sotomayor: hello. is, what is your greatest fears and hopes upon joining the supreme court and have any of them been realized, thus far? ms. sotomayor: my biggest fear is that when i've struggled with my entire life and every new experience i've had, would i be good enough? you know? i tell people, if you have any experience, and you are not a little scared, you are conceded. [laughter] and if you are conceded. [applause] you are likely to get something really wrong. ? all right when i was a prosecutor. when i was a prosecutor my boss told a story. my supervisor, not my big boss. a womand the story of v.a. that came in and started to cry. he looked at her and said, be like a man and throw up instead -- he like a man and go into the bathroom and throw up instead. [laughter] i said, what did you do both? [laughter] and we talked about that a bit and said, that can be a gender difference. to are taught culturally throw up and men -- women are that not taught not to cry. every situation that i have been in

justice sotomayor: that is most people. [laughter] justice sotomayor: it is often a problem. i talk to people about living in two worlds. i am a member of a lot of different worlds, but i don't feel at home completely completely at home in any of them. you know, i've told the story of when i was a prosecutor going to a witness' home in the projects, and as i was sitting in a chair there was a cockroach crawling up the side of a lamp, and it freaked me out so much that i had to end the interview and leave real quick. i grew up with rodents, you know? they should not have freaked me out, but seven years in princeton and yale and resources to take myself out of that kind of community had changed me. and to be frank with you, i might be able to survive in that environment, but i choose not to. and i am, you know, i wish i could take them out of that environment. i don't have a driving need to want to be there myself. so there is a difference that i can't get over. so how do i stay connected? it is true for everyone involved in a public job, whether it is on the courts where you a

yarger: yes, justice sotomayor. justice sotomayor: so i'm a little confused by what you're asking for. they're saying it's my money. whether i agree with that or don't, if it is their money, then you need to do a procedure that comports with due process. correct? mr. yarger: that's correct. justice sotomayor: and you don't deny that. mr. yarger: i don't deny that, no. and so the question is whether under either state law this is properly considered -- justice sotomayor: how about we borrow from double jeopardy? once the -- once the judgment is void, you no longer have a basis to that property. it's theirs. they had -- it was their money to begin with. the only basis you had to collect it or keep it was a constitutional conviction. once it's voided, you have no basis to keep the money. mr. yarger: and, justice sotomayor, i think that that wouldn't necessarily explain cases like gettinger from 1927 when this court denied that kind of a remedy. or ex parte morris is another example where the court ordered that certain

justice sotomayor: i'm sorry. justice ginsburg: we did -- justice sotomayor: but it does -- justice ginsburg: we did say in this case -- well, i think you stipulated that this school has a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. but suppose it didn't. suppose its policy was we prefer lutheran children, and then if we have any space left over after that, we'll take other christians. and then after that, maybe jews, and then everyone else. everything else is the same. they want the paving of their playground. could this -- could they demand as a matter of federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an admissions policy that favors members of their church? mr. cortman: i think they can, because they have a -- they have a free exercise right to religious autonomy to decide who their members are. in fact, most private organizations and religious organizations do so. justice ginsburg: so this church could say, we will take only lutheran children. mr. cortman: i believe it can. justice

justice sotomayor: all right. chief justice roberts: do you agree that this court's voluntary cessation policies apply to the mootness question? mr. layton: i agree that they can apply to this. it's not a perfect fit compared to some of the precedents, but certainly there is no assurance that four years from now, with a change of administration, or at some point in the interim through a taxpayer standing suit, that there wouldn't be a change back to the prior practice. justice gorsuch: mr. layton, i'm struggling still to understand justice kagan's question, the answer to it. how is it that discrimination on the basis of religious exercise is better in selective government programs than general programs, first? and second, how do we tell the difference between the two, if government programs than general that's the line we're going to draw? the tours, isn't it selective based on who can show up at the capitol and afford to do that? public benefit programs, aren't they often selective if you meet criteria? copyright

justice sotomayor: i'm sorry. i've had a problem with the appraisal figures, and it may be a step i'm missing. why would anybody pay $400,000 for a lot they can't build on? mr. lazarus: because -- justice sotomayor: the two values -- your example said the two lots put together are less valuable or more valuable? mr. lazarus: just a little less valuable. justice sotomayor: yeah. i know there's only a 10% difference. but as i understood the appraisal figures, and are now using estimates, each lot was andh about $350,000 $400,000 separately, for a value of $750,000. together, they were valued at $680,000. so they weren't -- you didn't double the price -- mr. lazarus: no. but what you do -- if -- you didn't lose very much. by not being able to build a second home, the value doesn't sort of halve. instead, the value goes only by -- down by 9%. and the reason is that the combined lot is this luxury lot. this is a high-end area -- justice sotomayor: i understand why the combination, but why would anybody buy the lot you

i can remember when justice sotomayor was nominated. she made a speech to the effect that a white man would have a hard time understanding what life is like for minorities. and that was taken to believe that she somehow could not be fair to white men. that was a speech she gave provocative but i never believed it was an indication that she was somehow prejudice against white men. and the reason i concluded that is everybody who had known her, including white men, said she was a wonderful lady. i remember elena kagan, the attack on our side was that she joined with the administration of harvard, to kick the rotc unit off campus. somehow that made her unpatriotic. well, my view was that that was the position of a very liberal school called harvard and no one could ever convince me that elena kagan was unpatriotic. she seemed to be a very nice, highly qualified lady and that decision by harvard could not be taken to the extreme of saying that she's not fit to serve on the court. so i was able to look beyond the charges leveled at these to

i can remember when justice sotomayor was nominated. she made a speech to the effect that a white man would have a hard time understanding what life is like for minorities. and that was taken to believe that she somehow could not be fair to white men. that was a speech she gave provocative but i never believed it was an indication that she was somehow prejudice against white men. and the reason i concluded that is everybody who had known her, including white men, said she was a wonderful lady. i remember elena kagan, the attack on our side was that she joined with the administration of harvard, to kick the rotc unit off campus. somehow that made her unpatriotic. well, my view was that that was the position of a very liberal school called harvard and no one could ever convince me that elena kagan was unpatriotic. she seemed to be a very nice, highly qualified lady and that decision by harvard could not be taken to the extreme of saying that she's not fit to serve on the court. so i was able to look beyond the charges leveled at these to

sotomayor: let's go to that superseding cause doctrine. you said earlier that if an officer announces him or herself, shows you a bad, and you point out -- take out a gun wouldinted, the author not be liable for shooting you, because presumably, that person, knowing you are a police officer, if they only gun on you, they are responsible for the consequences. correct? >> correct. j. sotomayor: so what is the difference between that scenario and this one? -- i don'tr. mendez think there is a dispute that he was moving the gun because he wanted to get it out of the way. there was no intent on his part. but why isn't it just like the other person who points the gun at someone? ability --erence is: culplled ability -- is ability. superseding cause allows officers to avoid liability if they are not culpable. j. sotomayor: this is standard toward law. -- standard tort law. >> it is. culpability is significant. if an officer enters someone's house, whether it is illegal or occupants know that the police officer is a police officer, and yet they po

justice sotomayor: so we're assuming that the entry was unlawful. were there no exceptions. >> correct. justice alito: in my hypothetical there were no exigent circumstances so the entry was unlawful. but they have a warrant -- you still have those two situations. one case they have a warrant, the other case they say we think and turn out to be wrong but we don't need a warrant. but i don't -- i asked you whether there's a greater risk of violence in one than the other. and i would like to hear your answer. why would there be a greater risk of violence in this situation where the resident knows they're police officers, and they're going to conduct a search, as opposed to the situation where there's a warrant. any violence that the resident directs the police officer is still illegal in both situations, right? >> right. justice alito: not justified for them to attack a police officer >> they know they're a police officer -- justice of ego: i know your police officer about i don't think you have an exception to warrant requirement so i'm going to shoo

i think sotomayor and kagan were qualified. the reason we're going to have to change the rules is because what do we tell people in south carolina? judges?t trump get his you voted for the other sites judges, why can't they do for you what you did for obama? i not have a good answer for that question in i am not going to tell the people of south carolina, the rules have changed now. answer to my good democratic colleagues. this is going to be very. are going to be more ideological because you don't have to reach out across the out longer.ne vote any every senate seat will become a referendum on the supreme court. countryare telling the if you want to get a judge on the court, you have to have a majority. this is going to hop the senate. it is going to change the judiciary. it is so unnecessary. me talk for a moment about who was respecting the rules and tradition of the court, which is from the dawn of the republic the standard of confirming justices was the majority of senators. 51 votes. the judicial filibuster is largely the

in fact, this body confirmed sonia sotomayor in 2009 by a vote of 68-31.y confirmed justice kagan by a roll call vote of 63-37 in 2010. we did not filibuster. let me remind folks. cloture is in place to stop debate, not to stop a vote. cloture was put in place to speed the senate up, to end debate and move to a vote, not to stop a vote. it was never intended to be a stall tactic or something to obstruct this body. this bears repeating. cloture was put in place to speed up the process, to prevens obstruction. this chamber has never had a partisan filibuster to a supreme court nominee. let me say that again. this chamber has never had a partisan filibuster to a supreme court nominee. and so here we are today with no other option but to invoke the so-called nuclear option to put an emily qualified individual on the united states supreme courtr judge gorsuch is the definition of the mainstream judge. in more than 2700 cases, he has participated on in the tenth circuit, 97% of them have been decided unanimously. in fact, he was in the majority 99% of the time. yet, senate democrats would

i voted for sotomayor and kagan. nobody even asked for a cloture vote. they went straight to the floor. one got 603 votes in the other got 68 votes and i don't know why we can't do with judge gorsuch what was done with sotomayor and kagan. we keep hearing about judge garland. judge garland is a fine man and would have been a very good supreme court justice. justice scalia died in that worry of 2016 after three primaries were already held. the nominating process was well on its way for picking the next president so this was an election year. i remember what joe biden said the 92 the last year of bush 41's term when there was a suggestion that somebody might retire in the election year. he said the sickly if someone steps down i would highlyy recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up andn if he does push a name up as the senate consider not having and hearing for the nominee. it would be my pragmatic conclusion that once the season is underway action on the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is ove

presidentobama's nominees sonia sotomayor and kagan were nominated.that doesn't sound like cooperation. >> so did judge aledo. ideologically they are so far, he's so far to the right, and i think the american people will see that as we see his -- chris: senator -- >> let me just -- chris, you to let me answer this. chris: ruth bader ginsburg and sotomayor to the left. isn't that what an election is for? >> well, both "the new york times" and washington post hired independent experts to rate where gorsuch would be, the times said he would be to the right of every judge of thomas, the most conservative judge we've had in history and the post analysis said he would be to the right of that. so this is not a mainstream judge. he comes off as mainstream, chris. [inaudible] >> let me finish my comment, chris. chris: wait a minute. you're talking about "the new york times" and washington -- >> chris. chris: they said he was in the judicial mainstream, sir? >> they judge by legal, no one doubts gorsuch's legal but judicial rulings and earlier comments shows he

lito, 58, sotomayor, 68. kagan, 63. this will be the last person in a will be subject to a filibuster, which was in effect in 1948 because the senate traditions are going to change over this man based on the times in which we live. and i find it ironic and sad that we are going to change the rules over somebody who has lived such a great life, who has been such a good judge for such a long time. this says more about the senate than it does judge gorsuch. senator grassley: senator durbin. senator durbin: i'm honored to represent the city of chicago and we have stories that are told to new comers on the political scene and one of them involves a former judge who many of us knew personally. he was a law student at the university of chicago and decided that in 1948 he wanted to volunteer to work on local campaigns for paul dog last for the united states senate and add lay stevenson for governor and went to the fifth ward for headquarters. it was a big deal. and the ward committeeman was there and this new law student walked

eastern, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talks to students at stanford university about her path to the nation's highest court. >> curious people go further. it is curiosity that leads you to experience new things. it might lead you to find an interesting never imagined. >> this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now the chief political reporter for sky news australia hosts a program looking at the most recent session of australia's parliament. the parliament is expected to return to reconvene in mid-may. this is 30 minutes. >> hello and welcome to the parliament house and chamber. i have a wrap up of the latest parliamentary action. australia has had a big focus on the direction of the trump administration early on in his presidency. >> thank you, mr. president. my question is also to the attorney general. can the attorney general advised

. >> in a case about race and college admissions, justice sotomayor was questioning lawyer burt ryans disrupted by justice scalia. >> reporter: while the justices sometimes cut each other off, lawyers are never supposed to, not the way ryan did with sotomayor. >> here we have even subordinates, clear subordinates interrupting justices. >> there are a few strategies. >> reporter: heidi moore runs the digital magazine "ladders" exploring workplace issues, and she says all women can learn from those on the court. >> the female justices just keep talking instead of saying, "excuse me," or "this is my time now," or "i'm make a point." they just keep talking until they steam role the interrupter and the interrupter backs off. >> reporter: a golden rule of sorts-- treat the interrupters as they treat you apply to balance the scales of a workplace conversation. jim axelrod, cbs news, new york. >> pelley: for all of us at cbs news all aro careful joe, they've got you outnumbered. the dinosaurs' extinction... don't listen to them. not appropriate. now i'm mashing these potatoes with my stick o

it's followed the time table for craigen and sotomayor so i think everybody's had ample time to consider all of this. judge gorsuch is fully qualified. they're searching real hard to find a reason to vote no and it's very difficult based upon the qualities of this outstanding jurist and they're filibustering, that's what they say they're going to do and in the final analysis, this will be the first partisan filibuster and since you can't have one rule for democrat presidents and another rule for republican presidents, this judge will be on the supreme court sometime friday night. >> neil gorsuch is monument alley qualified to be on the supreme court. you watched the hearings, he's a man of intelligence and integrity. all you need to do is read his long history of rulings. he's a man that's independent as well. so we're all going to be asked to cast a consequential vote coming up of a justice who will apply the law and not legislate from the bench. this filibuster moving forth is truly historic and even the "the washington post" in their editorial this morning made that comment. they say

supreme court justice sonja sotomayor spoke about the importance of education to students

justices sometimes cut each other off, lawyers are never supposed to, not the way rein did with sotomayor have even subordinates, clear subordinates, i.e. lawyers boterrupting justices, who have reached the highest pinnacle of the highest profession. >> there are a few strategies. >> reporter: heidi moore runs the digital magazine "ladders" exploring workplace issues, and she says all women can learn from those on the court. >> the female justices just keep talking instead of saying, shxcuse me," or "this is my time stw," or "i'm make a point." they just keep talking until they steam-roll the interrupter and the interrupter backs off. >> reporter: a golden rule of sorts-- treat the interrupters as they treat you apply to balance the scales of a workplace conversation. jim axelrod, cbs news, k. >> pelley: for all of us at cbs news all around the world, good night. captioning sponsored by cbs on camera, making off with a , signed by jerry ri >>> disk news begins with a gift from an nfl great stolen. kpix 5 news begins with a thief caught on camera making off with a football signed by jerry

. >> justice sotomayor, the justice would remember vividly things that happened in the room. what are the impressions you'll take from yours? >> the moment that i sat down and was able to look out and see all of the people in the audience, that's probably the moment i will most intensely remember. because there were lawyers who i've known for years sitting at the table in front of us ready to argue, but then watching the intensity of everyone's face, and i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they're affected by the court's decisions. and you see the anticipation. and i can't actually say that it's pleasurable. you note in people's faces their concerns. and clearly i knew the sides some parties in the audience were in because some of the actual parties were there. and i forget how important it is to people sometimes. because when you're in your office reading the briefs, you understand the voices that they're giving you. but when you see their faces, it just reinforces that importance in a way nothing else can. what's the other emotion? absolute fear. you don't

announcer: supreme court justice sonia sotomayor spoke about the importance of education to law studentst stanford university. she shared her experiences of her early legal career, her education at princeton and yale university, and growing up in poverty at dierks city. this is about one hour and 50 minutes. -- poverty in new york city. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. [applause]

. >> when i read the stature, reading the briefings, i interpreted it the way justice sotomayor interpret it. one price. that might be an uninformed interpretation. i feel uncomfortable ruling on the constitutionality of this stature without knowing how the new york court of appeals would interpret this stature. why don't we go to that court before we plunge into the first amendment issue. >> believe it or not, you know more about the new york stature than any other statures. i think what you said what this court said, plaintiffs in the first amendment challenge have a prompt adjudication. so, this court used to abstain in first amendment challenges where there were some am big youty in state laws. you have the enforcement history. you know what the stature means on the ground. if you had a content neutral stature and would enforces it. you wouldn't say we don't know what the stature knows. when you bring in a challenge, not just some words, but the way the stature is being enforced. it would look the same whether you conceptualized that. either way we want an injunction -- >> this is exa

president obama nominated soniar sotomayor were and just explain to kagan. neither face to filibuster in the senate. president george w. bushr nominated john roberts as chief justice.. there was no filibuster attempt against that nomination. president bill clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg and david prior to the supreme court. president george h.w. bush nominated justice souter and clarence thomas to the supreme court. either just a face to filibustes even though 48th in the voted against the thomas nomination. they did require a cloture vote when a group of democrat senators attended to block a vote on the confirmation of justice alito's nomination. es 72 and back to invoke cloture,e, or preserving the bipartisan u.s. of filibusters against supreme court nominee is. among those who reject bid the alito filibuster in 2006 with the two democrat senators from my state, senator robert c. byrd and senator jay rockefeller. 72 senators voted to invoketing cloture on justice alito's nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation. the senate

sotomayor and kagan were sworn in at the court because he thought that sim bomb lized judicial independenceill hear and vote on the final cases of the term including an important test of religious freedom, a lutheran church in missouri that was denied state funds to resurface its preschool play ground says that is religious discrimination turning it down while public schools got the money. >> that was pete williams reporting. i want to bring in christopher king, former obama deputy council who led the confirmation strategies for justices sotomayor and kagan. chris, good to see you here. with what has happened to get in gorsuch oig as next supreme cou justice, some are saying the system is broken. from what you experienced getting the last two confirmed, what do you believe the system -- what is the status of the system right now? >> thanks, richard. i think that senator mcconnell and i agree on one thing, this is probably the most consequential thing he's done. and i would argue that he will find himself in history being judged as a person who has personally broken the senate. i think the f

justice sotomayor even quoted judge gorsuch's opinion in her concurrence in that case. from his opinions it's clear judge gorsuch is a mainstream nominee who understands the importance of putting personal beliefs aside and applying the law as written. this is why george washington law school professor jonathan turley argued that he shouldn't be pen aolizeed for his past decisions, the jurisprudence reflect not pricingly a jurist who crafts his decisions very closely to the text after start and in my view that is not vice for a federal judge. it is for the reasons

sonia sotomayor 68. elena kagan 63 this would be the last person that will be subject to a filibuster, which was in effect in 1948, because of the senate traditions are going to change over this man based on the times in which we live. and i find ironic and sad that we're going to change the rules over somebody who has lived such a good life, who has been such a good judge for such a long time. this says more about the senate that it does judge gorsuch. >> senator durbin? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your fair administration of this hearing. i'm honored to represent the city of chicago and we got some basic stories that are taught to all newcomers on the political scene. one of them involves former man, former judgment of us knew personally. he was a law student at of chicago and he decided in 1948 he wanted to volunteer to work on local campaigns for paul douglas would not state senate and amber stephenson for governor. so we went to the fifth ward headquarters. ward headquarters where

. ♪ mayort, justices sun in -- justices sotomayor on what it means to be a new addition to the court.us s

did they filibustered justice sonia sotomayor and evening he taken? of course not. matter republicans voted against justice sotomayor and against justice kagan, but no republican try to come to a vote. once again, senate democrats escalated the confirmation in senate republicans chose not to reciprocate. >> senate debate from yesterday in the supreme art nomination of bill gorsuch. this morning does senate against procedural votes and spoke with a capitol hill reporter about what to ask act in the senate t today. can i join in my vodafone is alex baldwin following all of this for the hill newspaper. it's very much for being with us. >> good morning. process first bubble happened this morning and this afternoon. >> guest: well, at 10:00 a.m. the senate will convene an hour later a cloture vote on neil gorsuch two in the democratic filibuster. that means 60-vote under the current senate precedent. if republicans don't reach 60 a man not going to because more i than 40 democrats have said they are going to vote against advancing his nomination. then there will be a ser

justice sotomayor was questioning when she was interrupted by justice scalia. >> do you think that change to happen overnight? >> can i, can i hear what you were about to say? what are those numbers? i'm curious to hear those numbers. >> reporter: while the justices sometimes cut each other off, lawyers are never supposed to. not the way he did with so t sotomayor. >> it's going to be virtually all white. >> and that is an assumption -- >> here we have subordinates, ie lawyers. >> there are a few strategies. >> reporter: heidi moore runs "ladders", and she says all women can learn from those on the court. >> the female justices keep talking instead of saying excuse me, or this is my time or i'm making a point. they just keep talking until they steam roll the interrupter and the interrupter backs off. >> reporter: a golden rule of sorts. treat the interrupters as they treated you, apply the balance of scales for the workplace conversation. jim axelrod, cbs news, new york. >>> and that's overnight news for this thursday. for some of you, the news continues. for others, check back a little l

did they filibuster sonia sotomayor and elena kagan? of course not. indeed many republicans voted against justice sotomayor and against justice kagan. but no republican tried to prevent their nominations from coming to a vote. once again senate democrats escalated the confirmation wars and senate republicans chose not to reciprocate. and how did democrats pay us back for our restraint on justices sotomayor and kagan? they nuked the filibuster for lower court nominees. the irony of this move was really something. it was the democrats who ten years earlier for the first time in senate history began the practice of filibustering court of appeals judges in an effort to stop president bush's nominees. when senate republicans then had the gall not to roll over for president obama once the shoe was on the other foot, democrats simply changed the rules back to what they were in practice ten years prior. democrats raised the effectual confirmation threshold to 60 votes by instigating filibusters to block republican nominees and then lowered it back down to 50

eastern, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talks to students. >> curious people go further. it is curiosity that leads you to experience new things and might lead you to find an interest that you never imagined. >> next week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, we start with associated press reporter christopher rugaber on the march jobs report. april is autism awareness month. and in our spotlight on magazine segment, we'll feature bloomberg business week to discuss the column on new technology in football to detect and protect against playerbe sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> richard cordra

the law can be read and injustice sotomayor said this before, as just requiring a single price. that's something none of the parties here say if you look at the law, that's what the law says. let's take that out of the picture. even then, the law can say the only thing that we are requiring is to list the higher price. that's the only thing we are requiring and then you can describe what you are doing anyway you like. you can use the word surcharge, more, you can use the word less, you can use the word discount. it doesn't matter so long as you list a higher price in the clear. and that too is very different from what you are saying, maybe from what the prosecutor said but it's the way you read this law, it doesn't give, what these prosecutors say don't match what the law says. >> the law says this is all about listing conduct. what you can charge. >> the law also means what it means on the ground and if the state agrees we have a credible fear of prosecution if we say what we want to say so there's no dispute about that. document 51 in the district court, they conceded that if

not the way he did with sotomayor. >> the holistic percentage, whatever it is, is going to be virtually white. >> and that is an assumption -- >> here we have subordinates, ie lawyers. >> there are a few strategies. >> reporter: heidi moore runs "ladders", and she says all women can learn from those on the court. >> the female justices keep talking instead of saying excuse me, or this is my time or i'm making a point. they just keep talking until they steam roll the interrupter and the interrupter backs off. >> reporter: a golden rule of sorts. treat the interrupters as they treated you, apply the balance of scales for the workplace conversation. jim axelrod, cbs news, new york. >>> and that's overnight news for this thursday. for some of you, the news continues. for others, check back a little later for the morning news. and cbs this morning. from the broadcast center in new york city, i'm scott pelley. >>> this is the "cbs overnight news." >>> welcome to the overnight news. i'm jericka duncan. tensions between washington and moscow remained high after secretary of state rex tillerson'

when president obama nominated sonia sotomayor and elana kagan, i led my party to have an up-or-down. we were in the exact same circumstance as the democrats are today. no filibuster. no filibuster. we thought it was the right thing to do. it's not because we harbored illusions that we usually agree with these democratic presidents. certainly not. listen to this, madam president. we even protested when then-majority reid tried to file cloture on the kagan nomination. we talked him out of it. it wasn't necessary. jeff sessions, the current attorney general, talked harry reid out of filing cloture because it wasn't necessary. we didn't even want are the pretense of the possibility of a filibuster on the table. well, it's quite a different story from what we're seeing today but this is where our democratic colleagues have taken us. will the partisan minority prevent the pro gorsuch majority from confirming him? will they subject him to the first partisan filibuster in american history? americans will be watching. history will be watching and the future of the senate will hang on their ch

de sotomayor se llevaron algunas personas que se quedaron atrapadas en elevadores, en el distrito financieroormaciÓn en medio del asombro y el desconcierto de muchos estudiantes, esta maÑana arrestaron a un maestro de la escuela preparatoria en san josÉ. mientras se encontraba en el salÓn de clases. al educador lo detuvieron por presunta posesiÓn de pornografÍa infantil. ramÓn tiene los detalles. en breve cuando tengamos una mejor conexiÓn de audio. en otra informaciÓn, un oficial de la policÍa de san josÉ, disparÓ contra un sospechoso. cuando atendiÓ a un reporte de un hombre que agitaba pÚblicamente un arma blanca, en el Área de luis. obligÓ al oficial a descargar su arma es sospechoso fue trasladado al hospital. el temporal de verano aumenta los incendios. tiene la oportunidad de evitarlos y prevenirlos con una aplicaciÓn. esta disponible para ser bajado en telÉfonos celulares inteligentes y tambiÉn en tabletas. wild podrÁ detectar un incendio. el presidente trump, atribuye el desplome en el nÚmero de indocumentados capturados en la frontera, a su mano dura contra la inmigraciÓn. muy pron

so sonia sotomayor were sworn in public ceremonies, but this is different from the normal practice. in terms of the last cases of the term, andrea, those are the only ones he can vote on. he can't vote on any cases that were argued before he got here. there is a biggie on april 19th, the court will take up a religious freedom question. here is the basic issue. it involves a school run by a luther lutheran church in missouri, and they wanted to get money to resurface playgrounds with state money. they qualified except for one big problem, the missouri state constitution bans giving money to churches and the church is suing saying that is religious discrimination. if you have a program available to everybody, but churches cannot participate, that violates their religious freedom and the constitution. so that will be an important case and he will be able to participate in that one, andrea. >> pete williams at the kour. and ashley parker, all of this, the successful confirmation of a supreme court justice for the white house but at the same time a lot happening internally in the white h

when president obama nominated justice sonia sotomayor and justice kagan, i led my party to ensure an up-or-down vote. i knew i would disagree with their opinions on the cower, and i -- on the court, and i certainly wasn't wrong about that but it was the right thing to do. i understand my colleagues are under a great deal of pressure from the far left. i think everyone in office can empathize with the situation they are experiencing. listening to these hard-left special interests may seem like the expedient thing for democrats to do for their party today, but i'd ask them to make their decisions based on what they know is right for the country tomorrow. there's still time for them to make the right choice. there's still time for them to support a nominee who even long-time democrats have praised are at -- or at the very least do not block him with the first successful partisan filibuster in american history. so i hope democrats reevaluate their position before the important vote we'll take tomorrow. i'll hope they'll consider what their actions will mean for future supreme court nomin

think about judge sotomayor and kagan.'m telling you, they are as liberal as liberal is long and the republicans founded in their power to get 60 votes for both of those too. i think neil gorsuch is far less conservative than judge sotomayor and kagan are liberal. >> bob: decision by the supreme court early with the chevron decision. said that congress could not do regulations. they could pass laws but you had to leave it up to the executives to have regulations. that's been essentially accepted by all sides since then. except gorsuch said in one of his opinions i would like to do away with it. >> dana: i think he said it was worth looking at again. i think he's right, and i think president obama might agree when he writes his memoirs. when you look at the regulations they put forward, including clean power act, because congress didn't spell out what was legal and what was not, the epa said this is what were going to do and they tried to use that supreme court ruling on the chevron. guess what happened? got tied up in the

when president obama nominated sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, we treated each nominee fairly as they would later say themselves, and we secured an up-or-down vote for both. most republicans had significa significant, significant misgivings about these nominees. many of us voted no in the confirmation, but we didn't think it would be right to deny them an up-or-down vote. ranking member jeff sessions of the judiciary committee at the time and i even protested when then democratic leader reid tried to file cloture on the kagan nomination because we were determined to prevent even the hint, the hint of a filibuster. again, we respected the senate's tradition against filibustering supreme court nominees. i know our friends on the democratic side will be quick to interject with predictable protests about last year, though they seem to forget their own position on the issue. when justice scalia passed away, the senate chose to follow the standard first set forth by then senator biden when he was chairman of the judiciary committee. and then expanded upon by the current democratic leader hi

for sotomayor 67. for alito 83. for roberts 63. for breyer, 74. ginsburg 51. do you hear any numbers equivalent to 293 days? or let's look at thomas at 69 days and kennedy at 65. scalia himself at 85. rhenquist at 89. o connor at 33. they all fall into the same pattern. a couple months for the paperwork to be done, the investigation to be completed, the committee to hold hearings and act. but there's garland with 293 days, the senate failing to act. so this simply reinforces the pretense put forward that there wasn't enough time or that there was a tradition of not considering a nominee who for a seat that became available in an election year. because it happened 15 times previously in our history, and all 15 times the senate acted, every single one. so every argument put forward was phony, was wrong, was based on falsehood. it was driven by dark money, puppeteers of this chamber wanting to make sure that they could keep open their citizens united money corrupting american campaigns and debasing our democratic republic. so to everyone who cares about the integ

matter this is a strange criticism considering my colleague, the minority leader praised justice sotomayor quote, puts the rule of law above everything else even when doing so results in rulings that go against sympathetic litigants, end of quote. and the judge himself proves how absurd this argument is by citing a number of cases where he ruled with a so-called little guy. but regardless, it is, of course, a silly argument. no judge doing their job considers the status of the litigants before them when deciding the cases. that's why liberal harvard law professor noah feldman described the critique that judge gorsuch doesn't side with the little guy as a quote, truly terrible idea. the rule of law isn't liberal or conservative or shouldn't be, end of quote. in other words, a good judge listens to the arguments regardless of who makes them and applies the law regardless of the results. so that didn't stick. so next we heard that the judge hasn't answered questions. that argument is basically a complaint that he won't tell us how he's going to vote on a whole host of legal questions that he

really a strange criticism, considering that my colleague, the minority leader, praised justice sotomayor as a judge who "puts the rule of law above everything else, even when doing so results in rulings that go against sympathetic litigants." and the judge himself proves how absurd this argument is by citing a number of cases where he ruled with the so-called little guy. but regardless, it is, of course, a silly argument. no judge doing their job considers the status of the litigants before them when deciding the cases. that's why liberal harvard law professor noah feldman described the critique that judge gorsuch doesn't side with the little guy as a "truly terrible idea. the rule of law isn't liberal or conservative or shouldn't be." in other words, a good judge listens to the arguments, regardless of who makes them, and applies the law, regardless of the results. so, that didn't stick. so, next we heard that the judge hasn't answered questions. that argument is basically a complaint that he won't tell us how he's going to vote on a whole host of legal questions that he might have to d

supreme court justice sonia sotomayor has described it as "the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake." as many asas 700 palestinians imprisoned in israeli jails have launched a hunger strike, with the strike expected to spread. the prisoners, who are sometimes cut off from seeing their family members for years, are demanding more visitation rights and increased accecess to telephone. the e family visitations are impossible because palestinians living in the israeli-occupied territories must apply for a permit to even enter israel in order to see their imprisoned family members, and these permits are often rejected. the strike coincides with palestinian prisoners day, which is today. migrant justice activists are searching for hugo castro, a u.s. based immigrant rights activist with the group border angels, who disappeared in mexico thursday. he disappeared after posting a facebook video asking for help thomas saying his life is in danger. he had previously received death threats for his work to support refugees traveling through mexico on routete to the united states. he di