because as some of y might remember, in 199 and 994 whn ruth bder ginsburg and stephen breyer came rough as democratic apointees, they got plus votes. that sticks in peple's craw, the republics' craw thathere were 22 democrats against jhn roberts. so i think there'sa chance that so might vote ainst her just tsort of remedy that. but by the end f this hearing, there was a little bt of a love fest thg going on and we'll see probably the eek of august 3, she'll have h vote on the oor. and, ou know, it ouldn't surprise me if man of the reblicans on the mmittee endeup being for her. gwen: threerepublicans announcedoday. >> right. >>oan, as mh as thy -- she avoided sutance and the democratsidn't bother with it, either, there w a couple of sues people cared bout. how di she come t on abortionnd how did she manae e richey ase which was an embarrassment that se got overruled by t supreme court right before herearing? >> il take the easyone firt on abortion because it's not as complicated s ricci. she sai she would follow precent. what does tht mean? the court has ne in two rections. five justices

he teaches both at yale law school and at the college and was a clerk for stephen breyer at the first circuit before coming to yale. is also the author of several important books, constitutional text books but also two very important books, one of the bill of rights and one on the constitution. the first the bill of rights creation and reconstruction, and most recently americas constitution and biography. is also an author of numerous articles and has testified in congress very strongly on this question of presidential succession in and is as i said with a james madison, and the commission believes is correct that having congressional leaders and the line of succession is unconstitutional. john feerick, to my right, has several important lines in his biography and he has something i think that all of which is wish we had. he has worked on these issues but he has also been a driving force behind an actual amendment in the constitution that addresses these matters. john worked very closely with senator birch by and others in getting the 25th amendment passed, and that is a great verific

he teaches both at yale law school and at the college and was a clerk for stephen breyer at the first circuit before coming to yale. is also the author of several important books, constitutional text books but also two very important books, one of the bill of rights and one on the constitution. the first the bill of rights creation and reconstruction, and most recently americas constitution and biography. is also an author of numerous articles and has

because as some of you might remember, in 1993 and 1994 when ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer came through as democratic appointees, they got 90 plus votes. so that sticks in people's craw, the republicans' craw that there were 22 democrats against john roberts. so i think there's a chance that some might vote against her just to sort of remedy that. but by the end of this hearing, there was a little bit of a love fest thing going on and we'll see probably the week of august 3, she'll have her vote on the floor. and, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if many of the republicans on the committee ended up being for her. gwen: three republicans announced today. >> right. >> joan, as much as they -- she avoided substance and the democrats didn't bother with it, either, there were a couple of issues people cared about. how did she come out on abortion and how did she manage the richey case which was an embarrassment that she got overruled by the supreme court right before her hearing? >> i'll take the easy one first on abortion because it's not as complicated as ricci. she said she would

after that, support justice stephen breyer and former justice sandra day o'connor talk about their life on the court. >> domestic policy advisors for presidents gathered to talk about how they dealt with their presidents. hosted by the university of virginia, this is about 90 minutes. >> i want to welcome everybody watching this on c-span or on the website of the miller center public affairs at the university of virginia, which is sponsoring this symposium on white house domestic policy-making. there are four sessions in this symposium. they're being broadcast at different time, so check the websites to see when you can see the others. this session is on the theme of domestic policy development in the white house. and we really have an all-star cast of former white house domestic policy people. to talk about this issue along with scholars and others who are interested. i want to begin by introducing better carr. -- burt carr. burt was part of the carter administration having worked for years with scenario walter mondale. he served as assistant director of domestic policy. since then, he

. >> senate republicans admit they were not as tough on nominees ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer as democrats were on john roberts and samuel alito and chairence thomas but say they are not afraid to challenge sotomayor. she would be the court's first latino. >> this president want wanting to be an hispanic on the court and be the first one is a moat ation. obviously she has a long record as a circuit court judge. i don't want him to say he picked just anybody, because he wanted an hispanic, but he was able to find somebody with a good record of service that fit that, and i think that's the primary objective. >> some blog critics and opinion makers say sotomayor's claim to be wiser than others because she is a woman and latino is itself bigoted. >> to the credit of the republican senators i have talked to, they're embarrassed by those kind of comments, and they may disagree with her at the end and may vote against her, but to base it on the facts of what they hear in the committee. >> monday morning when the hearing begins, it will be opening statements an introductions, a full d

people who do not broker introduction, former associate justice sandra day o'connor and justice stephen breyer. i want to add one item appropriate to the general theme of selecting judges because both justice o'connor and justice breyer have been selected twice. justice o'connor was among the very last elected judges in arizona if i remember correctly, and by president reagan to join the supreme court. justice breyer, for many years, was a distinguished member of the first district court of appeals in boston appointed to that office by president carter and i am correct in saying he was the last person not confirmed during the carter administration. so i do hope and a soon we will talk about judicial selection beyond the topic of the hour, judicial selection for the united states supreme court. and i take it that it is not a miss when i suggest you might need a modicum more introduction than justice breyer and justice o'connor. among other things, this is a very distinguished professor of law at georgetown university. for purposes of this panel, probably he is among the most relevant item on hi

lynn ffel, and cliff sloan, a first amendment attoeynd supreme court expert who oversaw justice stephen breyer's supreme court nomination. welcome both. pressor eiffel, first t you, w do you expect that thi nominee is going to handle all of the questions about race, about, quote, reverse discrimination, affirmative acon and the wise latina coent? >> well, she's i something of a spot. it's an interestinone. what judge sotomayor has done in her speeches is she's taken the lid ofsomething that's very rarely discsed, which is that judg are people too. they hav backgrounds, ty have ofessional backgrounds, they haveraces, marital status and al o these things affect w they ar and in her speecs, she suggted that this can affect how you can approach a case. and as gene robinson said in an earlier segment, what she really sd in her speeches is, i try to be conscious of tis reality sohat i can guard agait it's very comfti to hear someone like a nominee robts say, you know,'m just goi to call ball and strikes, it's ver simple. what judge sotomay has revealed, it's not that simple, it's actually quite compli

joining me now is cliff sloan, who guided justice stephen breyer through the nomination process.author of "the great decision." you watched this affirmative action debate play out this week including having a couple of the new haven firefighters testify at the hearing. where do you think the politics of affirmative action is now in this country at the end of this week? >> i think it's a very inspiring story for the country, and because i think, first of all, with judge sotomayor that image that she gave in her opening statement, which was brilliant, about her and her brother and her mother sitting around the kitchen table late at night working, it is a classic american success story, working hard to get ahead. but, you know, the same thing is true of the new haven firefighters, and that image lasts as well. mr. ricci and mr. vargas, they worked very hard. and whether one agrees with them or disagrees with them, whether one agrees with her or disgraetion with her in that case, i think that one of the very positive things at the end of the week, you have these success stories, and

. >> more on the supreme court's with justice stephen breyer and justice o'connor. y looked at how judges are nominated. breyer was appointed by clinton, and o'connor by reagan. this is about one hour 15 minutes. >> i am here at the aspen institute, i am here to speak about justice and society. if you can silence or telephones and blackberries, it would be appreciated. the last 20 minutes of this program, will be reserved for questions and answer. if you can take yourself to the stationary microphone, with a few statements this will help us to consider this in meeting all of the needs of our technicians. i want to introduce you to the moderator, his biography is on the back of the program. we are very happy to have him to moderate this session. >> among the people who tied for first among the people who do not need an introduction, is the former assistant justice, o'connor and justice breyer. i want to add one part to their biography for the theme of selecting justices. they have actually been selected twice. she was among the first -- the last elected judges in ariz

he teaches both at yale law school and at the college and was a clerk for stephen breyer at the first circuit before coming to yale. is also the author of several important books, constitutional text books but also two very important books, one of the bill of rights and one on the constitution. the first the bill of rights creation and reconstruction, and most recently americas constitution and biography. is also an author of numerous articles and has testified in congress very strongly on this question of presidential succession in and is as i said with a james madison, and the commission believes is correct that having congressional leaders and the line of succession is unconstitutional. john feerick, to my right, has several important lines in his biography and he has something i think that all of which is wish we had. he has worked on these issues but he has also been a driving force behind an actual amendment in the constitution that addresses these matters. john worked very closely with senator birch by and others in getting the 25th amendment passed, and that is a great verific

democratic nominees, stephen breyer, ruth ginsburg, have been much more happy to acknowledge that roe. wade is the law of the lan and gave the impression they had no interest in overturning it. that will be something to watch for today. >> they are going to focus, republicans, i guess, when they come after in the next few days on impartiality, i imagine they'll raise that new haven case, her wise latina proclamation, her role on the board of the puerto rican legal defense and education fund. her consideration of international law and try to iron out cases in the united states that are unsettled. is there any potential problematic areas, any pitfalls you see for her? >> you put your finger on the three key areas they are going to go after because they all sort of build together. that is her comment that a wise latina might make better decisions than a white man. the frank ricci case, the new haven firefighter case involving reverse discrimination and the puerto rican legal defense fund, which is in fact, a very well respected group, but in the '80s took some positions that now look pre

stephen breyer was still a finalist for the appointment that went to ruth ginsburg.amuel alito was considered for spot that went to john roberts. you'd have to think one of those three would be the front-runners -- >> they were all women, so -- because she would be replacing a woman, would he appoint another woman? >> i think he would appoint another woman. almost half the lawyers in this country are women, and more than half of the lawns are women. when you look at people like wood, like hagen, like th napolita napolitano, it's not like you're sacrificing quality or qualifications. >> oh, absolutely not. >> does it make any difference -- >> well, not -- >> maria, does it make a difference janet napolitano is a politician, not a judge? >> i wrote saying what we needed was someone not coming from the court of appeals because i think it would be time to have someone who's stood for office, who's had the balance, and if you look at sandra day o'connor, she actually had experience that perhaps served her well in building consensus. she'd been in county government, she'd

he teaches both at yale law school and at the college and was a clerk for stephen breyer at the firstuit before coming to yale. is also the author of several important books, constitutional text books but also two very important books, one of the bill of rights and one on the constitution. the first the bill of rights creation and reconstruction, and most recently americas constitution and biography. is also an author of numerous articles and has testified in congress very strongly on this question of presidential succession in and is as i said with a james madison, and the commission believes is correct that having congressional leaders and the line of succession is unconstitutional. john feerick, to my right, has several important lines in his biography and he has something i think that all of which is wish we had. he has worked on these issues but he has also been a driving force behind an actual amendment in the constitution that addresses these matters. john worked very closely with senator birch by and others in getting the 25th amendment passed, and that is a great verification

justice clarence thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than justice stephens and justice breyer combined. second, i am concerned that americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. the supreme court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong. it is a last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age or gender or color. it is a last place a small business owner can ensure free and fair competition in the market. it is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from security fraud. it is last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet. it is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote. it is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights. yet, from what i see on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the past desaid has made a little bit harder for american citizens to defend themselves. as i said before, judge, i'm here to learn from you. i want