sonia sotomayor says i understand that but i feel differently. i know that i wouldn't be where i am today but for the benefits of affirmative action. i don't want anyone to be denied that opportunity. it doesn't undermine my sense of self. my ego is intact. when you look at that you say what is the personal experience have to do with the constitution, written on parchment in the national archives under glass, it has everything to do with it. what does it mean to deny people but equal protection of the loss? that is a concept you can't define al gore rhythmically, mathematically through some robotic computer program, you have to give it meaning and the only way to give it meaning is in terms of your life lesson justices are a lot better than others and being open and candid about what it is in there and experience that brings them where they are. i tend to appreciate that candor. i think the people of the united states are smart enough not to equate it with these judges are not being judicious. back there. >> you mentioned we would be surprised, t

and justice zone owe sonia sotomayor writes this piece that draws from her experience that has not gotten beyond race and says, look at me, look at me and people like me before you say that the way to get beyond race is to get beyond race. the way to get beyond race is to talk about it and to acknowledge what it is to be an oud outsider in this country. and this isn't the america we experience. we as women, we as minorities, we as people seeking justice at the hands of the court system, this isn't the america we see. so i think there's a real pushback in the decents that says it may be that you have gotten beyond race. the rest of us are still really struggling. >> so in the hobby lobby case, are they framing corporations possessing more rights as persons than people as individuals? corporations? >> i think you have to understand hobby hobby setting it alongside the other cases. town of greece against galloway, which upheld the recitation of christian prayers at the start of town board meetings in this upstate new york town. and this practice was challenged by two nonchristian citizens wh

clarence thomas, samuel alito, stephen breyer and sonia sotomayor. that was not that atypical. in lots of difficult and divisive cases, you get these unusual alignments. there was a decision that the book deals with this some detail where kennedy led a 5-3 majority. kagan was recused. he struck down most of arizona's "show me your papers" anti-immigrant law. scalia wrote a dissent that called the court's decision mind-boggling. he went out of his way and outside the record of the case to attack obama for something unrelated to the case. his use of executive power to favor the immigrant children known as dreamers. the "washington post," which usually selects the president or a senator or a cabinet member for the honor, bestowed on scalia its "worst week in washington" prize, partly because he was also outvoted in the obamacare decision that came down three days later. those are just some examine kpam pls and the book deals with them, explains them, gives you a way to understand them. it's not just tune usual alignments in cases decided by a bare majority that expose the fallacy

clarence thomas, samuel alito and sonia sotomayor. that was not that atypical in lots of difficult and divisive cases you get these in usual un alignments. there was a decision that the ea books deals with in some detai where kennedy led a 5-3 majority. kagan was recused. striking down most of arizona's show me your papers, anti-immigrant law. way scalia called the court's decision mind-boggling. he went outtack of his way to ak obama for something unrelated te the case, his use of executive power to favor the immigrant kn children known as dreamers. the washington post, which post" usually selects the president or a senator or a cabinet member for the honor, bestowed on scalia its worst week.beca partly because he was also outvoted in the obama care decision that came down three days later, those are just somem examples in the inbook.s and deals with tthem, explains the gives you a way to understand pt them. it's not just the unusual alignments in cases decided by e mayor -- sort of a bear majority that exposed the fallacy of the inc

finally, almost of almost eight months later a federal judge, sonia sotomayor, ruled against the ownersust in time for the '95 season, but there was no joy in mudville. 20 years ago. today. >> we'll have live coverage of the president's address on the political situation in iraq, 45 minutes from now. "your world" begins right now. >> thank you, shepard. killed at the border and now the family of slain border agent javier vega speaking out. not over what the government should do now but what it absolutely positively should not do now. welcome everybody, i'm neil cavuto. days after laying their loved one to rest the family of officer vega is worried the two illegals accused of gunning him down could escape american justice. the suspects reportedly deported numerous times before this shooting and the family wants to make darn sure that doesn't happen again. natalie vega is officer vega's all-star. -- the

. >> counsel, we don't -- >> justice sonia sotomayor. >> assuming you hear the resistance of some members of the court to sitting at are bitters of what is sectarian and nonsectarian, and i join skepticism in drawing the line. assuming you accept that, what would be the test that you would proffer, taking out your preferred announce the prayer has to be nonsectarian. >> the test we have proffererred point thursday which believers are known to disagree so don't have to be a theologian. point chons people are commonly known to disagree. the fourth circuit has had no difficulty administering this rule. the cases that come to it clearly sectarian -- >> enforcing that standard, the standard i suggested, involves the state very heavily in the censorship and the approval or disapproval of prayers. that may ultimately in your position if we say that is why there shouldn't be any prayer at all. but then you have the problem mentioned by justice scalia, we're misrepresenting who we really are. >> if you really believe government can't draw lines your alternatives are either prohibit the prior entir