i'm not sure -- bill: is she ruth bader ginsburg ii? >> she is pretty close. and ruth bader ginsburg is accepted as a liberal justice on the court. you know. the thing that bothers me, i was just listening to you and mary katharine was if you, bill o'reilly, had made that comment about, you know, a smart, experienced irish guy is always going to be better. bill: irish man, irish guy, yeah. >> all right. than a black man, then i would say hey, have you got a problem, dude. bill: would you use the word dude? would you say dude? >> look, i'm talking to you, bill. come on. bill: look, we all know about the bar of freedom of speech for white guys is a lot higher than anybody else. we all know that. >> and it should be, yeah. bill: and it should be. of course it should be, juan. let's kick the white guys when they are up. >> no. come on. who is the majority? who is most of the supreme court justices in this country in the history of the country. bill: white guys. and they have screwed it up those white guys. >> that doesn't give anybody the right to make the assertio

bader ginsburg to the supreme court. here's tim o'brien. >> reporter: no supreme court nominee in recent memory has received such a warm reception from the judiciary committee. ruth ginsburg was praised by republicans and democrats alike. >> her character, intellect and temperament to serve on supreme court are not in my mind in question. >> reporter: civil rights advocates remembered how she ignited the women's civil rights movement in the 70s. >> she was the chief navigator that took women into the safe harbor of the united states constitution. >> repter: but ginsburg said judges, unlike lawyers, must approach cases narrowly and not dictate social policy from the bench. >> as justice oliver wendell holmes counselled, one of the most sacred duties of a judge is not to read her convictions into the constitution. >> reporter: she declined to discuss any issues likely to come before the court like abortion or gays in the military. >> were i to rehearse here what i would say and how i would reason on such questions, i would act injudiciously. >> reporter: tonight she appears to be a nominee with something for everyone and the senate is expected to be swift, certain

ruth bader ginsburg, she said she thought those comments have been misinterpreted and says all of theutrage over them as "ridiculous." it is unusual for a sitting justice to talk about a nominee. judge andrew napolitano says it goes against the unwritten rules of the supreme court. he is with us now. >> on written rules that are accepted by 99% of judges in the country. you do not attempt to affect the outcome of a public controversy by something you do outside your courtroom. you make your rulings in the courtroom and you make your ruling. that is your job. you do not comment on another judge's case because that be perceived as trying to influence that judge. you do not comment on any political dispute. it is unusual for justice ginsberg to of done what she did. she gave an interview to "the new york times." it will not be published until sunday, the day before judge sonia sotomayor's hearings start. the timing is curious. the statements of are those of support for judge sotomayor. this has never been done to my knowledge publicly in the modern era, a sitting justice on the supreme c

it should have been allowed and ruth bader ginsburg said that before she ascended to the court. >> you could see the -- say the same about race. >> privacy is in the constitution somewhere. >> where? >> i will find it. >> i will bring in my copy later. is congress about >> to have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in congress is not only inappropriate, it cod be illegal. >> i think that we should be looking forward and not backward. >> the difference of opinion. the story behind thi apparently the cia had a plan to kill or capture al qaeda operatives. the agency spent some money, actually traid. based on a 2001 presidential finding that authorized it. when the new cia chief knew about last moh he canceled and told congress about it and they are making noises about investigating. aside from what congress knew or didn't know, why is it acceptable to take out al qaeda from the air with unarmed drones, risking civilians, but not acceptable to kill them 400 yards from a sniper? >> as i understand, it was not just a matter of killing i operatives on the battle were drowned

ruth bader ginsburg was the general counsel for the aclu. it was not a mystery that she was a liberal. yet, she got overwhelming support. there was a difference that was paid. what graham was saying is that we have to make this a less political. if a liberal president wins, he should be able to get his supreme court nominees as long as he chooses someone who is qualified. megyn: as someone who has covered washington for a long time, who was it? robert bork? >> 1987, rommel -- ronald reagan and robert bork. it was less than an hour, ted kennedy stood up on the floor of the senate and he said, and robert bork's world, women will have to go get back alley abortions. that politicized the court. quite frankly, robert bork did a lousy job in his hearings. he got into fights. that is the point at which a conservative president appointing a conservative, qualified judge to the court -- the democrats were in the majority and said no. bret: he said, unless you have a meltdown, you will beacons -- you will be confirmed. if republican senators can get h

and ruth bader ginsburg said that before she ascended on to the court -- >> privacy is in the constitution somewhere. >> where is it? >> i'll find it somewhere. >> i'll bring in my copy later. is congress about to investigate the cia? >> to have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders of congress is not only inappropriate but it could be illegal. >> i think we should be looking forward and not backwards. >> a difference of opinion. the story behind this -- apparently the cia had a plan to kill or capture al qaeda roberts is on the ground. the agency spent some money, train for it, based on a 2001 presidential finding that authorized it. when a new cia chief heard about last month, he canceled and told congress about it and they are making noises about investigating. aside from what congress did in know, why is it acceptable to take out al qaeda from the air with unarmed drones, risking civilians, but not acceptable to kill them at a range of 400 yards with a sniper? >> as an understanding -- as i understand it, it was not just killing al qaeda on the battlefield or drones, but

and justice ruth bader ginsburg says she wants to stay for another five years or so.she successfully battled cancer. and then we're acting like the 7-year-olds, but we have two justices who are 73 this year, scalia and kennedy. so, you know, we keep looking at the liberals. one of the conservatives might actually go while president obama is in office, and then it will really change things. >> we have to remember the fact that health plays a role here. we never thought william rehnquist would go when he did. chris: i get the feeling, helene, that he's thinking about representation on this court, not just jurists, but being proportional about our society. there's no african-american male, except clarence thomas on that court and he's a conservative. will he go that way? >> i think he easily could. i think the beauty of this for president obama right now is he can do anything he wants right now with his next seat. he's punched the hispanic ticket and he pretty much has the freedom to go anywhere he wants. i think it's totally likely that he will go with a woman or with a

scalia and thomas for expressing concern about judges citing foreign law and praises justice ruth bader ginsburg for doing so. on issue after issue she indicates an advocacy position or her position in the firefighters' case was consistent with her series of rulings of lawsuits filed when she was.... >> schieffer: let me bring up something about the firefighters' case. this was the case where she ruled against the firefighters who claimed they were discriminated against because they didn't get a promotion up this in connecticut because minorities did not score high enough on the same test and the whole test was thrown out. the supreme court reversed her on that case. but people for the american way, which is a liberal group that supports sonia sotomayor, is calling attention to what they call frank richy. he's the central character in this. his litigious and... background. they say and point out that that he has been fired from another fire department, that he claimed discrimination because he was dyslexic. did they have a point here? >> no. that's just typical of the personal attacks of people

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

bill: i am leaving the possibility open that once she gets in, she will be ruth bader ginsburg ii. >> she could be, but not on law and order. bill: she can't get fired. she can do whatever she wants to do. it's like the pinheads teaching college with tenure. this bothers me. 67-year-old, 66-year-old spanish woman lives in barcelona. comes over to los angeles to have in vitro because in spain it's against the law to have over 50 in vitro. in america, we have no law. you can be 98 and have in vitro. so she gets the twins, births them, dies two years later. what say you? >> right. she goes in and she lies and says she is 55. we don't have a law but we have ethical standards that most of the clinics follow. bill: this clinic i don't even think cared how old she was. she paid a lot of money for it. >> they say we don't check identification. she said 55. she was actually 66. now, i have to say i called one of the most respected fertility doctors in new york city and asked the head of the clinic there do you guys check for i.d.? is that normal? he said yes, we do. bill: they do in new york.

maureen dowd writes, quote, -- bill: well, that may come as a shock to clarence thomas and ruth bader ginsburg, and didn't president obama want to appoint harriet miers to the supreme court? last i looked, she is not a white man. here is what miss dowd wrote about miss miers -- bill: so it sounds like miss dowd has a problem with nonliberal women as well as with white men. she writes today -- bill: so the hits just keep on coming. white men are bad, conservative women are stupid, and country music should not be heard in the supreme court, or something. i hope everybody reads maureen dowd's entire column which i posted on billoreilly.com. it clearly demonstrates what the left wing media is doing. marginalizing all with whom they disagree and demonizing entire groups they see as evil or dumb. white men, conservative women, country music fans. are we going to take this? this is a memo. for the top story tonight, reaction, with us, our barack and a hard place team, fox news analyst monica crowley, and that evil white man, alan colmes. >> you got me. bill: white man's last stand. >> you accuse them

ruth bader ginsburg was one of four justices who disagreed with that ruling. now she is defending her for her wise latina quote. here it is to refresh your memory. >> now, legal experts say it's not only unusual for a sitting supreme court justifiable to comment on a nominee. it also goes against the court's unwritten rules. when we come back, raising the dead. stunning accusations today about what famous -- people at a famous cemetery reportedly did to hundreds of bodies. just ahead, details you have got to hear to believe. plus, the quarterback murder case new video of steve mcnair's mistress getting busted for dui days before she killed him and the former mvp himself caught on camera. we will show it to you when we come right back. >> it is the sacred spot where loved ones are placed to rest in peace. at one cemetery in illinois there are startling accusations that workers dug up hundreds of bodies, threw them into mass graves, all to carry out a sickening scam and make a buck. it happened at an historic cemetery in the south chicago suburb of alsip. 20 mil

. >> senate republicans admit they were not as tough on nominees ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer as democrats were on john roberts and samuel alito and chairence thomas but say they are not afraid to challenge sotomayor. she would be the court's first latino. >> this president want wanting to be an hispanic on the court and be the first one is a moat ation. obviously she has a long record as a circuit court judge. i don't want him to say he picked just anybody, because he wanted an hispanic, but he was able to find somebody with a good record of service that fit that, and i think that's the primary objective. >> some blog critics and opinion makers say sotomayor's claim to be wiser than others because she is a woman and latino is itself bigoted. >> to the credit of the republican senators i have talked to, they're embarrassed by those kind of comments, and they may disagree with her at the end and may vote against her, but to base it on the facts of what they hear in the committee. >> monday morning when the hearing begins, it will be opening statements an introductions, a full d

now on the supreme court we only have one justice who could possibly pass the kleenex test, ruth bader ginsburg. we have a judicial system which is populated by an elite, people who are out of touch with ordinary americans, people who have no sense of what it means to have your constitutional rights or your civil rights violated. if we put the kleenex testifies in place we might get legal aid lawyers on the federal bench, might allly get labor lawyers. when i say labor lawyers i mean people who represent unions, not people who represent the management side. we might get people who represent battered women, people who rent the detainees at guantanamo. we might get people like that on the federal bench. and that is what we need. and by the way, i think president obama has some sense of this. president obama said in a speech to the league of women voters, we need somebody who has the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or african-american or gay or disabled, or old, and that's the criteria by which i'm going

i can just look at the words of current supreme court justice ruth bader-ginsburg who said, quote, "frankly i thought at the time roe as in roe v. wade was decided about population growth, in particular in populations that we don't want to have too many of of." gee, ruth, what population don't we want to have too many of? you're right. we don't need to go to the nazis, and progressives, hmm. they've changed an awful lot since the early 20th century. limb: dude that was sick! i've been hangin' up there for, what, like, forty years? and then - wham - here i am smacking the pretty off that windshield of yours. oh, what you're looking for an apology? well, toss another coin in the wishing well, pal. it's not happenin'. limb: hey, what's up, donnie? how you been? anncr: accidents are bad. anncr:but geico's good ding! with onsite windshield replacement. we have ever created. a car that can help awaken its driver if he begins to doze... keep him in his lane if he starts to wander... even stop itself if he becomes distracted. if you want to see the future of the automobile, just look at the new e-c

. >> ruth bader ginsburg says, it's ridiculous people have made such a big deal about latino women and their experience. kelly, as a woman, what do you think? >> i think as a woman, justice ginsburg is correct. i hate to break it to the gop, not only have they not been able to find any skeletons in her closet, it looks like someone with ocd, that's how clean she is. >> certainly she'll be confirmed because there are 60 democrats. i would like to see them question her. and there are things she said in that speech that were somewhat disconcerting, essential, what she seemed to be saying, everyone has biases and i think my biases make me a better judge. she said other somethings that were more reasonable. the speech was not a model of clarity or consistency and i think it would be worth nailing down what she really meant. >> we know that all justices bring their own perspectives to the bench. that's unrealistic to expect them not to. >> imagine what's going to happen if everyone is seen on television by the american public beating up a woman with a latin surname and qualified. >> not so g

andpeaking of jud sotomayor, right now justice ruth bader ginsburg is the only emily, senior editor atom joins us now. and you recently interviewed justice ruthinsburg and this "new york tis" magazine piece is cing out this weeken fascinating intview. let me point out, yoasked her out e sotomayor'somment about a latina woman's richness of expeence. ginsburg's quote to you was, thk of how many times you've sa something you didn't g out quite right d you would edit your statemen if you could. i'm sure she meant no re than that what mean when iay that my wife experiences bri a different light to the table. male judges do much more abrasive things all the te and it goes unremarked. ginsburg answered, yes, the notion that sonia is a aggressive quesoner, what else is new? has anybody watchedcalia or breyer u on the ench? verynteresting stuff. whathe attitude about ginsburg abouthaving another won on the court and the likeliod she will be perform ed? >> she is, i feel great about not being t lone woman around th place. and i think she's vry hopeful about judgesotomayor's confirmation, but als

engagement set by democrats during the the bourke and thomas hearings, president clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburgnd steven briar, republican senators hardly put up a fight. >> to be fair, briar was a fairly moderate liberal, maybe who shouldn't have been vigorously opposed, but justice ginsburg, general counsel of the a.c.l.u. a statement saying that bigamy and prostitution came under the right o of privacy and prisons should be co-ed. >> roles were reversed when in 2005, george w. bush nominated john roberts to the high court. >> he will strictly apply the constitutional laws, not legislate from the bench. >> a staunch conservative served in two republican administrations, it was thought that he was chosen in part because he had no paper trail, making him a bourke proof candidate. >> i think the democrats just sort of, well, we can't fight this guy. we don't have the votes to stop him and they didn't try hard. >> one of the relatively small number of democrats who voted against him was a freshman senator from illinois named barack obama. in explaining his vote, senator obama said that even thoug

ruth bader ginsburg got 97 votes and breyer got 86 tes. >> dferent time.in the countr pat, different time and different people on the hil now, pat. ve different people. >> all right you guys. we're going to have to lhat be the last word. thank you to p buchanan and morris reid. have a good weekend. >>> well, presidenobama and e family, they ha arrived cape cst ghana. they are there to tour the cape coast castle and we're going to keep a very cle eye on things and bring you rereails. kind of consider myseself a robinhood of the directing world. buicenclave the finest lury crossover ever. need some zen time wi is model thank you. >>> wa to bring you live pictures of the pe coast castle, the on the edge o gha right along the ocean. it is place of historical significance because the british used it as a land post at the time when they sent theapred africans to the united states in the slave trade. the's a lot of histical significce. much ofit painful here. is a plac that president obama and his wife mchelle and two daughters ar vising right now. a pla of signi

both sandra day o'connor and justice ruth bader ginsburg have indicated that they are very happy thatnother woman may be coming on to the court. they think it is important that we have women represented, well represented. i think that is something the country should aspire to. >> larry: what, anita, has been the lasting effect on you and your approach to the law involved in the hearings with judge thomas? >> one of the things that has happened to me since that hearing is my appreciation for the fact that we really need to connect people with the law. for people to really understand and appreciate that the decisions made by the supreme court impact their lives whether or not they ever see themselves as plaintiffs. another thing that has been brought out at least as i read the letters i've gotten since the hearing is that we need to do a better job as lawyers and law professors and judges of helping people to understand what their rights are. there were so many people who have written me who said they didn't know they had a right not to be sexually harassed on the job. i think that is a

now in an unprecedented move, ruth bader-ginsburg has come out in support of sotomayor in an article that has come out in this sunday's upcoming new york times magazine. fox news judicial analyst andrew napolitano joins us now. judge, what about it? is it, in fact, unprecedented that a sitting supreme court justice would come out in favor of a nominee? >> truly unpress depthed in modern times that she would do. this the timing is unbelievable. it is coming out this sunday, in the sunday times magazine, the most widely read aspect of "the new york times", and monday is when the hearings begin so she obviously wants to get her thoughts on the record. it is not a subtle endorsement. it is a full throated unrestrained endorsement of the woman who will be probably sitting next to her on the court come the first monday in october. steve: judge, the times magazine comes out sung day and the court looks at this on monday. what about the timeing? >> she didn't need to do this. there is an unwritten rule among judges which 99% of american judges accept. you don't speak out on political issues.

maureen dowd writes, quote, -- bill: well, that may come as a shock to clarence thomas and ruth bader ginsburg, and didn't president obama want to appoint harriet miers to the supreme court? last i looked, she is not a white man. here is what miss dowd wrote about miss miers -- bill: so it sounds like miss dowd has a problem with nonliberal women as well as with white men. she writes today -- bill: so the hits just keep on coming. white men are bad, conservative women are stupid, and country music should not be heard in the supreme court, or something. i hope everybody reads maureen dowd's entire column which i posted on billoreilly.com. it clearly demonstrates what the left wing media is doing. marginalizing all with whom they disagree and demonizing entire groups they see as evil or dumb. white men, conservative women, country music fans. are we going to take this? this is a memo. for the top story tonight, reaction, with us, our barack and a hard place team, fox news analyst monica crowley, and that evil white man, alan colmes. >> you got me. bill: white man's last stand. >> you accuse them

like ruth bader ginsburg, participation in an aclu project or justice marshall's participation on behalfthe legal education and defense fund, judge sotomayor's participation in the puerto rican legal defense fund demonstrates her commitment to the constitution, constitutional rights and core values of equality as being an inalienable american right and should not be ascribed based on gender or color. judge sotomayor's entire breadth of experience uniquely informs her ability to discern facts as she applies the law and follows precedents. judge sotomayor's commitment to the constitution is unyielding. as she described her philosophy, saying i don't believe we should bend the constitution under any circumstance. it says what it says. we should do honor to it. judge sotomayor' second circuit demonstrates the paramount importance of this conviction. the importance of sonia sotomayor's professional and personal story cannot be understated. many of our most esteemed justices have noted the importance of their own diverse backgrounds and life experiences in being an effective justice. like judg

engagement set by democrats during the the bourke and thomas hearings, president clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburgd steven briar, republican senators hardly put up a fight. >> to be fair, briar was a fairly moderate liberal, maybe who shouldn't have been vigorously opposed, but justice ginsburg, general counsel of the a.c.l.u. a statement saying that bigamy and prostitution came under the right o of privacy and prisons should be co-ed. >> roles were reversed when in 2005, george w. bush nominated john roberts to the high court. >> he will strictly apply the constitutional laws, not legislate from the bench. >> a staunch conservative served in two republican administrations, it was thought that he was chosen in part because he had no paper trail, making him a bourke proof candidate. >> i think the democrats just sort of, well, we can't fight this guy. we don't have the votes to stop him and they didn't try hard. >> one of the relatively small number of democrats who voted against him was a freshman senator from illinois named barack obama. in explaining his vote, senator obama said that even though

knowing her philosophy and basically judicial thinking, she will certainly be in the mold of ruth bader ginsburgwill be on the liberal wing, but not an extreme liberal wing i don't think. and to that extent it will be the mainstream because the court is 5-4. >> thank you for your insight. another big day. david, as you mentioned, quite a witness list. we started our show listening to one of the firefighters in the new haven case. you have to love senator lindsey graham saying there are some things that bug me, but i think you're going through. >> he's always colorful. the fascinating politics to watch now is just for the republicans caught in the middle, they're looking up at real action and they're trying to figure out what's the right political play and watching the squeeze on them is going to be intriguing and seeing how they do it, that will be fab nated. >> and to see how they spin the vote in 2010. all connected. >>> now the latest on the cia's secret plan to use hit squads to kill members of al qaeda. >> "the washington post" reports the program was nearing a new, more active phase just b

it's not nearly as strong, for example, what ruth bader ginsburg said who litigated these cases. you may recall she was somewhat critical how roe was decided but certainly agreed with the holding. the questions that we've gotten into in past years are about how much the presence dense should be respected. you may rarl that arlen specter tried to ask whether roe was not just precedence but was super precedent and then even tried to ask whether it was one level above that, super super-duper presence dense. roberts and alito were unwilling to go there. it's settled law. the question is could it ever be overturned? lots of settled cases get overturned and so i think we really -- we probably won't see, until we get into some of the other questions, what many of the -- what many of the senators want to ask which is, okay, it's settled law, how much value, how much respect does it deserve as legal precedent. the question that was asked a straightforward question whether it was settled law and she said yes. i don't know how you could answer that in other way as strictly legal matter give

ruth bader ginsburg hasade it clear e will stay so h replacement would come at the soest, and i think likely in a second oma term if there were one. the supreme court isreally up foa shift -- the only tim it could shifto the left in the electionf 2016. right now, justices kennedy and scalia are 72 an73. so by then, they would be getting to the point that they're 80, andhat's going to your first more conservative retirements. the chief justice, justice alito and justice thomas, the other conservati members of the court are a still very young. >> charlie: thank you fo joining us. pleasureo have you back. >> it's great to be back. thks very ch. >> chaie: we'll be right back. stay with us. charlie: v.s. ramachan is here. from t university of san diego. he believes that rare a unexplained disorder conta valuable insights into brain functions. the 1990's he pformed pionring experiments on amputees sufring from the seation ofphantom limbs using a store-bought mirror and a piece of cardbod he was able to cure tm of pain in their amputated armi. he has sce turned to a wide range of topics from

she was also taking a page from something that justice sandra day o'connor and ruth bader ginsburg have often invoked in their speeches about, does a woman decide cases differently than a man? basically what they have said is something echoed by a minnesota state supreme court justice who said at the end of the day, a wise man and a wise woman come to the same place. that is what justices ginsburg and o'connor have said in the past. what judge sotomayor was saying was that maybe they do not always decide cases the same. was senators will be concerned about, especially republicans, is, does this show a mind-set of favoring one particular segment of society over the other? she has said in her visit was centers that it is not what she is all about. she was speaking in a more inspiration away, but the viewer was good to bring it up because again, people will hear that a lot, especially tomorrow when the question and answering begins. host: a judge and justice should be impartial, not in different. guest: that is what i was getting at. that is what the democratic senators and the president h

although justice ruth bader ginsburg help tariff eight colleagues understand why this trip search of a 13-year-old girl was humiliating enough to violate her rights, the majority of the justice ruled the school officials were immune from liability. 5-4 case in 2007, gonzalez versus carhart the primm cordy gannett overturned the last president and rule for the first time it is permissible to place restrictions on abortion that don't include an exception. judge sotomayor, you have overcome many obstacles in your life that have given you an understanding of the daily realities and struggles faced by every day people. you crippen housing complex in the bronx. yorky misdiagnosis of juvenile diabetes at 88 and the death of your father at age nine. your mother worked two jobs she could afford to send you and your brother to catholic schools and you earn scholarships to princeton and yale. i know how proud you are of your mom and family. your first job out of law school was assistant district attorney. he went on to represent corporations which gave you and other valuable perspective. 17 yea

clamoring for her nomination would be those whose views are closer to antonin scalia and then ruth bader ginsburg>> that is right. we have been through this before. a couple of years ago we had a well qualified young hispanic lawyer, estrada -, who was appointed to the appeals court in washington, d.c. but he happened to hold a relatively conservative view. he was not even given a chance to be voted on, even though he had been nominated. nobody seemed to care that he was hispanic or was going to bring diversity toç the court. frankly, that is appropriate. your ethnicity should not play a role whether or not you will be an appointee. so there is a double standard. trace: and the government should not have to enforce at the city. >> that is right. the real issue with her record will be her role in the circuit courtç, when she had the richie case before her -- the new haven firefighter case. she was a judge in the panel that ruled against the plaintiffs, ruling against those white firefighters who did well on that task. the supreme court reversed her position, and i think she will be questioned on

although justice ruth bader ginsburg helped her eight male colleagues understand why the strip search13-year-old girl was humiliating enough to violate her constitutional rights, the majority of the justices ruled that the school officials were immune from liability. 5-4 case in 2007, gonzalez versus carhartt, supreme court overturned past precedent and ruled it permissible to place restrictions on abortion that don't include an exception regarding a woman's health. judge sotomayor, you have overcome many obstacles in your life that have given you an understanding of the daily realities and struggles faced by everyday people. you grew up in a housing complex in the bronx. you overcame a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes at age 8 and the death of your father at age 9. your mother worked two jobs so she could afford to send you and your brothers to catholic schools, and you earned scholarships to princeton and yale. i know how proud you are of your mom and your family. your first job out of law school was an assistant district attorney, where you prosecuted violent crime. you went on to wo

think the republicans are going to adhere to the standard they adhered to 20 years ago when ruth bader ginsburg came along. i don't think they won't go as long as president obama went when he opposed justice roberts and alito and filibusted alito. so, i think somewhere in there we'll all wrestle with it. i intend to look at the record to see how many contradictions there are in the testimony. there are some, there's no doubt about it. i didn't like the way she handled the firefighters' case. they'll be here in a little bit. that was a summary order. they tried to render that order where the fight clearly appears that there would be no public notice of it and maybe even the circuit wouldn't know about it. by chance someone found out about it and caused an uproar within the second circuit and they came within her vote of rehearing that case. >> we'll hear from some of those firefighters later today. john king has a question for you, senator, as well. >> senator, you have, as promised, had a polite, pointed at times, but a polite conversation with judge sonia sotomayor. i talked to an activist thi

polling director, tells us that number is higher than the number of republicans who opposed ruth bader ginsburgthe number of democrats who opposed alito and roberts just four years ago. >> it's amazing that democrats and republicans seemingly are looking at two different nomi e nominees. >> oh, yeah. >> yeah, a lot of controversy about sotomayor's stands on the issues. what are people saying? >> this is very interesting as well. check out this number. we asked if her qualifications are okay. if she's qualified. senators should they vote against her because of her stand on the issues. as you mentioned, affirmative action, gun rights, controversial issues when it comes to this nominee. you can see americans are divided here. that is a change. back in the old days, pack in the day, tony, if a judge was qualified, senators would most likely vote for that judge. nowadays it's much more partisan, tony. >> wow! is there -- i don't know, can we get along on anything? can we agree on anything? is there anything in the polls that people actually agree on, paul? >> there is something. it may not be a big

our polling director said that number is higher than the number of republicans who felt that ruth bader ginsburguld not be confirmed in the '90s. >> our polling broke it down a couple other ways too. there was a question about her qualification versus her stand on issues. >> let's go to that one. that's very interesting. americans are pretty split here. if the senators feel that sonya sotomayor is qualified, the americans are split on whether senators should vote against her because of her stand on the issues. that hasn't changed. remember, back in the old days, the common fault was if a nominee was qualified, the issue shouldn't get in the way. obviously, this town has become a lot more partisan, ali. >> we are going to be watching to see how the interesting thing is how public opinion can have an impact on what the senators do next week. am i right? >> public opinion can have an impact on that. it all starts on monday. there are 19 senators, 12 democrats, 7 republicans. i think republicans will have tough questions for her on her stans on affirmative action and gun rights. >>> let's talk about

coleman, a senator of minnesota, was also a graduate of that school, and i also understand that ruth bader ginsburg also graduated from that high school. i'm sure there are others. my message to norm coleman is that i've been involved in close elections. i lost an election for the united states senate many, many years ago by 524 votes. i won one, not too many years ago by 428 votes. so i have some appreciation for what norm coleman and his opponent, al franken, went through. and my thoughts during these past eight months have been directed toward the difficulty they've had in their lives as a result of that close election. one of my elections, the one that i won by 428 votes, took six weeks. i can't imagine one taking eight months. it was a hard-fought campaign. almost three million people voted. it was decided by 312 votes. i appreciate, as i think the people of minnesota and the senate and the country, norm coleman not taking this to the supreme court or to some higher court. he could have done that and he didn't do that. it speaks well of him that he didn't do that. he has a lot of fans, of cour

. >> i know that senator hatch voted to confirm the democratic nominee steven brier and ruth bader ginsburg during the bill clinton administration. did chuck grassley vote to confirm both of those democratic nominees do we know? >> have the votes here. we can see. supported all senate -- all supreme court nominees since joining the senate. that one of the wonders of having the magic wall and data at your disposal. he opposed sotomayor at the lower level but supported all supreme court picks again. he is one of the old toer, traditional senators who says president wins the election, a president gets his choice unless the judge is unqualified. because of this, he might say he can't support her now but the white house in private conversations with him believe it is possible. >> very interesting stuff. candy crowly, the next questioner is going to be lindsey graham, republican of south carolina. he, yesterday, made the pointed no one supported john mccain more aggressively, more enthusiastically than he did. and john mccain lost. barack obama won. elections have consequences. >> absolutely. and

ruth bader ginsburg got 92, votes. er i think 89, 90, 91.nyo you think she's going to get? >> 87. we put the over/un 85 origally. i think you' right. i think it's going to be pretty high. >>ike allen, thk you very, very much. >> you all have great day. >>hank you, mike. >> for the politico "playbook." >> this is very interesting. >> this isvery intesting. thiss called news jument. >> hold theseup "new york times" put putin once againacting asdisinterested as humanly possible abov the fold but not "the washington post." they put the michael jackson serve above the fold. news jugment, i would personally go with "the new york time decisn. what do thether papers say? was there some subt? >> tnew yorkabloids have really covered it all. there's the daily news. ars for daddy. here "the new york post." bye, d. >> okay let's go to some of the graphi, "the wall street journal." oil speculators under f >>hiis diculous. >> also in "the washington post," power of stimulus slow to take hold. "houston chronic jackson honored in song and speech. that's a lo

. >> because we do know that, for example, ruth bader ginsburg, she at one point in her career was activeagainst her. >> but this judge has said that her views and her empathy for people are something that may affect the facts she chooses to see in a case. so, here it's especially important to know what her views are. and she wasn't just in this organization. she was the head of the litigation committee. "the new york times" said she strongly supported the work of that committee. so, i think it's going to be incumbent upon her to say, yes, these were my views, of course they were, but i understand my view as a justice on the supreme court would be not to advance my views but to obey the rule of the law. >> chuck grassley, another republican senator from iowa, he made this point. i'm going to play a clip. >> president obama clearly believes that you measure up to his empathy standard. that worries me. i reviewed your record and have concerns about your judicial philosophy. >> we heard from that from several of the republican senators. this whole empathy thing, she's burdened by that not be