a different legal conclusions that one of them was not wise. that could not have been hurt meeting, because reasonable judges disagree on the conclusions in some cases -- that could not have been hurt meeting -- her meaning. i was trying to play on your words, and i fell flat. it was bad. >> they would choose to see some facts and not others. >> it is not a question of choosing to see some facts, senator. i did not intended to suggest that. in the wider context, what i believe the point i was making is that our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others. >> lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament, and this is what they said about you. she is a terror on the bench. she is temperamental, excitable. she seems angry. she is overly aggressive, no

thank you john o'connor and andy barr. >>> up next, sarah palin is tweeting. she promises to be less politically correct when she leaves the governorship in nine days. more on palin's tweeting next in the "sideshow." you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. ♪ (laughing through computer) good night, buddy. good morning, dad. (announcer) oreo. milk's favorite cookie. has the fastest hands boxing has ever seen. so i've come to this ring to see who's faster... on the internet. i'll be using the 3g at&t laptopconnect card. he won't. so i can browse the web faster, email business plans faster. all on the go. i'm bill kurtis and i'm faster than floyd mayweather. (announcer) switch to the nation's fastest 3g network and get the at&t laptopconnect card for free. (announcer) switch to the nation's fastest 3g network accidents can happen, but with liberty mutual's new car replacement, if your new car is totaled within the first year, we'll give you the money to buy a brand-new car. and with our accident forgiveness, an accident won't cause your price to go up when you r

you quoted justice o'connor to say a wise old woman or wise old man would reach the same decisions. you said i'm not sure i agree with that statement. and that's when you made the statement that's now relatively famous. i would hope a wise latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion. so here you're reaching a judgment that not only will it make a difference but that it should make a difference. you acknowledge they made a big difference. it took time. then you concluded this. in short, i accept the proposition that difference will be made by the presence of women, people and color on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts i choose to see. i don't know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but i accept there will be some based on gender and my latina heritage. as you said in your response to senator sessions, you said that you weren't encouraging that. and you talked about how we need to set that aside. but you didn't, in your speech, say that this is not good, we need to set this aside. instead yo

justice o'connor will begin following by justice breyer, then prof. dinn. >> what should we start with? >> anything you would like to say about the process of judicial payment, selection, state courts, where most states, especially in mississippi, i know that you have strong views about judicial election rather than appointment, or the selection process in the united states supreme court. >> i think we are seeing the selection process work itself out again as we speak. we have a vacancy on the supreme court on the retirement of justice david souter and the selection of is replacement and i understand on july 13th, fearing slogan for judge sotomayor. that is always an educational experience for the company. once a justice is concerned and on the bench, you don't see a lot, certainly not much on television. we don't have cameras in the supreme court room at this point and we won't see them. when i took the oath of office at the u.s. supreme court, i took it in the supreme court chambers, the president and mrs. reagan were in attendance. that is the last

. >> you deal with a famous quote of justice o'connor in which he says "a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wide old woman." and you push back from that. you say you don't think that's necessarily accurate. >> i knew that justice o'connor couldn't have meant that if judges reached 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 fell flat. it was bad. >> lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament. and here's what they said about you. "she's a terror on the bench." "she's temperamental, excitable. she seems angry." "she's overly aggressive, not very judicial. she does not have a very good temperament." when you look at the evaluation of the judges on the second circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb. in terms of your temperament. what is your answer to these criticisms? >> i do ask tough questions at oral argument. >> are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments? >>

. >> quoted justice o'connor. you also said i'm not sure i agree with that statement. that's when you made the statement that's now relatively famous. i would hope that a wise latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion. so here you're reaching a judgment that not only will it make a difference but that it should make a difference. you went on -- this is the last thing i will quote here. you said in short -- well, i think this is important. you note that some of the old white guys made some pretty good decisions eventually. oliver wendell holmes, cardozo and others. you acknowledge they made a big difference in discrimination cases, but it took a long time to understand, it takes time and effort, not something all people are willing to give and so on. then you concluded this. in short, i accept the proposition that difference will be made by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts that i choose to see. you said i don't know exactly what the difference

justice o'connor was a part of a court in which she greatly respected her colleagues. and yet, those wise men-- i'm not going to use the other word-- and wise women did reach different conclusions in deciding cases. i never understood her to be attempting to say that that meant those people who disagreed with her or unwise or unfair judges. as you know, my speech was intending to inspire the students to understand the richness that their backgrounds could bring to the judicial process in the same way that everybody else is background does the same. i think that is what justice alito was referring to when he was asked questions by this committee and he said, when i decided case i think about my italian ancestors and their experiences coming to this country. i don't think anybody thought that he was saying that that commanded the result in the case. these were students and lawyers, why don't think would have been misled either by justice o'connor's statement or mine, in thinking that we actually intended to say that we could really make wiser and fair decisions. i think

waited too long until 1981 to have the first woman, the justice o'connor. as a diversification, diversity is very important. you bring excellent credentials academically and professionally. your service on the court -- the constitution requires the process for this committee and then the full senate to consider in the till your qualifications. most of the questions which will be asked of you in the course of these hearings will involve decided cases. i intend to ask about decided cases, but also about cases that the supreme court decided not to decide. and on the rejection of cases. it is a big problem. of it suggests the court has time for more cases. chief justice roberts noted in his confirmation hearing that the decision in more cases would be very helpful. if you could press the docket of the supreme court in 1886 was currently, in 1886, there were 1396 cases on the docket. 451 were decided. a century later, their only 161 signed opinions. in 2007, their only 67. -- there were only 67. i start on the cases that were not decided. i could start in many a

i knew that justice o'connor couldn't have meant that if judges reach different conclusions -- legalconclusions, that one of them was and why is. 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 a -- bell flat. it was bad because it left an impression that i believed that life experiences command of a result in a case, but that's clearly not what i do as a judge. in it's clearly not what i intended in in the context of my broader speech which was attempting to inspire young hispanic, latino students and lawyers to believe it that their life experiences added value to their process. >> well, i can see that perhaps as a lay person's approach to it, but as a judge who has taken this of, i am very troubled that you have repeatedly over a decade or more made statements that consistently -- anywhere reading of the speeches -- consistently argues that this ideal and commitment i believe every judge is committed, must be to put aside their personal experiences and biases and nature that

justice o'connor talk about the right to a jury trial. that has been denied a far too often to women and people of african descent and latinas. i had a lawyer in a criminal case that was part of one of the remarkable things from the warren court. that is the court that said that he should have a lawyer if you're going to be facing prosecution. it is that same court that said that you cannot force confessions from people, even if they are guilty. we need to have the right to a lawyer and waive your rights to testify. one of justice o'connor's former colleagues, justice scalia spoke of the right of confrontation. if someone is going to accuse you, you have the right to confront the witness which sometimes goes against victims right. if someone is one to show you, they must be subject to cross- examination. three amazing things are that justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion saying that 18- year-old could not be executed anymore and that the mentally retarded could not be executed. if there was a penalty for women and men, it can be a bi

both sandra day o'connor and former justice sandra day o'connor or justice sandra day o'connor and justicehappy that another woman may be coming on to the court. they think that it is important that we have women represented, well-represented. i think that's something that the country should aspire to. >> larry: what, anita, has been the lasting affect on you and your approach to the law since your involvement with the hearings of judge thomas? >> one of the things that has really happened to me since that hearing was my appreciation for the fact that we really need to connect people with the law. and for people to really understand and appreciate that the decisions made by the supreme court impact their lives. whether or not they have received themselves as plaintiffs. but i think one of the things -- another thing that has been brought out, at least as i read the letters that i've gotten since the hearings is that we need to do a better job as lawyers, as law professorers, and judges of helping people to understand what their rights are. there were so many people who have written me that

she tried to tell you she was attempting to agree with justice sandra day o'connor's statement that it was women. but then she said she disagrees and that a wise latina would make a better decision. >> she did say she was agreeing with justice o'connor when she was not. objectivity is a near expiration of. she except the fact and use those words more than a few times. when you have a judge who was taken an oath to be impartial and discreet, the port and a rich alike, but cannot articulate philosophy contrary to that, it is troubling. we use the phrase confirmation conversion, but i think we need to look at along record to ascertain how she might perform on the supreme court. megyn: she said she wanted to state unequivocally that she does not leave any ethnic or racial group has any advantage in judging. no matter what i would have said, this is what i believe. i do not believe gender groups or minority groups any advantage in judging. can you not take her at her word on that? >> i thought we should give her credit for making the statement today, but it is different from the statement s

rory o'connor is a media critic and a liberal himself who's written a book on shock-talkers.e says not all of these broadcasters use violent language. but they do all share a predilection for outrage. and, he says, they're all practically addicted to constantly cranking up that outrage. >> here's the real problem. when you shock somebody, if you come back the next time and you apply the same stimulus, it's not shocking any longer. it's already happened. so you have to ratchet it up a little bit. so how do you cut through? how do you really shock? i think that in order to continue to outrage, you have to constantly be jacking up the pressure. and ultimately, there's going to be some deranged person out there in that audience who's going to say, "you know what? that's a good idea. let me act on that." >> the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. >> entertainers-- that's what a lot of the shock-talkers call themselves. o'connor says, maybe, but their words can motivate their listeners to act. >> now first and foremost, we have to recognize that many of them are employed acr

i did not and don't believe that justice o'connor intended to suggest that when two judges disagree, one of them has to be unwise. and if you read her literal words that wise old men and wise old woman -- women would come to the same decisions in cases, that's what the words would mean. but that's clearly not what she meant. if you listen to my words, it would have the same suggestion, that only latinos would come to wiser decisions. but that would not make sense in the context of my speech either. because i pointed out in the speech that eight, nine white men had decided brown versus board of education. i noted in a separate paragraph of the speech that no one person speaks in the voice of any group. so my rhetorical flourish, just like hers, can't be read litt litteraly. >> you said a wise latino woman would reach a better conclusion than a male counterpart. what i am confused about, are you standing by that statement or are you saying it was a bad idea and you -- are you disavowing that statement? >> it's clear from the attention that my words have gotten and the manner in which i

. >> justice o'connor said a while ago that a man should reach the same decision as a woman and you pushedthat. you say that you do not think that is necessarily accurate. you doubt the ability to be objective in your role. how can you reconcile your speeches with assertions that impartiality is a mere aspiration, which may not be possible in all or even most cases which york oath yet taken -- the 02 have taken that requires impartiality. >> i know that justice o'connor could not have meant it reaches different legal conclusions, that one of them was not wise. that could not have been her meaning, because reasonable judges disagree sometimes. i was trying to play on her words, and it was bad. >> let's talk about it. i'd like you, but -- i like you, by the way. for whatever that matters. one thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the almanac of the federal judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperaments. she said about you that you are a terror on the bench, temperamental. she does not have a good temperament. when you look at the evaluation of t

you quoted justice o'connor to say a wise old woman or wise old man would reach the same decisions. said i'm not sure i agree with that statement. and that's when you made the statement that's now relatively famous. i would hope a wise latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion. so here you're reaching a judgment that not only will it make a difference but that it should make a difference. you acknowledge that they made a big difference in discrimination cases but it took a long time to understand -- it takes time and effort. in short, i accept the proposition that difference will be made by the presence of women and people of color on bench and my experiences will affect the facts that i choose to see. i don't know exactly what the difference will be in my judging but i accept that there will be some based on jegender in my latina heritage. you said that you weren't encouraging that. and you talked about how we need to set that aside, but you didn't in your speech say that this is not good. we need to set this aside. instead

justice o'connor was among the very last elected judges in arizona if i remember correctly.and then of course selected by president reagan to join the united states supreme court. justice breyer for many years, a very distinguished member of the first circuit court of appeals in boston. appointed to office by president carter. and i think i'm correct in saying he was the very last person confirmed during the carter administration. and so i do hope and assume that we'll talk about judicial selection beyond the topic of the hour. almost literally, judicial selection for the united states supreme court. and i take it that the president -- justice breyer and justice o'connor, now among other things, a very distinguished professor of law at georgetown university. for purposes of this panel, probably he is the most relevant item on his resume, is that he was assistant attorney general in the first term of the george w. bush administration for legal policy. and by -- it was suggested among a lot of people that he was very key in selecting judges. not for the united states supreme c

but the point i was making was that, justice o'connor's words, the ones i was using as a platform to make my point about the value of experience generally in the legal system was that her words literally, and mine literally, made no sense. at least not in the context of what judges do or -- what judges do. i didn't, and don't, believe that justice o'connor intended to suggest that when two judges disagree, one of them has to be unwise. and if you read her literal words that wise old men and wise old women would come to the same decisions in cases, that's what the words would mean. but that's clearly not what she meant. and if you listen to my words, it would have the same suggestion, that only latinas would come to wiser decisions. but that wouldn't make sense in the context of my speech either, because i pointed out in the speech that eight, nine white men have decided brown versus board of education, and i noted in a separate paragraph of the speech, that no one person speaks for the voice of any group. so my rhetorical flourish -- just like hers -- can't be read literally. it had

and the most pragmatic justices was made of justice rehnquist, o'connor, kennedy and breyer. this is roberts, alito, breyer and kennedy in the pragmatist group. it is unclear where justice sotomayor will be. this may be an area where the court is shifting to the right, in favor of law enforcement, she was a prosecutor in the manhattan district attorney's office and this kind of grounding may make her less of the philosophical group, we do not know and she does not know. but the departure of justice souter, or the ideological lines are set up, leaves the court open at that point. his departure, i think, on matters of business and other areas where this will make a difference is that in some areas of business, with these damages, in the important cases he is siding with business in a way that is not as predictable for the justice. -- justice sotomayor. with the nine -- 9 circuit having awarded two and a half million dollars, what will any of the justices -- it will be hard to get them to overturn this, david souter voted to say that this was too much money and say that this was

. >> reporter: pima county sheriffs detective lieutenant michael o'connor. >> it became clear quicklyhat this was something done. >> reporter: the movado watch on gary's wrist stopped dead at 5:38 p.m. >> i can't remember a bigger story that has ever come to tuscon like this that has impacted the community the way this did. and i think party because he was so well-known and also because the manner in which he was murdered. >> reporter: but why would anyone want to kl the life of the party? investigators quickly determined that the bomb was triggered by remote control, but whose finger was it on the button? the answer wouldn't come from the heavens. it was right here on earth. coming up, finding answers in gary triano's past. >> here's a man who made millions, died with 22 cents in his pocket. >> reporter: did he lose someone else'sillions and was that a motive fga when "star-crossed" continues. from the northeast, try our new maine lobster and crab bake, with garlic-roasted tender maine lobster, jumbo shrimp, scallops, and a full half-pound of snow crab legs. or from the south, try ou

sandra day o'connor was the first supreme woman on the supre court judge and in her speech, sotomayor went on to say "i am not so sure that i agree with that statement," but today she seemed to hedge her prior position. >> i knew that justice o'connor couldn't have meant that if judges eached different conclusions, legal 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 fallen flat. it was bad. >> ranking republican senator jeff sessions felt her explanations for those statements fell flat. >> that is the opposite of what you saying, is it not? what you saying today is quite inconsistent, don't you think? that is not consistent with your statement. >> senators on both sides of the aisle wanted to know where sotomayor stands on gun rights and the second amendment. today she tried to reassure her critics. >> like you, i understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many americans in fact, one of my god children is

for sandra -- sandra day o'connor to talk about maybe in 20 years we won't need affirmative actions anymore because the problems will be behind is us preposterous. this notion of a color-blind constitution is a fairy tale about life in america which is destructive, it's destructive of our legal system, it's destructive or our social system, destructive of relations among citizens and it's time to set it aside and talk realistically about the role of race in our society. in the book, one of the chapters is by eva paterson, who the dean mentioned, and her colleague, susan serrano from the equal justice society in san francisco, and they suggest it's time to overrule a case called washington vs. davis. it says if you're going to prove violation of the equal protection clause you have to prove there was an intents on the part of in the the government to discriminate. it's not enough to prove that minority groups are treat adversely, that government rules or regulations or laws treat people unfairly as a result of their race or gender. you have to prove that there's an intent to discriminate, an

. >> and in fact, justi o'connor has saidat she was dippnted that she was not replaced by a woman. >>ink s made that clear during the alito nomination. and y can imagine that perhaps from the sidelines, s is also rooting for judge sotomar, although i haven't talked to juste o'connor about that. >> we really lk forward t reing your whole piece. it's the sunday "new york times" magazine. great work. veryice to talk to you. >> thanks so much for having me. thank you, ndrea. > stay tuned. monday we will, of course, be bringing you livecoverage of the hearings right here on msnbc. >>> todain italy, meanwhile, prident obama called on world leaders to aggressively combat the global economic recessn. >> wle our markets are proving and we appea toav averted glob collapse, we know that too many people have still struggli. so we agree at full recovery is still a way off, that i would be premature to begin windindown our stimulus plans and that we must sustain our support r those plans to lay the foundation for a strong and lasting very. >> cnbc's senior anyst, ron insana joins us now. can yo tak

there's justice o'connor, who lived the first years of her life in a ranch in arizona with no running water and no electricity. by sheer necessity, she learned how to mend fences, ride horses, brand cattle, shoot a rifle and even drive a truck, all before she was 13 years old. i also think about justice thurgood marshall, the great grandson of a slave. his mother was a teacher while his father worked as a pullman car waiter before becoming a steward at an all-white country club. justice marshall waited tables to put himself through law school and his mom pawned her wedding and engagement ring to get the down payment to send him to howard university law school here in washington. then there's justice blackman, who grew up in a st. paul working class neighborhood in my home state of minnesota. he was able to attend harvard college only because at the last minute, the harvard club of minnesota got him a scholarship and he went on to harvard, where he worked as a tutor and janitor. through college and law school, his family was never able to scrape up enough money to bring him back to min

. >> with us is niall o'connor, from one of the many conservation groups and on red alert.o this is an incredibly rare creature. >> yes. >> if they go away -- >> they're gone. we have to try to protect them. >> of course, it's not just the lemurs who are in danger. there are 11,000 species of animals and plants that only exist here in madagascar. in our brief time here, we see fantastic spiders, creeping red millipedes and mongooses that can be soon no place else. at night, a whole different cast of critters including these brilliantly camouflaged lizards. >> it is one of the unique places on earth and the species, they don't exist anywhere else. it is fantastic. >> it's at risk? >> it's at risk every day. >> here is why the forests are being plundered. value rosewood trees, used to make expensive furniture often in china. while the lemurs are definitely cute, they are simply outgunned by the timber mafia whose diplomats and conservationists suspect of paying off government officials with bribes. there is real fear that this most rare and beautiful primate will disappear in

where patrick o'connor builds bombs for the government. >> this is a real explosive that i have here in my hand. >> o'connor has built hundreds of improvised explosive devices disguised as electronics, footwear and a in a stack of dvds. the design is evolved based on intelligence act the bombs that terrorists are building. >> use a thief to catch a thief and that's what we do here. >> some of the bombs are detonated in old planes to test whether a similar device could bring down a flight. others are put in luggage and run through screening machines. if the bombs are not detected, scientists try to close the security gap to beat the terrorists. >> it's a game of cat and mouse. we understand what they're doing and we counteract that with better-improved technology. >> machines are not the total answer. >> at the end of the day the technology detects very specific threats. it does not detect a terrorist. >> but better machines would be a valuable tool. scientists do a high resolution cross-section scan of a peanut m & m to show us how they might, some day, be able to ferret out a explos

paul walker returns as fbi agent brian o'connor.nt case he is working on leads him back to an old enemy. >> i'm going with you. >> i don't plan on bringing anyone back. >> i know. >>reporter: when the 2 realize they are targeting the same drug lord they quickly put their own beef aside to take down the bad guy. the original cast reunite including michelle rodriguez and jordan brewster. remain in your seat for our next action flick. dragonball evolution. he grants the dying grandfather last wish. he needs to collect a series of 7 dragonballs with major powers. the problem? these dragonballs are held by a few of the most dangerous fill in on earth. if you check the tv release the show doll house last season on fox by resident a hoty a spy willingly brain washed before top secret mission. if you miss the show pick up season one on dvd this week. foishtion funny man seventh and adam team up with director joe to make you laugh this weekend. preview the newcomb difficult on friday. that's the low down. >>> i'm bruce cunningham in westmins

waited too long until 1981 to have the first woman, justice sandra day o'connor. i think, as the defers nation, diversity is very, very important. hubering excellent credentials, academically, professionally. your service on the court, the constitution requires the process for this committee and the full senate to consider in detail your qualifications under our consent and function. most of the questions, which will be asked of you and the course of these hearings, will involve deciding cases. i intend to ask about deciding cases, but also about cases that the supreme court decided not to decide, and on their rejection of the cases for decision that is a big problem. the court i would suggest has time for more cases. chief justice roberts noted in his confirmation hearing that the decision in more cases would be very helpful. if you contrast the docket of the supreme court in 1886 with current, in 1886 there were 1396 cases on the docket, 451 were decided. a century later, there were only 161 signed opinions, 2007 there were only 67 signed opinions. .. don't know

sandra day o'connor, the supreme court's first female justice is also on the list. also is civil rights leader, joseph lowery. mr. obama said the recipients were selected for being agents of change. the medal of freedom is the highest civilian honor. >>> the cast of "seinfeld" will be back together again. the reunion will take place on his hbo show, "curb your enthusiasm." jerry seinfeld, julia louis-dreyf louis-dreyfus, and jason alexander will appear on "curb," and come together for the finale. >>> pope benedict has signed a record deal. record label officials say it will appeal to a wider audience, and not just those who are religious. the record will drop at the end of november, just in time for christmas. >> who would have thought the pope would have a record that would drop. it will probably do pretty well. >> i'll bet it will, too, yeah. >>> coming up, a bull on the loose. it wasn't in spain. this was in idaho. >>> and steroid shocker. a baseball sup th. the latest to admit to testing positive for drug use. the great taste of splenda® no calorie sweetener and

justice o'connor talked about her life experience. justice alito talked about his family suffering from ethnic slurs. justice thomas pinpoint georgia emphasize talking about putting himself in the shoes of other people. and justice scalia talked about being a racial minority. the expectation would be that a woman would want to say something to assert her confidence in a country which denied women the right to vote for decades, where the glass ceiling has limited people, where there is still disparagement of people on ethnic background. just this month in a suburb of philadelphia, hispanic children were denied access to a pool for whites only as were african-american children so i could see how someone would take in being a latino woman and assert that, assert herself. a lot has been made on the issue of empathy, but that the characteristic is not exactly out of place judicial determinations. we've come a long way on the expansion of constitutional rights. oliver wendell holmes's famous statement that the life of the law is experience,