professors who do a very important civil rights litigation, we have with us michael avery from the the suffolk university of law, and michael has done a number of really interesting things in his life, including a three-year term as the president of the national lawyers guild. he served as president of the massachusetts lawyers guild. [applause] >> he had a dream job as a public interest litigator, being the head of the aclu litigation project? the state of massachusetts. iget get they're a commonwealth. so it shows that law professors can really do an interesting mix of theory and practice. we also have david rudovsky with us. david practices law with his good friend, david cary and paul messing, among others, both always allovers, david carey is a distinguished member of temple paw school, and paul messing has been a teacher of trial advocacy at both rutgers and temple for men -- many years. it shows that professors can be in the real world as well. i'm embarrassed to be around david rue rudovsky he has a publication record that puts most professors to shame. he has published a number of art

and blacksburg, virginia, over an inch of rain. 70-mile-an-hour winds around suffolk, virginia. there has been damage but not around here. and really not much in the way of rain. one batch moving off now into northeastern parts of maryland and right in and around town. there have been one or two lonesome showers that have been trying to pop up. there is one for you folks around potomac. and there is another one down around dale city. there are a few others that may come through coming out of the blue ridge. keep an eye on those. we had a bit of nasty weather. well to the south. i want to show you really industrial strength hail. when we talk about hail, this is what happens in austria. insburg, austria. summertime. there is the guy shoveling out his driveway. now he says you know this happens -- no, don't do that to me. he is shoveling out his driveway and in the summertime, because -- then after it all begins to melt, there's fog in a lot of areas. wild weather. other parts of the world, too. look at the temperatures out in the west. phoenix, 113 degrees. at the same time, 50s

but i want to show you fricts down south, suffolk, virginia. they had big storms there last night. even? , wind gusts over 50, 60 miles an hour. again i showed you this last week, too. there has been rain around us, especially down to the south. and into the carolinas. but around here, it has been a long time since anybody has seen a steady rain since perhaps the beginning of the month. in that respect perhaps, we could use a little precipitation. and i will show you a little bit of that on the radar in just a second. let's switch over take a look at the three-day trend. as we head through the next few days. there is a the warm-up i was talking about. tomorrow will be nice just like today. but wednesday and thursday, 89, 90 degrees and that will feel warmer but -- you know what submit is the hottest part of the year. that is what is supposed to happen. so just back to normal. clear to partly cloudy tonight and pleasant. the temperatures will drop to the 50s in the suburbs. like i said in the mountains maybe even dropping into the 40s around 64, 65 downtown. winds light and variable

. >> let me ask about another speech you gave in 1996 that was published in a suffolk university law review where you wrote what appears to be an endorsement of the idea that judges should change the law. you wrote, "change, sometimes radical change, can, and does, occur in the legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes." you noted with apparent approval that, quote, "a given judge or judges may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction." closed quote. can you explain what you meant by those words? >> the title of that speech was "returning majesty to the law." as i hope i communicated in my opening remarks, i'm passionate about the practice of law and judging, passionate in the sense of respecting the rule of law so much. the speech was given in the context of talking to young lawyers and saying, don't participate in the cynicism that people express about our legal system. >> excuse me, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you. >> and i was encouraging them not to fall into the trap of calling

. >> let me ask about another speech you gave in 1996 that was published in the suffolk university law an endorsement of the idea that judges should change the law. you wrote, "change, sometimes radical change can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes." you noted with apparent approval that, "a given judge or judges may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction." can you explain what you meant by those words? >> the title of that speech was "returning majesty to the law." as i hope i communicated in my opening remarks, i'm passionate about the practice of law and judging, passionate in a sense of respecting the rule of law so much. the speech was given in the context of talking to young lawyers and saying don't participate in the cynicism that people express about our legal system. >> what kind of -- excuse me. i'm sorry. i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> i was encouraging them not to fall into the trap of calling decisions that the public disagrees with, as they som

. >> let me ask about another speech gave in 1996 that was published and the suffolk university law revieweview wrote what appears to be an endorsement of the idea that judges should change the law. you wrote "change, sometimes radical change, can and does occur in the legal system that serves as a study in whose social policy itself changes and you wrote that a judge may develop a novel approach to a specific legal framework that pushes the lot and a new direction." can you explain what you meant by those words? >> the title of that speech was "returning majesty to the law." as i hope i communicated in my opening remarks, i am passionate about the practice of law and judging compassionate in the sense of respecting the rule of law so much. the speech was given in the context of talking to young lawyers and saying, do not participate in the cynicism that people express about our legal system. >> i'm sorry, i did not mean to interrupt you. >> i was encouraging them not to fall into the trap of calling decisions that the public disagrees with activism, or using other labels, but to try to be

in 1996 after you have been on the federal bench for four years erode a law review article and suffolk university that pertains to campaign financing. you said our system of election financing purvis extensive private including corporate financing of candidates campaigns. raising again the question of whether the difference between contributions and bribes and how legislatures or other officials can operate and objectively on behalf of the electorate. you said an elected official say with credibility they're carrying out the mandate of a democratic society? representing only the general public good when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns? judge sotomayor, what is the difference to my between a political contribution and a bribe? >> the context of that statement was a question about what was through the legal system. at that time it has been as you know before the supreme court since broccoli. >> i agree but my question is one in your mind is the difference between a political contribution in a bribe? >> the question is contributor seeking to influence or to buy so

. >> led me ask about another speech you gave in 1996 that was published suffolk university law review where you wrote what appears to be an endorsement of the idea that judges should change the law. you wrote, quote, "change, sometimes radical change can and does occur in the legal system that serves society whose social policy itself changes." you noted, quote "changes may develop an awful approach to." can you explain what you meant by those words? >> the title of that speech was returning majesty to the law. as i hope i communicated in my opening remarks on impassionate about the practice of law and judging. passionate in the sense of respect in a world law so much. the speech was given in the context of talking to young lawyers and say don't participate in the cynicism that people l'express about our legal system. >> what kind of -- i'm sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> and i was encouraging them not to fall into the trap of calling decisions that the public disagrees with, as they sometimes do. activism or using other labels. but to try to be more engaged and explaining a

judge sotomayor has been criticized but not enough for the first half of a paper she co-wrote for the suffolkity law review in 1996. in it she effectively endorsed an approach to the law that makes the lawen ever more rarified realm, one less and less accessible to or understandable by the general public. what she endorsed were these sentiments. sentiments i think are profoundly wrong headed and i'm quoting directly from several of her passages. quote, the public expects the law to be static and predictable. the law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances, end quote. the public instead needs and wants certainty and clarity from the law but our society would be straight jacketed were not the courts with the able assistance of lawyers constantly overhauling the law. law must be more or less impermanent, experimental, and therefore, not nicely calculable. much of the uncertainty of law is not an you be fortunate accident, it is of immense social value. she also spoke of what she called, quote, the public myth that law can be certain and stable. in short, this is law of, by,

judge sotomayor has been criticized but not enough for the first half of a paper she co-wrote for the suffolk university law review in 1996. in it she effectively endorsed an approach to the law that makes the lawen ever more rarified realm, one less and less accessible to or understandable by the general public. what she endorsed were these sentiments. sentiments i think are profoundly wrong headed and i'm quoting directly from several of her passages. quote, the public expects the law to be static and predictable. the law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances, end quote. the public instead needs and wants certainty and clarity from the law but our society would be straight jacketed were not the courts with the able assistance of lawyers constantly overhauling the law. law must be more or less impermanent, experimental, and therefore, not nicely calculable. much of the uncertainty of law is not an you be fortunate accident, it is of immense social value. she also spoke of what she called, quote, the public myth that law can be certain and stable. in short, this is law