the judiciary should not be tethered to dictionary definitions of words that judges ought to be willing and bold and take steps to advance the law, they would say. and to protect this or that group that is favored at this or that time. i think that's dangerous. i think it is contrary to our great heritage of law and i'm not in favor of that approach to it. madam chair, i think the president will yield the floor. >> some of my colleagues have begun their attacks on president obama's historic and incredibly qualified nominee to the supreme court, judge sonia sotomayor. they clearly decided for ideological reasons that they were going to oppose whoever president obama appointed before the hearings even started. we've heard people try to attach a lot of labels to judge sotomayor over the past few weeks but it is clearer and clearer as we look hard at judge sotomayor's record and vast experience that attacking this nominee is like throwing rocks at a library. it is uncalled for and it doesn't accomplish anything. her points are grasping at straws because it turns out we have before us one of

for a judiciary should not be tethered to a dictionary definitions of words that judges ought to be willing and bold and take steps to advance the law, they would say, and to protect this or that group that's favored at this or that time. i think that's dangerous, i think it's contrary to our great heritage of law, and i'm not in favor of that approach to it. madam president, i thank the chair and yield the floor. >> i spoke last week a little bit on this nomination and the constitutional responsibility of the senate to conduct a fair and i believe dignified hearing that will be held now on july 13, just a couple short weeks from now. as i said then and i'll say it again, she deserves the opportunity to explain her judicial philosophy more clearly and to put her opinions and statements in proper context. i think every nominee deserves that. but i don't think it's appropriate for any senator to preconfirm or prejudge judge sotomayor or any judicial nominee. this is an important process, as i said, mandated by the same clause of the constitution that confers upon the president the right to ma

there's an intellectual case for an activist judiciary, for a judiciary who should not be tethered to dictionary version of words that they should be willing and bold to take steps to advance the law, they would say and

you are tethered at all times. i think it just enhances our ability to be connected, but it is not changing @ "washington pos" the way we do our work. -- changing at "the washington post" how we do our work. >> with the elimination of the business section in "the pos" we have two, if we are lucky, three days -- three pages a day for business coverage. what does it say about respect for business in this town that is villa devoted to government and, two, is a expectation that we will not receive business as by and large from the pos, that we will get it from the business journal or perhaps -- >> here is what i said, we did not eliminate the business contact. we eliminated the stock tables, which most, in fact, newspapers already eliminated and we waited to do that because we know there were readers who still care about them. when we eliminated the stock tables, we needed to put the rest of the pages in another section. we started -- thought where they used to become a big time sports, but we decided to put it in main

there are guests and there is an interviewer, they spend some time trying to settle a undermine a tether and my sense of "morning joe" is there is no subtle undermining going on. >> guest: not only that, it is not allowed period we have had chess has a critical things other people and i have taken them off to the side and i think my exact words have been, dude, if you want to come back on the show again into everybody up there with respect to. if you don't want to come back on the show again, keep zinging. we have got no problem. >> host: you have done that really? >> guest: we don't care who is, first of all, we don't care because we have such tremendous guests that if one person wants to go in and saw somebody else we can do without them, but it undermines what the show is all about. but i have done that, chris has been done that and pick up the fonda and is not just a tax. if people step over others. one guest keeps cutting off other guests, chris will call him up and said that is not our show. do that summer else but not on our show. >> host: to congressmen and senators and governors