justice sotomayor: thank you. are you related? >> yes. justice sotomayor: does he treat you well? she is not talking. [laughter] come on, you two. the only people who get pictures who don't ask questions are kids. thank you for being here. bill: justice we have a question , in the front. i'm sorry did you have a question. i didn't know she had the microphone. justice sotomayor: tell me who you are. >> my name is jessica. justice sotomayor: hello, jessica. what do you do? >> i am a security guard at the metropolitan museum. justice sotomayor: do you ever walk around just to look question mark >> yes. i traveled all the way from new york just to see you and i have read your whole book and i was very touched by it. justice sotomayor: thank you.

[laughter] justice sotomayor: okay. all right, i'm coming this way. >> i'm a private sector attorney representing the pharmaceutical injury -- industry in front of the fda. my question is who the predecessors are to your chair on the supreme court and if any of those specifically inspired you since you have their care. justice sotomayor: oh, interesting. hello, how are you? thank you for being here. i will say the following. i consider one former justice to be a mentor and that is john paul stevens, who i overlapped with for only one year. i still think of him as a mentor because he taught me to have the courage to speak when i thought speaking was important, even if others did not agree. and when you think about the group dynamics involved in a conglomerate of nine individuals, you realize there is a lot of pressure to conform with the majority, and if there isn't pressure to conform with the full nine there is pressure to conform with their subgroup. deviation is not something that is looked upon favorably by people w

justice sotomayor: no.hen i spoke to justice breyer he was tell me he only conversationsse because it was so easy to excite me. i am aware of those conversations. i think everyone is. you are seven years now on the court, correct? justice sotomayor: my eighth. back, was there any one case that was the toughest one for you to decide or come to grips with, or a couple of them? justice sotomayor: i'm not trying to be cute or avoid your question, that i will answer in a different way, which is, i think every case is hard. and every case is hard for one simple reason. when we decide a case, we automatically choose a winner. we declare ation loser. the one thing i'm very conscious of, much more than i ever was when i was on the lower courts, as you know i was a district court judge, i had not appreciated before coming to this court how much comfort i took from knowing that they were courts above me that could fix my worst mistakes. there is no court above me. when we render a decision, we had really declared some

justice sotomayor: tell me who you are. >> my name is jessica. justice sotomayor: hello, jessica. what do you do? >> i am a security guard at the metropolitan museum. justice sotomayor: do you ever walk around just to look question mark >> yes. i traveled all the way from new york just to see you and i have read your whole book and i was very touched by it. justice sotomayor: thank you. >> i don't have any special title in life but i want to know. justice sotomayor: we all do. do you like what you do? >> it is doable for now. i like it, but is not my passion. justice sotomayor: so you have got to work at finding your passion. >> i'm in my 20s and for somebody like you who has lived a lot in life, but would your advice be when you are sometimes hopeless and discouraged in any aspect or spectrum of your life? justice sotomayor: it's a hard one. i understand it because they see so many people who live with that. i'm not perfect. i get discouraged and i get sad and there are moments in my life where i thought life is hard. >> where i thought, why do i bother. life is hard. you can't c

>> he would, justice sotomayor, for the very reason that you yourself articulated. in that situation there is a gift of information to someone with the intent that the person trade. >> so it's irrelevant whether it's a friend or family member? >> my submission is that the best way to understand dirks is that it goes to a breach of fiduciary duty which would not be limited to two categories like that and i don't think that justice powell in articulating this species of personal benefit was attempting to rely on it. i was trying to explain this before to justice breyer. at the end of the opinion where the court precisely says that seecrist is not liable because he didn't make any financial advantage, it goes on to say nor did he make a gift of valuable information to dirks. the court didn't say, well, dirks wasn't a close friend, he want a relative therefore he is out of the picture. the court applied gift analysis in that situation precisely because the line the court was trying to draw was between the use of appropriate information and inappropriate use. >> i get yo

>> it does, indeed, justice sotomay sotomayor. as a result, we think that regardless of whether you take the article 3 approach to standing in this case, or take a more narrow formulation that depends on the fact that it is tied to violations of the act, the city of miami has standing. and the -- i don't understand either bank in their briefs to disagree with us on that, as long as we make those pleadings. so it seems odd that we would be prevented from making those pleadings as explicit as possible. >> do you think you were a direct victim of discrimination because it seems to me that the damages that you seek are not going to be paid to those who were the direct victims of the discrimination? >> we are seeking -- we are a direct victim. this court has repeatedly and inn all three cases dealing with fair housing act realizes it is direct and indirect damages at issue. plaintiffs who are indirectly harmed are also harmed. we're suing for our own injuries. >> your injuries are derivative of the injury of the homeowner whose had the

just a sotomayor you are correct.gations are about emotional distress and they're not about this pocket costs under the i.d.e.a.. we are not seeking the type of relief the defendants they are available under the i.d.e.a.. we are we are not seeking reimbursement of educational expenses and compensatory compensation. there is no iep between the defendants in my client at this point. we do not have standing to assert prospective relief. >> yours is an ideal situation for the purposes you are arguing but how about the mixed complaints because that's what's been bothering my colleagues from the beginning. let's assume that you have wrought this case not after you have moved her bed while she was still in the school and you didn't say as you conceded now that you don't want the facts changed. the complaint says they haven't let the service dog in. it's causing and has caused emotional distress. we want damages. it's not clear that you do want the facts changed. what happens? >> i want to answer that question let me say one

i am a big fan of sonja sotomayor. she had me at hello. i commissioned an artist. majority of them. >> they are stunning. since we are on the subject of drinking, we took a trip to bollinger vineyards to see how they make their vintage champagnes. >> in the heart of the french there are the old french vines. in the mid-1800s, they were ravaged almost 40%. this small plot of bollinger never caught the disease. i do not know when. >> about 40 workers specially trained to handle the delicate, extra right grapes, harvest the whole plot in just two hours. the grapes are immediately pressed on the bollinger property. barrel to taken from bottle. >> you put the bottle in our seller and when the wind is ready, we sell it. we sell 1000, 2000, or 5000 bottles a year. -- eurosls for about and up to 5000 for older vintages. >> it is very powerful and very fresh. it is amazing what goes into a bottle of champagne. pothat goes better with a -- a glass of champagne then something very sweet. we went behind the scenes to this bill are to see how the magic is made. ♪ >> being a pas

. >> that supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talks about the court, justice scalia and gender bias. she also addresses a question about the presidential election results. this is one hour 10 minutes. [applause] >> well, a lovely way to spend a tuesday night. thank you for joining us. well, thank you much for being here. it's an honor to have you. i'm diana ingraham, executive director at hill said of the old naval hospital. we have lots of things going on in this building and i'm very curious, how many folks have never been in the building before? well. [laughter] check out all the materials on your seats. this is a special year for hill center. i think everyone got one of our preservation fund brochures. we are celebrating the fifth anniversary of hill centers opening of the 150th anniversary of the first naval hospital, the old naval hospital in washington. it takes a lot of time, energy and funding to keep this beautiful 150 year old building in its listing state. please join our 150th anniversary circle so that we can have these people programs for your great grandchildren, gre

i'm a big fan of sonia sotomayor. she is a type one diabetic like myself. she had me at hello.ioned an artist. she did the majority of them. she does great work. emma: they are stunning. thank you so much. since we are on the subject of drinking, we took a trip to bollinger vineyards to see how they make their vintage champagnes. >> in the heart of france's wine country, there is a very special champagne made in the bollinger vineyards. vines"ns "old french fin because it is made from rare vines. a disease-1800's, ravaged almost 40% of france's vineyards. this small plot of bollinger never caught the disease. >> i do not know until when either. maybe in europe, we will have normal. >> about 40 workers specially trained to handle the delicate, extra ripe grapes, harvest the whole plot in just two hours. the grapes are immediately pressed on the bollinger property. it is then taken from barrel to bottle. >> you put the bottle in our cellar and when the wine is ready, we sell it. we sell 1000, 2000, or 5000 bottles a year. >> a bottle sells for about 800 euros for the latest relea

and that was not true by the time sonia sotomayor and i came around. all the judges wanted you to be there clerk and i never faced that kind of discrimination. i didn't because of the incredible work and efforts that people like justice ginsburg and justice o'connor made. judge williams: that applied to me too. i am not in their group. [laughter] justice kagan: i did not mean to. judge williams: i know that. [laughter] judge williams: you mentioned opportunities and one of the things because a lot of these students do want to go into public interest. a lot of them are thinking is to go after they graduate from law school. you clerked on the d.c. circuit and you clerked for justice thurgood marshall. when you talk about the importance of clerkships and what it meant to you to clerk for those two extraordinary justices? justice kagan: i was extraordinary lucky. clerking in general is a great thing to do. not everybody but for many people. it gives you a sense of how the law works, a different sort of sense than you have from law extraordinary lucky. scho

it's what chief justice -- supreme court justice sonia sotomayor said about going to -- when she would go to the island of puerto rico, she would see people like her. she would see the lawyers, the doctors that she wouldn't see in the bronx. >> exactly. >> so how important is that -- to have those mentors, to see people like you? >> well, i was fortunate enough to spend my life going to venezuela very often, so i did get to see this incredible culture, professionals. my cousins were taking incredible classes and doing so well in the universities, and the art of venezuela i owe so much to seeing what latinos accan hieve in the arts. so for me, that was really instrumental in pushing me forward. >> and it's a beautiful country. >> it is. >> and so how do we get people to understand that we have to invest in these kids now for the future of california? 15 seconds. >> sure. i think economics. giving a child an opportunity will not only change that child's future, it will change that family's economic forecast, period, and by extension, that community's forecast. so by extension, some of th

and so as a result -- >> this pretty much struck havens and gladstone. >> it does, indeed, justice sotomayor. regardless if you take the article 3 approach to standing in this case or narrow formulation that depends on the fact that we are agreed with violations of the act, the city of miami has standing and the -- i don't understand either bank in their briefs as long as we make those pleadings. it seems odd that we would be prevented from making those pleadings as explicit as possible in rule 15. >> do you think you're a direct victim of discrimination because it seems to me that the damages that you seek are not going to be paid to those who were the direct victims of the discrimination. >> we are seeking -- we are a direct victim. the court has repeatedly in all three cases stealing with standing under the fair housing act recognize that it's direct and incorrect damages that are at issue that plaintiffs who are indirectly harmed are also harmed. we do not have patriotic status to sue for our residents. >> injuries are derivative of the injury to the home owners who had subprime mortgage

that's why i don't think he had an answer on the magazine or things like that and when justice is sotomayor you asked him about gardener, that cannot be a theory on the court on proximate cause principles for many reasons. it's not brief to argue but second the language that's he's read to go you is at the end of gladstone saying that if you have reduction in property values it would reduce tax base. you have five steps as brief explains before you even get to the reduction in property values. each of those are opportunities for intervening causes and all the kinds of things that the court said are the reasons why we cut off liability at the first step. his.other answer was to say that they were concerned with cities, that congressional report says that congress is equally concerned with employers who stufferred from segregated neighborhoods, employees who were fired because the neighborhoods suffered from blight and other things. if you take their standard, look at the congressional report, figure out who is harmed by housing discrimination even downstream, you would come to the same concl

justice o'connor, she's been there for the last 10 years but nobody calls her justice sotomayor t. [laughter] >> this happened with a the mail justices that were confused so what is thatwhat i like in oral argument when i first arguta case in 1983 there were not very many questions but now justice thomas famously very seldom asks a question because he feels there is a lot of questions being asked by his colleagues and has his reasons but now they ask questions all the time. water you trying to accomplish when you are asking questions? retrying to find something now that string and weakness or you speaking to your colleagues? >> but then to answer that but talking past aggregate to each other to influence the way about the case. to be in court to in the same building you could talk to your colleagues without the presence of lawyers in oral argument doesn't that dialogue takes place among the justices prior to oral arguments quick. >> said that would be a discussion of the case. >> we don't discuss before rico on the bench to be prepared for that argument that there are no opinions a

. >> it is such an honor to welcome to hill center, sonia sotomayor. supreme justice of the united states. it's a simple format. bill and her honor will be in conversation for about a half hour. then we'll open it up to q & a. we are taping this for our youtube channel. so charlotte will be passing around a microphone, please wait for the microphone, and please try and be very efficient and crisp and quick in questions for the justice. she has requested that we not photograph or videotape the conversation. so let's respect her wishes on that front. and let me turn it over to bill. >> we're ready to go. thank you, thank you diana. and justice such fun and such an honor to have you with us tonight. we have had at these programs, a bishops, and nuns. and u.s. senators and members of the president's cabinet never a justice of the supreme court. so it's nice. [ applause ] >> thank you. it's nice occasionally being a first. >> yes, made a life of it. as i reporter and member of the with us press corps. i was there when president obama announced your appointm

kagan and sotomayor were all highly qualified and why that was not the only consideration taken intont. both for justice scalia's death, qualifiedrts said a candidate should not only get a hearing will be confirmed. host: you are on with our guest. caller: hello? thank you so much. thank you for c-span. i am concerned about our supreme court. when i first called in, i have been a loft lying -- lifelong democrat. i've switched to the republican party. for that very reason. ginsburg can bader talk about our political atmosphere, they are supposed to be nonbiased and do nothing but protect our constitution. and i think that was wrong. and i am voting republican. i want to save our supreme court so that we do not have this bias i want to republican in their for several reasons. i believe our christianity is under attack. our right to bear arms and protect unborn children. justice ginsburg -- guest: justice ginsburg made comments about donald trump and she said she made mistakes and justices should not comment about nominees. host: how much of a political issue has it been this cycle? --

anthony kennedy a nixon appointee joins with the four democratic appointees, kagan, sotomayor, five justicesfor abortion and replacing justice scalia when president trump will announce shortly will not affect the overall balance. the question is who leaves next? ruth ginsburg is 83. >> talk she wanted to retire, obviously reconsidering at this point. >> i don't think she wanted to retire. liberals angry for not leaving when president obama had a democratic majority in the senate. same with stephen br'eier. and anthony kennedy, those three of the five justices in the pro-choice majority in the supreme court of all elderly. >> so when you think of the issues that -- we've talked about abortion. talked about same-sex marriage. what other issues do you think could come before the court, or the clock is really ticking on them? >> i think there will be a lot of issues related to immigration. you know? obviously there will be a big increase in deportation. maybe not all 11 million. maybe 3 million, but a lot of those cases are going to confined up before the courts. what are -- what's the resolutio

it depends how if it's another sotomayor who doesn't care a whit about the constitution and simply wantslegislate her political beliefs. >> are you comfortable with john mccain saying i don't care who it is sight unseen i'm going to block anybody for four years. >> no. i'm not comfortable with that i think you are right, you have to vet the person. but if it's somebody who is going to keep this country going down the road you can kill a baby up to five minutes before it's born, that's serious business. and we're in serious business. >> listen. i asked that question in the debate. >> right. >> about late term partial birth abortion. >> and hillary clinton is fine with it. >> she is certainly not opposed to it. >> she is fine with it if it impacts a woman's health in any way, shape, or form.ed backn she said that i said what kind of country is this now? >> she also says that a fetus has no constitutional rights, none. >> hillary is not only a queen she is god. that's why on wednesday i think some people are going to be so unsettled. chris wallace, everybody, will be with the election team.

sonia sotomayor associate justice of the supreme court of united states, it's a very simple format. bill and her honor will be in conversation for half an hour and we will open it up to q&a. we are taping this for our youtube channel so charlotte will be passing around the microphone. please try and be very crisp and quick in questions for the justice. she has requested that we not photograph or videotape the conversation, so let's respect her wishes on that front and let me turn it over to bill. >> we are ready to go. thank you diana and justice it's such fun in such an odd in such a not too happy you with us tonight. we have had these programs bishops and nuns and u.s. senators and members of the president's cabinet, never a justice of the supreme court. [applause] >> thank you. it's nice to occasionally being a first. >> you have made a life of it. as a reporter of the members of the white house press corps i was there in the east room of the white house when president obama announced your white house house -- your -- and it's so exciting to see you settle into the cord and exert

after that, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talks about the late justice antonin scalia and lifen the court. and then kevin brady discusses trade policy and economic growth. [applause] >> now, president obama takes part in a town hall meeting in lima, peru, where he is attending the economic cooperation meetings. this is about one hour hand 15 minutes. [applause] >> we should not waste our time. i admire.one and follow his example of service to others. mr. president, thank you for being a dreamer that believes in a young people and provides big opportunities like the american initiative. for younger leaders. [applause] >> so -- [applause] welcoming to the united states the mr. president. ] aughter and applause president obama: thank you. hola, peru! muchas gracias. thank you so much. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. thank you, cynthia feher kind -- cynthia are your kind words and your great work here in peru and bringing people together across generations to meet challenges. please give cynthia a round of applause. [applause] president obama: it is wonderful to be here a

but justice sotomayor was not on the top of any list, nor was justice kagan.e very qualified and i don't see the difference between president obama and president trump and there are people on that trump list, that are very substantial minds and reliable substantial minds and reliable conservatives. >> there are some people who want donald trump to nominate somebody young so they will remain on the court for a long period of time. >> presidents of late like to do that. so if you look at that list of 20 and you knock off anybody who is let's say 60 or older, and anybody who's particularly young and not very seasoned you'll get a list of ten or 12 people. you can call that the short list if you want. i mean we're never going to know -- people have surprised us in life and in the history of the court, you know, earl warren, who was a great liberal leader, nobody expected him to be what he turned out to be. >> right. >> so, this is -- in some sense, you can't really foresee what's going to happen, but they want as good as they can of a guarantee. >> nina, jonathan,

i voted for sotomayor and kagan not because i would have picked them, because i thought they were qualified. if you know anything about me, you shouldn't be surprised. i can tell you, if i disagree with the president, i have a different view of russia. i don't think putin's our friend. i'm going to investigate along with my other colleagues the role russia is playing in the world, what they have done in the mideast and syria, what they have done to the baltics, what they are trying to do, what they have done to the crimea and what role if any they had in terms of hacking into our elections. i'm going to push back when i need to push back but my philosophy is pretty sound here. i try to help presidents, including donald trump, because he's president and congratulations to donald trump. >> well, i'm glad you brought up russia. i was just going to ask you, besides russia, because you just brought it up, where do you see differences that you do intend to stand up to the president-elect on? >> i don't know what he's going to do with assad but i see assad as a butcher of damascus, that his contin

>> correct justice sotomayor, but that was also not information flowing from the insider to his brother. what we charged in this case were the circumstances -- >> no, i'm not talking about, there are three examples of breaching con if i den she'conf. the first was to become more knowledgeable in the health industry. the second was to help the father with his medical care. the third, the one you charge, is giving up information knowing his brother was going to trade on it. how do you draw the line for those three? all three for personal reasons? >> no. but the only one that involved knowledge or anticipation of trading were the circumstances in which the brother was basically funding his older wroerj security trading. >> so if all he did it for was to get information for his father, had no idea hs brother was trading, he would not be liable and his brother wouldn't be liable. >> i agree with the first but not the second. if i could explain briefly. that there are two theorys of insider trading. one is classical insider trading where an insider whose been given the information for a corpo

kennedy, ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor and kagan all voted last term for just those, you know, to invalidateking about. and those five are still on the court, even if trump replaces scalia with a, you know, similarly conservative person, he needs one of those five to leave. now, since three of the five are over 75 and all three will be over 80 soon, it stands to reason that he may get the chance. and then roe and all the abortion restrictions are really -- i mean, then -- >> in terms of a timeline for that, beyond the unnoble time line of when justices might leave, or when and if they are going to leave, the actual time line of being able to reverse sympathetic, how long does something like that take or chip away? >> it can go pretty quickly, but the supreme court vacancy story of when the justices leave, that's the key variable here. nothing else really matters except the composition of the court. we now have at least four years of a trump presidency. we have three very elderly justices, who are roe v. wade supporters. their tenure on the court is the most important question about roe v. wa

remind you that the two nominees president obama has put before the senate, justice kagan and justice sotomayori voted against these individuals. i have taken approach when it comes to ensuring there is an opportunity for an up or down vote, particularly when we look at district court judge nominations, filibustering is not an approach that i think is appropriate. i have allowed for judges to go forward so they can receive an up or down vote. in terms of a rubberstamp on any president's nominees, i have not done that. i think it is reflected in the votes that i have made as it relates to the supreme court justices. >> thank you. mr. miller: part of the standard announced by your senior judiciary staff, this is a recent wikileaks e-mail, your staff was quoted as saying this judge lou -- if he is not a child molester, i don't think that's the appropriate standard to be applied. i would also note when you supported merrick garland, there is a split in the supreme court. had he gotten the vote and going forward the second amendment would be dead. >> your question for one of your opponents? ms. stoc

. >> justice sotomayor, it is not very different. it is a plain jane definition of person agrieved. it doesn't look like what you are talking about, the endangered species act, which allows any person to sue. their interpretation, if it is accepted, you would be doing something for the first time in the federal code, there is no all-comers damages statute that allows anyone to sue the way their interpretation was. in approximate cause, our main point is this court in lexmark said there is a general rule, an independent argument from zone of interest, a general rule that says that liability is cut off after the first step. if you adopt this theory of the complaint, you are accepting six-step liability in a way that this court has never done before. at most, this court in lexmark unanimously said you can expand it a little bit beyond the first step for a kind of one to one relationship. here, this complaint is seeking damages for the foreclosure crisis of 2008, something that is way, way beyond anything this court has insisted on. >> when you said to me that the complaint that i wrote

justice sotomayor, you're correct, we're seeking money damages for emotional distress. that's what our allegations are. we are not seeking any of the types of relief the defendants say are available under the i.d.e.a. we are not seeking reimbursement of educational expenses or counseling. we're not seeking to change an i.e.p., whether through declaratory judgment or otherwise, because there's no i.e.p. between the defendants and my clients. we do not have standing to assert relief -- >> yours is an ideal situation, conceded for the purposes you're arguing. but how about the mixed complaints? because that's what has been bothering my colleagues from the beginning, okay? let's assume that you had brought this case not after you had moved her, but while she was still in the school. >> right. >> and you didn't say, as you have conceded now, that you don't want the fact changed. the complaint says they haven't let the service dog in. it's causing and has caused emotional disstress. we want damages. it's not clear, but you do want the fact changed. what happens? >> okay. i wa

the most frequent -- recent commercial speech case we have was the five conservatives and justice sotomayor arguing in favor of broad protection. three justices arguing in protection of a narrow one. all of the justices basically from the left, ginsburg, brian, kagan. the formal rule has -- excuse me, the legal rule has also changed over the years. in the mid-1970's, it looked like commercial speech would get a lot of protection. from the early 1980's to the mid to late 1980's, it looked like the court was retreating from that, chiefly driven by the conservative wing. since the 1990's, there has been more more protection for commercial speech. by commercial speech i mean commercial advertising. that is what that label means. it is not all speech sold in commerce. the formal legal test seem to remain what it was before, which is to be protected, commercial speech has to be not false, not misleading -- and their interesting questions what that means -- and not proposing an illegal transaction. once we propose the speech is true and proposes a legal transaction, the government can still restri

. >> that supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talks about the court, justice scalia and gender bias. she also addresses a question about the presidential election results. this is one hour 10 minutes. [applause]

i think, that we have seen that to some extent with justice sotomayor, we are seeing the impact of somebody who actually was a prosecutor and saw how the rulings play out. i think that's the biggest failing, is that we have too many judges who fit one particular mold which a lot of us on this panel fit, you know, did fairly well in law school and appellate judges and went onto talk about these issues, you know, appellate sense or people who are law professors. but i think it's important that the person actually have real-life experience, not only as a litigator but also experience being on the end of the actual cases. >> we only have a few minutes left. >> i will be really brief, amanda. let's keep in mind what we are talking about here. these are made-up limits by judges on keeping people from getting into court. i don't think any current member of the court believes that. when the plaintiff dies, your case gets dismissed. justice ginsburg says it puts limit on jurisdiction. you can't be hauled into a court on the other side of the country if you don't have a sufficient number of contacts

remind you that the two nominees president obama has put before the senate, justice kagan and justice sotomayorvoted against these individuals. i have taken approach when it comes to ensuring there is an opportunity for an up or down vote, particularly when we look at district court judge nominations, filibustering is not an approach that i think is appropriate. i have allowed for judges to go forward so they can receive an up or down vote. in terms of a rubberstamp on any president's nominees, i have not done that. i think it is reflected in the boats that i have made as it relates to the supreme court justices. >> thank you. mr. miller: part of the standard announced by your senior judiciary staff, this is a recent wikileaks e-mail, your staff was quoted as saying this is respect to judge lou -- i don't think that's the appropriate standard to be applied. i would also note when you supported merrick garland, there is a split in the supreme court. had he gotten the vote and going forward the second amendment would be dead. >> your question for one of your opponents? ms. stock: joe, you stated

two nominees president obama has put before the senate, justice kagan and so to mayor -- justice sotomayor i voted against these individuals. i have taken approach when it comes to ensuring there is an opportunity for an up or down vote, particularly when we look at district court judge nominations, filibustering is not an approach that i think is appropriate. i have allowed for judges to go forward so they can receive an up or down vote. in terms of a rubberstamp on any president's nominees, i have not done that. i think it is reflected in the boats that i have made as it relates to the supreme court justices. >> thank you. mr. miller: part of the standard announced by your senior judiciary staff, this is a recent wikileaks e-mail, your staff was quoted as saying this -- ispect to judge lou don't think that's the appropriate standard to be applied. i would also note when you supported merrick garland, there is a split in the supreme court. had he gotten the vote and going forward the second amendment would be dead. >> your question for one of your opponents? joe, you stated at this debate

>> correct, justice sotomayor but it also is not information that was flowing from the insider to his brother. what we charged in this case were the circumstances -- >> i'm not talking about that there are three examples of breaching confidentiality. the first was for him to become more knowledgeable of the health industry. the second was to the father with his medical care. and the third, the one you charged, was beginning of information, knowing that his brother was going to trade on a. how do you draw the line among those three? all three were for personal reasons. >> no, but the only one that involve knowledge or anticipation of trading with the circumstances in which the brother was basically funding his older brothers securities trading. >> so if all he did it for was to get information for his father, had no idea that his brother was trading, he would not be liable and his brother wouldn't be liable. >> i agree with the first, not with the second. if i could explain briefly. there are two theories of insider trading. one is classical insider trading were an insider who has been

commercial speech or kwausy commercial speech case ous basically the five conservatives, plus justice sotomayor arguing in favor of protection for commercial speech, broad protection for it. and three justices arguing in favor of narrower one, all of them justices base cically frome left, o'connor and breyer and kagan. the legal rule has also somewhat changed over the years. in the mid-'70s, it looked like commercial speech would get a lot of protection. from the early '80s to the mid to late '80s, it looked like the court was retreating from that, chiefly driven by its conservative wing. since the '90s, there's been more and more protection for commercial speech. by commercial speech, i simply mean commercial advertising. that's what that label means. it's not all speech sold in commerce, movies, books, routinely sold in commerce but commercial advertising. the formal legal test seems to remain what it was before, which is that to be protected, commercial speech has to be not false, not misleading, and there are interesting questions of what that means, and not proposing an illegal transaction

satcha: sotomayor aÑado que no podemos permitir que un presidente fracase. nueva versiÓn del documento no tiene grandes cambios con respecto al original. mientras el presidente juan manuel santos viaja a estados unidos para realizar estudios. cuba, indulta a mÁs de 300 reclusos. se trata de la segunda liberaciÓn masiva desde la visita del papa francisco a la isla. entre tanto, raÚl castro se reuniÓ con el primer ministro canadiense. trascribir seis aÑos postrado en una cama, el hombre mÁs obeso del mundo fue transportado a una clinica. juan pedro franco de 32 aÑos no se puede mover debido a su enorme masa corporal. se acerca la fecha en donde saldrÁn a la venta los tenis nike que se ajustan solos. dos dÍas mÁs tarde, el 1 de diciembre, dos tiendas en nueva york comenzarÁn a ofrecer el codiciado producto. 720 $! bueno... soÑar no cuestan nada. vamos a seguir, aquÍ en "despierta amÉrica". ana cuÉntanos sobre el estado del tiempo hoy que carolina ramÍrez tiene el dÍa libre. ♪ este segmento es presentado por dennys ♪ ana: ello que feliz era de niÑa cuando me sub

anthony, to harriet bman to eleanor roosevelt to sewn -- sonia sotomayor.ueled by the energy and the hopes and dreams of a majority of americans. hillary clinton will shatter the highest, hardest glass ceiling as the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] i guess what i'm saying is this, i believe that she will win. what do you say, new york? [cheers and applause] are you ready to do this one with me? let's go! believe thate -- i she -- i believe that she will win! i believe that she will win! i believe that she will win! i believe that she will win! i believe that she will win! i believe that she will win! i believe that she will win! go, hillary, on to victory! thank you. god bless you. god bless new york. and god bless these great united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> senator, chuck schumer of new york first elected to the senate in 1998 and poised to become the democratic leader with the requirement of harry reid in the united states. he's hoping that will be a majority leader's role if the majority changes hands. and as

i did that when sonja sotomayor was nominated to the supreme court. that's what you do.s your job as a senator. >> any name out there you would propose right now? >> for the supreme court? chris koontz. >> no, for this cabinet that's emerging. >> well, let's just -- i'm just going to see who he brings in. so -- >> dana, let me let you ask a question of the senators you've covered so closely before we go to the audience. where would you like to hear them? >> oh, boy. i'll start with you. senator, you are obviously, you know, a conservative and from a very red state. >> that's why i have red hair. >> exactly. i was just going to say that. but you -- where do you think that you -- you talked about the prayer breakfast and so forth. >> yeah. >> where do you think that you, as a republican, along with democrats, along with president trump can actually get things done? >> i think there's a lot of areas. >> like what's the first thing in real terms, and practically, the first thing you could move through congress, get to his desk that he could sign that would make everybody thi

if would allow landlords to sue, and justice sotomayor gardiners to soon. if you adopt on zone of interest 36-12 allows agreed persons to intervene as a matter of right in federal litigation. it empowered direct victims to sue. any city including one that's not even motivated by some of the city of miami. a direct victim's lawsuit. possibly muck it up in any number of directions. to allow cities to come in and interfere with lawsuits filed by direct victims. >> it's hard to think -- >> our position on this is important. we're not quibbling with glad stone, it's a good law, we're not seeking to change it, they're the ones who are seeking to expand it in two directions both by taking it out of segregation and by expanding approximate cause to the sky. >> thank you, council, the case is submitted. >> we have a special web page at c-span.org to help you follow the supreme court. once on our supreme court page. you'll see four of the most recent oral arguments heard by the court this term. and click on the view all linc, to see all the oral arguments, covered by