as far as justice souter's legacy goes, justice souter was known for being a one-case -- one-case-at-a-time justice he didn't write in a general sense or issue, sweeping opinions. that's not to say it didn't have important opinions. he issued one very important opinion, or joined it, when he joined a three-justice plurality in a decision that uphold roe v. wade. he had other decisions, one that hasn't perhaps gone unnoticed, but hasn't got a lot of attention, but the opinion he issued in the glockster case he addressed the idea of file sharing. it was remarkable and in some cases ironic that it was fashioned by justice souter, who shows himself as a man of the 19th century he had a chance to provide long-standing context to something like this. i think he got it right. i think his legacy will be, in many ways, the influence he had on the confirmation process. when he was nominated by the first president bush, he was a home run for conservatives. i think it's fair to say he was not a home run for conservatives. i don't know if he intended a single or a double. i think that that aspect of his

justices stephens, souter, ginsburg, and bryan on the other. but it is not always so. true, nine of the 175-4 splits did shape up -- of the 17 5-4 splits did shape up in the usual way. but in five, justices stephens, kennedy, souter, ginsburg, and breyer composed the majority and there were unusual lineups as well. i will mention three. the first was oregon v. ice, it posed one of many post-aparen dee questions consistent with our current sixth amendment jurisprudence, could a judge rather than a jury find the fact essential to the imposition of consecutive sentences. i answered yes. and in agreement with me were justices stephens, kennedy, breyer, and alito. second, baden against discover bank involved a credit card issuer's resort to a federal court to compel arbitration for a dispute with a cardholder. though the issue itself had commenced that fray, in state court. the hard hold -- the cardholder raised a counterclaim governed by federal law. justices scalia, kennedy, souter and thomas joined me in holding that the issuer had to stay on the state court track and th

not that he's in poor death and no more souter, no more cameras here. souter's experience on that relates to the new hampshire state supreme court which did have cameras and he felt that he pulled his punches in questioning because of those cameras there. that he might not have been perhaps as confrontational or hesitant in some dimension in formulating his questions. i don't know that every justice would take quite that approach to it. certainly, chief justice rehnquist was sympathetic to justice souter's position and said as much as so long as one member of this court is opposed to cameras there won't be any cameras. chief justice roberts is not that absolute about it. but he's not in particular in favor of it. and then you have others who say, you can anticipate who they are, you'll cut me up into 6 second sound bites and lose all the argument and i don't disagree with that. but we do that in quotations. we do that in graphics. we do that in headlines. and if you had the completeness of it, perhaps that particular justice might not grumble as much an

justice souter brushed his experience and justice thomas is the only one who ran an agency. just as brier has experience on the hill. justice kennedy is a practicing lawyer in sacramento. justice ginsburg is an academic. justice alito is the most experienced on the bench before coming to the court. we have the same label but we are a pretty diverse bunch. we did not bring that experience. i do think it is important that you figure out exactly what it is you think is lacking on the court and not just look at the labels. in the past, we have had a lot of politicians appointed to the court. if they are willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think that could be a great source we were talking last night about those that were -- remaining politicians. >> chief justice, what are some of your favorite books and what do you like to read in your spare time? >> i do not like to read briefs in my spare time >> i like detective models -- a detective mall -- a detective novels. i hear there is a new biography of lincoln out that i think would make good reading. a couple

today david souter is the only member of the supreme court with court judge.onia sotomayor would be the only justice with experience as a trial court judge. i happen to agree with this other senator. nine supreme court justices have that experience. trial judges must apply the legal principle enunciated in supreme court opinions. this nominee served five years at the -- as a local prosecutor and practice law for seven years at a private law firm. she will be ever mindful of the need to provide those in the courtroom with clear and practical decisions. beings. as a trial judge, she directly faced innocent victims of crime, vicious perpetrators of crime and occasionally a wrongfully accused. she directly faced injured parties seeking civil address and several defendants who may have to make honest mistakes. she had to answer what is the right verdict? what is the right length of incarceration? damages? these are not easy decisions. i know that, because my husband was a state trial court judge for 16 years. measure out. people. her ankle. i said to her, you are t

and souter likes his anonymity. he is not easily recognized. he likes to tell stories about people that would come to him in grocery stores and say you look like the fellow on the supreme court and he says a lot of people told me something like that. but he genuinely believes that if they become public personalities he is sure that would be a product of putting their faces regularly on television than they would be confronted with a personal security problem. >> that is if you were a judge in colombia putting deals behind the bars but that is a false argument. >> it's an argument that from charles perspectives has been persuasive with his colleagues and so i am not sure that i am persuaded myself by the argument and as a fact my own sense and charles i know agrees with this if there is a constitutional right of public access to public proceedings you cannot say that right of access depends upon what you will do with the information that you gather and sell mauney sense is there should be as we know ever since 1980 there is a constitutional righ

david souter manifests that a great deal. he gave a farewell speech to the third circuit. that was at the independence conference a couple weeks ago, 2 different speeches, he spoke -- this is someone who is not to post a like public speaking or public engagement, spoke with a simple note in a passionate way about a justice, what a justice is, what a judge is, what it means to be that and what separation of powers meant to him after going to these town hall meetings. both of those speeches, i hope there was a record of them some place. >> he wouldn't allow them to be recorded. >> it was too bad. >> thank you. i turn it back to judge medvedev. >> i want to thank professor howard and the panel. [applause] >> john mcginnis. >> this discussion has, i am sure you agree, been enlightening and stimulating. we have learned about fish that only die temporarily and other matters conlan and it is no wonder that this panel has become one of the popular high light features of our conference. we are now going to bring the conference to close. i would like to call judge karen williams. >>

today david souter is the only member of the supreme court with prior experience as a trial court judge. sonia sotomayor, too, would be the only justice -- the only justice -- with experience as a trial court judge. i happen to agree with senator klobuchar. i think it's important that at least one of the nine supreme court justices have that experience. it is trial judges, after all, who day in and day out must apply the legal principles enunciated in supreme court opinions. judge sotomayor also served five years as a local prosecutor and practiced law for seven years as a trial attorney with a law firm. judge sotomayor, because of her experience, will be ever-mindful of the need to provide those in the courtroom with clear and practical decisions. and, more important, she will understand how supreme court opinions affect real human beings. as a trial judge, judge sotomayor every day directly faced innocent victims of crime, vicious perpetrators of crime, and occasionally the wrongfully accused. she directly faced injured parties seeking civil redress and civil defendant whose may have

so when justice souter announced that he intended to retire at the end of his term and return home to new hampshire, i took particular interest in him president of, was selected to fill it david souter's seat. and believe the president has made a boffo an outstanding choice in nominating judge sonia sotomayor. judge sotomayor has had a distinguished career as a federal judge as has been widely noted. if confirmed she would bring more federal judicial experience to the supreme court than any justice in 100 years today david souter is the only member of the supreme court with prior experience as a trial court judge. sonia sotomayor to would be the only justice, the only justice with experience as a trial court judge. i happen to agree with senator klobuchar. i think it is important that at least one of the nine supreme court justices have that experience. it is a trial judge's out of the day in and day out must apply the legal principles enunciated in supreme court opinions perrin. she also served five years as a local prosecutor and practice law for seven years as a trial attorney with

she reminds me, more than anyone, of david souter. she has a great reverence for the statute before her. in many cases, with the option to go beyond what was at issue, and make proclamations about what the law should the -- she is just not inclined that way. this really is to the extent that republicans want somebody who is humble, who is a minimalist, who is a strict constructionist, she is kind of it. she is not that different from what john roberts promised to be. that is, just an empumpire. what we're talking about does not have much to do with her qualifications or the enormous quantity of decisions that is the data we can look at. instead, we're having this weird meta conversation about three words, "wise latino womea women" the below blac-- blow back is political and ideological. host: if you're listening on c- span radio, our guest is dahlia lithwick. she joins us from charlottesville, virginia. talking about yesterday's supreme court decision, the nomination sonia sotomayor sonia, and the retirement of david souter. kay is on

there is no justice who appears lesson the social scene than justice souter. he will be very happy to go back to the farm in new hampshire. he will be happy to see washington in the rear view mirror as he heads to new hampshire. what his legacy will be i guess historians will say. there are no great grand doctrines that have been produced. i will tell one story about him. each year i am asked by the rhodes scholar committee to conduct a goodbye event for the scholars. they meet justice souter at the court, in addition to going to capitol hill and the rest of it. when we did he brief the scholars, every year, year in and year out, justice souter has been at the top of the list. the one person they have met that they would not eliminate for next year's scholars. my impression is they have seen someone who is thoughtful and measured. he talks about how he goes about his work on the court. it seems to me what their impression is his private persona is the same as his public persona. in washington that may be a rare commodity. we have about a minute. i wanted to be

just to emphasize the vigor of justice souter's accidenting opinion. he says i wrote the other one, and this isn't what i meant. there were two theories of the defendant's act in the sherman act case. in one theory it was completely innocent and another theory it was cluesive. ep when there are two -- he said when there are two plausible theories, one of which is completely innocent behavior, you have to show more than that in order to get discovery. the court really changed the game, the majority changed the game in that case in going beyond that i think it is just interesting that there was no common ground at all between the majority and accident in that case. dissent. they reversed a very modest opinion by judge john newman of the second circuit who said that we realize that discovery in this context of these detainees, and they are suing the former attorney general and the head of the f.b.i., and this is a sensitive matter, and we think discovery should be very limited. it wasn't a katie bar the door, let's get any kind of discovery the playoffs a

everything in her background suggests she's likely to share many of the views that justice souter had and she's likely to join justices stevens and ginsburg and breyer, particularly in a lot of hot button cases involving constitutional law issues or other issues where in recent years we've seen that familiar 5-4 split on the court. i think one aspect of her record that will get close attention in the confirmation process is the decision in the ritchie case. many of you are familiar with that case but this was a case involving an aptitude test given by the city of new haven, connecticut, for fire fighters to determine which firefighters were eligible for promotion. a bunch of hopefuls took the test and when the city saw the result they determine an insufficient number of african american candidates qualified for a promotion based on their he's results, so they decided the best approach was to jettison the test completely, thereby denying the plaintiff group, a group of white firefighters, denying them the opportunity for promotion. judge sotomayor decided it should be uphold. it went t

now ted mentioned that this argument -- justice souter really got at that in his majority opinion. the justices were so skeptical in many ways of the girl's arguments. justice briar went on a long discussion about -- breyer went on a long discussion of how is this different than changing in the locker room? i did that. he made some joke that didn't go that well for him. but it's like what's the big deal was basically their point? and it was only justice ginsburg who was forceful and indignant and increasingly outraged as this argument went on that her colleagues just didn't get it. they just didn't get it. they didn't understand how intrusive and how upsetting this could be. they hadn't been a 13-year-old girl. she had. savana was certainly there. her case was before the court. so we all saw it and, really, when they said -- when the chief announced on thursday that we were going to have this decision, i sat up because i was ready for another one of justice ginsburg's quite stinging dissents that she was going to read from the bench. and instead justice souter announced this very r

david souter was a federal judge for about five minutes before he was eligible. so a little misleading. and it is important to recognize that in terms of legal experience, we are a diverse bunch. i consider myself a practicing lawyer, a member of the bar. we have a couple justices with careers as academics. justice thomas ran an agency, just as briar had extensive experience on the hill that the rest of us do not have. justice kennedy is a practicing lawyer in sacramento, justice ginsberg, both as an academic and a practicing lawyer before the court in the area of equal protection. justice alito, the most experienced on the bench before coming to the corn and experienced with federal prosecutors. so we are also a diverse bunch. having said that, obviously some great justices did not bring that experience. they were great judges and justices. you have to figure out exactly what it is without looking at labels. in the past, with had a lot of politicians for the court, and if they are willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think sad is a great res

finally in the and justices kennedy and o'connor and david souter got together and fashioned the way by which the court could sustain roe versus wade at least in substantial part and they did indeed strike down only the one part of the requirement a woman contemplating abortion notify her husband that she was doing so. it is to my mind a classic demonstration of deciding what you want to argue, going in to make that argument and no matter how hard the resistance is in to making the argument and to holding to rate, sticking to it on till the bitter end and hoping for the best, and it was a very classical performance, really talented lawyer and in fact to this day a good many years later rose still survives in the form that emerged as a consequence. direct consequence i would suggest of catherine's argument. thanks, paul >> thank you, paul and tama for including me. the year 2000 was also a presidential election year so it wasn't terribly tough to select bush v. gore as one of the cases to write about for this collection. indeed, it was a case unique in the history of the country for s

she is replacing the only judgment that experience, the justice souter. this is a meat and potatoes moderate judge. this is a judge who has agreed with republicans on our panel 95% of the time. this is a judge who has the kind of experience that will allow her to make wise decisions on the most important matters that come to the highest court in this country. we have a dagotcha mentality. we all bridges a break in and. it is not -- we all participate in it. sonia sotomayor will become a supreme court justice after having gone through a gotcha process. at the end of the day, this is a smart, a proud woman who has fought her way through a system of tremendous odds to show that she has integrity, great, intellect, and the ability to pass judgment on the most difficult and intellectual challenges that face the supreme court justices. i am proud to support her nomination. i look forward to the day when she will take her place on the highest court in the land. thank you. >> i want to thank the senator from kansas and others who spoke today. no that others will

well, justice souter has announced his retirement. and perhaps in the absence of that kind of strenuous objection, it would be a good time for the court to reconsider the issue. i intend to ask judge sotomayor in her confirmation hearing whether she agrees with justice souter, justice stevens in televise -- that televising the supreme court is worth a try. whether she agrees with justice breyer, that televising the proceedings is a valuable teaching advice. whether she agrees with justice kennedy, that televising the court is inevitable. and she can shed some light on the issue because her courtroom was part of a pilot program where it was televised. there was a program from 1991 through 1994 where the judicial conference evaluated a pilot program conducted in six federal district courts an two federal circuits -- and two federal circuits and they found -- quote -- "overall attitudes of judges toward election, media coverage of civil procedures were neutral and became more favorable. the judicial centers conclusion also stated judges

that was a dissent by justice souter. and justice souter commented in disagreeing with chief justice rehnquist, who said there was an insufficient record, justice souter noted the -- quote -- "mountain of data assembled by congress, including a record on gender bias from task force in 21 states, eight separate reports by the congress." there was a similar finding by the supreme court of the united states in the case of alabama v. garrett, where the supreme court decided that there was insufficient record to support the enactment of title 1 for the americans with disabilities act, even though there had been task force hearings in every state aattended by more than 30,000 people, including thousands who had experienced discrimination with more than 300 examples of discrimination by state governments. notwithstanding that, the supreme court in garrett said that there was an insufficient record. in dissent, justice scalia called the test of congruence in proportionality a flabby test, a test that was -- quote -- "an invitatio

justice souter brought his experience in the state court system. justice thomas, the only one among us, i think, who ran an agency. justice briar, extensive experience on the hill. justice kennedy, again, is a practicing lawyer in sacremento. justice ginsburg, both as an academic, and as a practicing lawyer before the court in the area of equal protection. justice alito, the most experienced, i think, on the bench before coming to the court, and also experience as a federal prosecutor, so we have the same label of being federal jums but we're also a pretty diverse bunch. having said that, obviously some great justices in our history did not bring that experience, and were great judges and justices. i do think it's important when you talk about this to figure out exactly what it is you think is lacking on the court, and not just look at the labels. in the past, we've had a lot of politicians appointed to the court, and if they're willing to become judges and leave behind the politics, i think that's a great -- that can be a great source, but i guess

and in this case i thought it was by signing that opinion to david souter, you know, he ended up getting a case that kind of toned down whatever dissent the that justice ginsberg was going to write on the qualified immunity question. i just thought it was a beautiful example of a pretty wise use of his opinion assignment power contrasting it, of course, to the led better case of several years ago when i think the court didn't expect that to be so controversial, and the chief justice assigned it to justice alito who, of course, had just replaced justice o'connor. so it was just this immediate comparison that how, you know, alito was writing this decision and how different it would have been if o'connor had been on the court, and that, of course, led to that very pointed dissent, outraged dissent by justice ginsberg. okay. the other case that i wanted to highlight just because it also, i think, is such a fascinating big-picture issue in terms of the way we look at the courts and the laws, this dna case out of the state of alaska. this is in your materials, the decision just came down. will

instead, justice souter announced this very reasoned, careful opinion that got eight votes, with the underlying proposition that the search was unreasonable, and 7 votes that the justice -- that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity. when linda talks about it and ted is talking about we don't really know and so much of it is speculating. we are talking about the consensus possibilities, and the voting rights case, we -- i would love to know what happened between that argument and that decision. i do know that publicly justice ginsburg gave an amazing interview onto record with usa today in which after the argument in which she talked about this case and said essentially they don't understand, and when i talk, they don't listen to me. she is referring to her colleagues on the court. if you missed it, do a google search and get it. >> she said that after the argument. >> she was saying my colleagues don't get it, and then when the decision came down, they apparently had gotten it. >> exactly. >> so this goes to, obviously, some of the things we were talking about, so

on the justice david souter's last day, a decision is expected on the reverse discrimination case. it is one of the cases the high court is dealing with before the justices began their summer break and david souter retires. nomination hearings for sunni @ sotomayor began july 13th. those are some of the latest headlines. this audit weekend, discover an unfamiliar sight of our nation's first president, we are live from george washington's firm that -- mount vernon estate. join our 3 our conversation sunday live on in japs, beginning at noon eastern. how c-span funded? donations may be? i have no idea. >> government? >> i don't know. >> how c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. file sharing has wreaked havoc on our business. tonight on the communicators, digital music, the internet and copyright policy. >> one of the goals is to have more responsibility for the service they're providing. chairman of universal music publishing group is tonight at 8 eastern on

she makes me think of justice souter, someone with a great legal mind, and packable pock credentials.f confirmed, she will the only member of the court with experience as a trial court judge, which i think is extremely important. you have a different perspective. from a personal point of view, i was always proud to see someone who served as a prosecutor. you really have an understanding of the good and the battle of life. robert morgan paul wrote an opinion piece strongly praising her. i am proud to see her restraint. we do not somebody who will undercut congress, being an activist, and she is not. i wanted somebody outside of the judicial monastery, and her background was such that she had had a lot of experience outside. so -- what are you, from the south bronx? the self side of chicago, south burlington vermont -- your life experiences to shake you. she has never forgot where she was from. we are meeting tomorrow morning to speak to senator sessions about this. but we say one thing on a personal point of view. i know how difficult it is for somebody nominated, they cannot speak out

with justice souter, -- i think it shows part of the problems going forward of this new plausibility standard or reasonable since -- reasonable suspicion standard for pleading. it may be in the eyes of the beholder. i think that as a possible downside of this kind of rule. it has some potential of constraining costs. at the supreme court level, one can see there is another theme of the roberts court. one person would have called it the path of verger -- virtue. looking at procedure issues and getting rid of the case before deciding constitutional issues. we see that right across the board in this term. we have already discussed the voting rights case. that was a manner to avoid the constitutional issue. justice alito decided the courts will no longer be required to decide the constitutionality of an action before beginning to the qualified immunity issue. that allows this to court and appellate courts to decide whether somebody is qualified by immunity in. another area is standing with the court in this term. these are ways the court manages to avoid taking strong positions on consti

chief justice john roberts read from robert frost as a said farewell to justice souter. the front page of "the wall street journal" marketplace section -- car sales rebound seen for june. also, "usa today" says some banks are raising credit rates and fees. host: that is from the money section of usa today. caller: this is my first time calling. i'm very excited. with the credit card thing, i think that is ridiculous. we just did reform about that and they are already raising rates. i also want to talk about the iran, russia, china thing. i am a young american. i am 36 years old. i do not know who is listening to these phone calls. it puts everybody at odds to know that two main countries, china and russia, we have a treaty with. how can we allow someone like china and russia to provide arms to people that we are trying to bring to the table, calm down a region. they're providing arms. these people are in our treaty. how do you deal with other superpowers? how do you deal with other nations that are s fas strong ad have not extended themselves throughout the world. how do

now by contrast to the majority of justices are roman catholic, to jewish justices and one justice souter leaves there'll be exactly one protestant. again i am not suggesting that chicken tracing a kind of cause and a price between the the justices religions and how they vote on cases, but it is an interesting way of commenting on how the courts reflect the changing demography of the country itself. fourthly, the confirmation process. packin the 50 is or so years ago and especially back in new deal days before then, confirmations were fairly and exciting. it was not until 1953 that justices in nominees regularly were before the senate judiciary committee. harlem was from that point on words and now we know especially since the board hearings in 1987 it is strong, it is a passionate political contest of guerrilla theater between contending forces and that has politicized the process of nomination confirmation. fifthly, i think today we know a great deal more about what goes on in an the court that we did in 1969. i remember in my cooking days in the '60s that justices rarely talk to the pr

finally in the end justices, kennedy, o'connor and david souter got together and fashioned a way by which the court could sustain roe vs. wade, at least in substantial part, and they did indeed strike down only that one part, the requirement that a woman contemplating abortion notify her husband that she was doing so. to my mind, it is a classic demonstration of deciding what you want to argue, going in to make that argument and no matter how hard the resistance is to you making your argument, to holding to it, sticking to it until the very -- really the bitter end and then hoping for the best. and it was a very classical performance by a really talented lawyer and, in fact, to this day, a good many years later, roe still survives in the form that it emerged as a consequence, a direct consequence, i would suggest of katherine colbert's argument. thanks, paul. >> charles. >> thank you for asking me for this pardon. 2002 was a presidential election year and it wasn't tough bush versus gore 2000 to write about for this collection. indeed, it was a case unique in the history of the country fo

this was by justice souter. he commented in disagreeing with the chief justice, who said there was an insufficient record, the justice spoke about the information put together by congress, including the record of the gender bias in 21 states, eight separate reports by congress. there was a similar finding by the supreme court of the united states. the supreme court decided that there was an insufficient record to support the enactment of title 1 of the american -- americans with disabilities act, even though there were task force hearings in every state, attended by 30,000 people, including the thousands who have faced discrimination with 300 examples of discrimination by state government. the supreme court said that there was an insufficient record, justice scalia said the test of proportionality, flabby. he says this was an invitation to arbitrariness. when you look to the standard of congruence and proportionality, this is very vague. a divergence from the standard that was articulated in 1968, whether there

the justice who takes justice souter's case that convenes october 5 also needs as possible to hire lawyers, set up an office, even a place to live here in washington and take part with the rest of the court in the preparatory work that presides the formal start of the session on the first monday in october. now, i mention that, madam president, because i have put together a schedule that tracks the process the senate followed by bipartisan agreement in considering president bush's nomination of john roberts to the supreme court in 2005. at that time i served as the ranking minority member of the judiciary committee. i met with our republican chairman, we worked out a schedule that provided for chief justice roberts' hearing 48 days after he was named by president bush. i might say that that agreement on time was reached even before the committee received the answers to the bipartisan questionnaire. and while justice roberts had not, then judge roberts had not decided as many opinions as judge sotomayor, he had been in a policy, a political policy position, in republican administrations for

david souter is retiring at the end of this session. the judiciary hearings start in the senate on the 13th. what are your thoughts? caller: i favor fdr's policy. i watched bush as he invoke the power of the military executive. basically, he had a lot of trouble with the commissions that he set up, and also not giving the prisoners a lot of rights. i don't want to go all the way where they would have miranda rights. i would like to see something in the middle ground. i really do not support bush policy. on the other hand, i don't know if i am comfortable, but i would like to see them tried in court. i am not comfortable with them being housed in it united states. i would like to hear much more about how fdr in your program handled the situation. host: we can read a bit more from the washington post. you are talking about the executive approach, the alternative going to congress, will be painfully politically, the president can still get what he wants a detention if he works from congress in a bipartisan center. if he speaks often -- we

charged with a special responsibility at this moment in retirement of supreme court justice david souter and the vacancy that's been created, the senate judiciary committee has the responsibility to work with the president to fill that vacancy. i'm honored to be a member of that committee. and to be facing the third va it is rare in one's public political life to have a chance to voice the partial goal in the selection of one supreme court justice. to have the chance to be involved in three or larger is quite an amazing responsibility. we see the world somewhat differently. i would say to him that i would quarrel with the notion that our laws are so clear that a judge given a set of facts could only draw one conclusion. what we find often is well- trained attorneys who become judges can look at the same law and the same facts and reach different conclusions. that is why when it comes to appellate court that it is not unusual to have a split decision, because judges see facts in a different context. to argue that we want judges who will always reach the same conclusions from the same loss

xu1Ñno carrierringno carrierrin0 whether she agrees with justice souter, justice stevens.her she agrees with justice breyerç the televising judicial proceedings are a valuable teaching device, whether she agrees with justice kennedy that televising the court is inevitable. and she can shed some light on the issue because her courtroom was part of a pilot program where it was televised. there was a program from 1991 through 1994 were the judicial conference evaluated a pilot program conducted in six federal district court and two federal circuits and they said "overall attitudes of judges towards elections, media coverage of civil proceedings were initially neutral and became more favorable after experience in the pilot program." judicial centers conclusions also stated that judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage under the program generally reported small or no effect of the presence -- but camera presence when the pri dissidents -- on the participants or the court decorum. or the administration of justice. some justices have expressed conce

souter was a bit of a mystery. but not with her, and not with scalia. no one could have doubted one bit as to where justice scalia would come out in the 5% of the cases. and how did he vote against roberts, one of the most qualified people in the history of the united states? senator obama said that judicial experience, understanding the law, character, temperament, intellect will get 25 miles of a 26 mile marathon. the last mile is how you will decide that 5% of the cases, where scalia and ginsberg differ. here's what he said. that last mile can only be determined on the basis of one of the value, one score concerns -- 1's core concerns, a broader perspective on how the world works and the depth and breadth of empathy. if i used that standard, she will might get my vote. -- she will not get my vote. >> what you think -- newt gingrich wrote an op-ed today. >> by criticism about her comment in the speech she gave was not that i think this lady is a racist -- i do not. the reason i do not is because of the people who left work with her throughout her life

is the ranking republican, with the special responsibility -- because with the retirement of david souter, and the vacancy that was created, the judiciary committee has the responsibility to work with the president. i am happy to be a member of the committee, facing the third vacancy since i have been elected to the united states senate. this is once in a political life to have a role in the selection of a supreme court justice, but to be involved in the selection of three of them, for a lawyer this is an amazing responsibility. we are friends, we see the world somewhat differently, but i would say to him that, i am not -- i did not say that the law is so clear that there could only be one conclusion. what we find is a well trained attorney, who can look at the same law, and reach different conclusions. when it comes to the appellate courts, it is not unusual to have a split decision, the french judges see this in a different context. to argue that we want a judge who will always reach the same conclusion, defies human experience. people read words differently, and they view a fact differ

in fact, with judge souter's retirement, she's going to be the only member of the supreme court to have served as a trial j. now, th -- as a trial judge. now, the distinguished presiding officer knows, his own experiences, that most of the cases that go up to the appellate courts come to the trial court. and there are trials of the trial court. of the others, none will have served as a trial j. she will have. she served there with great distinction. now, with all of this, it's remarkable that you have some special interest groups, mostly on the far right, who have opposed her nomination. i can remember the fund-raising letters that have gone out to oppose her. and i think it is unfortunate that these pressure groups, these right-wing pressure grou groups, have gotten some republicans here in the senate to oppose her confirmation before they've even had a hearing. now, some might say they're prepared to oppose any nominationth that president obama made. just today, a number of republican senators have come to the senate floor to speak against president obama's nomination of judge sonia s

the majority of justices now are roman catholic, two jewish justices, and when souter leaves, there will be exactly 1 protestant. i am not suggesting you can trace a cause and effect between the justice's religions and how they vote, but it is an interesting way of commenting on how the court reflects the changing of democracy itself. the confirmation process. back in the 50's, especially in the new deal days, confirmations were fairly and exciting. it was not until 1953 that justices and nominees appeared before the senate judiciary committee. now especially since the bork hearings, is passionate political contests, guerrilla theater, and that has politicized the process of confirmation. i think today we know a lot more about what goes on in the court and then we did in 1969. i remember in the 1960's, justice is -- justices rarely talked to the press. today, we have more transparency. justices do more traveling in support is more available to the general public. sixth, changes in the internal process. that is something that warren was not aware of that was touched on again in the conver

comments made over the federal appeals court judge tapped by the president to be the successor to david soutervat do university back in 2005 she made comments about the federal court of appeals, and that is what this parking lot of controversy. >> they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made, and i know this is on tape and i should never say that, because we do not make the law, i know. >> those seemingly joking, republicans have taken it and run with it. >> equal justice under law or under attack? america deserves better. >> back in the old neighborhood, supporters are saying, republicans just need to stop the bickering. >> i feel like they say because she is a woman and also because she is a latino. >> hector says it hurts them to see them fighting. he wants the republicans and sotomayor to get along. >> maybe you can change your words. she exactly nice woman. >> the democrats are firing back with ads of their own, showing sotomayor's accomplishments. veteran political consultant says that the republicans are going to find

the vacancy, as the senator knows, does not occur until october when justice souter steps down, and so we do need to complete it by then. and i've told the president i will work to make sure that occurs. i thank you. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: if i might just respond again with nominee alito, now justice alee together, theralito, therewas ti understand it. according to chairman leahy, it was the republicans that asked that we go to that christmas break, not the democrats. in justice roberts' case, i believe katrina intervened and everybody had to drop everything and work on the emergency of katrina. if you look at days where the record is available -- and it's been available right from the get-go here -- and no vacation, no intervening long recesses and things like that, the nominee knee will have -- or the minority leader or any senator here will have more time to scrutinize this record than we've had for most other judges. and, again, underscored by the fact that the record is public, open and ample

in fact, with judge suiter's retirement she is going to be the only member to serve -- judge souter's retirement the only member to serve as a trial judge. most of the cases that go up to the appellate courts come from the trial level and there are ghess a trial court of the other eight members of the supreme court none of them have served as a trial judge. she will have. she served there with great distinction. now, with all this, it is remarkable that you have some special interest groups, most on the far right, who have opposed her nomination. i remember the fundraising orders that have gone out to oppose her and i think it is unfortunate that these pressure groups, these right wing pressure groups, have gotten some republicans here in the senate to oppose her confirmation before they have even had a hearing. now, some might say they are prepared to pose -- oppose any nomination president obama might make. president obama's nomination of judge sonia sotomayor before the supreme court, before she has even had her hearing, senate republican leader on the judiciary committee, the head