that was the time when two very young lawyers join the team, john roberts and samuel alito. you had the first george bush, two nominations, one of whom will step down this summer, and bill clinton put two moderate liberals on the court. but there was a long time, 11 years, in which there were no vacancies on the court, quite historic. during that time, if you were to some of the rehnquist court, you would have to say that there were some extraordinary movements. i mentioned several of them. but there was not a solid phalanx of conservatives. this was a time when the center held. justice o'connor's vote mattered a great deal. then came 2005. this extraordinary sequence of events where and president bush had rehnquist, and samuel alito had rehnquist, and samuel alito was nominated that was the conclusion of the concluding chapter of the rehnquist court and the beginning of the roberts court. what i thought i would do before it turned to the panel is give you a glance -- the saudis will be familiar, some may not be. not so much about how the court has changed in trial terms, bu

interestingly enough, that was the time that john roberts and samuel alito be began to cut their teeth in washington affairs at that time. you had, of course, the first george bush, two nominations to the court, one of whom will step down this summer, and then of course bill clinton put two moderate liberals on the court, but the turnover during that time -- then there was that long period. you are remember, 11 years went by in which there were no vacancies on the court? quite historic. during that time, if you were to sort of sum up the rehnquist court, you would have to say that there were some extraordinary movements, i mentioned some of them, but there wasn' a solid phalanx of conservative votes. this was a period in which the center held justice o'connor's vote matter add great deal, so roe vs. wade was not overturned. affirmative action survived, and substantive due process that i mentioned. then came 2005, the extraordinary sequence of events which seemed a few weeks in time in which president bush nominated john roberts to fill o'connor's seat and then justice rehnquist died an

sotomayor is more than three weeks, more than 30% shorter than the time for considering justice samuel alito's comparable judicial record. there was no legitimate reason for this stunted and rushed timetable, but that is what the majority has imposed on us, and that is where we are today. so i want to take a few minutes this morning to take a look at judge sotomayor's judicial record on a very important issue to me, and i think many others in this body: the right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment to the constitution. some can be quite selective about constitutional rights, prizing some while ignoring others. some even trumpet rights that are not in the constitution at all, as more important than those that are right there on the page. it appears that judge sotomayor has taken a somewhat dim view of the second amendment. two issues related to the scope and vitality of the right to keep and bear arms are whether it is a fundamental right and whether the amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government. on each of these issues, judge sotomayor has chosen

then senator obama voted against both john roberts and against samuel alito. in our meeting, my meeting with judge roberts, he talked about baseball. and about the courts. in his analogy on baseball and gave a great anatural genuine he said -- quote -- "it's a bad thing when the umpire is the most watched person on the field o now, imagine that, watching a baseball game and the thing you're watching the most is the umpire because the umpire is a umpire and a player. how confusing. how difficult. and what a wrong way to have a going. he, of course, judge roberts, was alluding to the current situation where the legislature can pass a law, the executive sign it, but everybody waits holding their breath to see what the courts will do with it. unfortunately, judge sotomayor seems to me far too interested in being both an umpire and an active player. prior to becoming a federal judge, sonia sotomayor spent more than a decade on the board of directors of the puerto rican defense and education fund. a september 25, 1992 article in the "new york times" referred to judg

the record of the last two nominees to the supreme court, chief justice john roberts or justice samuel alito. now, i mention chief justice roberts and justice sam alito who did not give us anywhere near as clear a record or complete a record but i don't recall a single republican saying we did not have a complete record before we considered their nominations. of course, their nominations were by a republican president, for those two men, their nomination was by a republican president. for those two men, for the supreme court. this woman is nominated by a democratic president even though she has given a more complete record, somehow that's not enough. it was more than enough for the two men nominated by a republican president; not enough for this woman nominated by democratic president. but we have judge sonia sotomayor's record for the federal bench. it's a public record. we had it even before she was designated by the president. as i said, we have her record. from when she was first nominated to the federal bench by federal george h.w. bush and we have her record after she became a member o

nominate someone to the supreme court, i think i may have gone more with someone like john roberts or samuel alito my view of the world. i would like to see conservatives nominated to the supreme court. nothing personal to the nominee. the president has made his call. he won the election. there will be a debate in the senate over whether or not she ought to be confirmed, and i look forward to the hearings. just like a lot of other people do. it is not my nomination to make, but if it were, i think i would never nominated somewhat more conservative. >> the question on social issues. given iowa and elsewhere, is some form of legalized gay marriage inevitable in the united states? >> well, i think freedom means freedom for everyone. as many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and that is something that we have lived with for a long time. . >> tonight on "q&a" indiana republican governor mitch daniels. later, prime minister gordon brown on the resignations of cabinet members.

let me focus on the process followed to consider the previous supreme court nominee, justice samuel alito. he had served on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit for more than 15 years when he was nominated to the supreme court. this was five years longer than judge sotomayor has served on the second circuit and nearly the same as judge sotomayor's combined judicial service on both the district and circuit courts. the other party demanded and was granted 70 days from the announcement of the nomination to the hearing to stu then-judge alito's record. the senator from pennsylvania, senator specter, was chairman at the time. he made no unilateral partisan announcements. he imposed no truncated, limited time frame. he consulted the ranking member, and they agreed that there would be 70 days to study that voluminous judicial record. oh, what a difference an election makes. with the unilateral partisan edict announced today by the chairman, we're being given only 48 days to study the same lengthy record. we are told that we must consider the largest judicial record in a century in the