Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing; Obama Announces Surgeon General Nominee
Aired July 13, 2009 - 10:58 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Senator Grassley wrapping up. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin beginning his statement. We'll go to him in a moment.
I just want to bring in Maria Echaveste and Alex Castellanos, our strategists who are contributing to our discussion today. I want to play for you precisely what the president of the United States thinks about this whole issue of the Supreme Court justice and the issue of empathy. Because we heard Senator Grassley, we heard other Republicans raise this issue. He had this exchange with Steve Scully of C-SPAN only a few weeks ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want somebody who has the intellectual firepower, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works.
STEVE SCULLY, HOST, C-SPAN'S "NEWSMAKERS": And that's what empathy is?
OBAMA: Well, that's what empathy is to me. And I think that that's -- those criteria of common sense, practicality, a sense of, you know, what ordinary Americans are going through every day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Anything wrong, Alex, with that?
ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it sounds great. But yes, there's something wrong with it. None of us here would want to appear before a judge who had empathy for someone else. We'd want to all appear before a judge who had empathy for everyone. And so, yes, there's a problem with that.
Again, it's a question of whether you think a judge is a referee or whether the judge should put his finger on the scale and tilt for one team.
MARIA ECHAVESTE, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, I think the Supreme Court isn't just a referee. If that were the case, we wouldn't have the kind of changes that have occurred in this country over the last 200 years. It requires an understanding of the real-life impact of these decisions.
That's why I think we heard both Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch point out their concerns. They understand the Supreme Court is a place where a law is made. And I think what President Obama is seeking is what most Americans want, which is a real understanding when the judges apply the law, understand what the consequences are.
CASTELLANOS: And I think we're seeing big differences here. You know, this is not just about confirming a judge. This is between Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans are saying that they are the party of rule of law, they are the party of a more literal interpretation of the law and fairness that way. And Democrats, they are trying to portray Democrats here as the party that tilts in favor of one group or another.
This is, by the way, the old Democratic Party. So in the big picture here, we see an Obama administration that is more big spending, a little weakness on foreign policy, and now they seem to be going left on the court on matters of affirmative action. This is a Democratic Party of 20 years ago.
ECHAVESTE: SCOTUSblog has done a study of her opinions on race, and they say that, in fact, she's quite moderate, and that she has rejected race-related claims by 8-1. So, indeed, she may have empathy, but, in fact, she rules by what she considers to be the law, is what SCOTUSblog is saying.
CASTELLANOS: Well, not if she should have done it nine times instead of eight. I mean, that depends on the individual cases.
ECHAVESTE: Actually, when you review her decisions, which is why President Obama made such an excellent choice, she shows the constraint that Senator Grassley was looking for, which is she may be empathetic, but she's applying the law. She's looking to what the precedent is and...
BLITZER: You know, Jeff Toobin, there's a reason there are nine Supreme Court justices, not one, or even two. There are nine because human beings are human beings, and they're not machines.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right. And I think both sides engage in a little bit of sort of linguistic trickery here. These decisions are not law that the justices make. Whether the Constitution allows a woman to choose abortion, whether the Constitution allows a university to use race in admissions, these are political decisions as much as they are legal.
And so, the Democrats want someone on the court who will advocate their positions. The Republicans want -- and that's fine. But everybody pretends that there's some correct legal answer, when, in fact, these are just political decisions.
BLITZER: And you've studied it, and you're an authority on the subject.
Go ahead, Candy. CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Isn't the problem here not that people -- nobody is a blank slate. You bring your experience to the table. OK? And you see things slightly differently, depending on your experience.
I think just from talking to some of these senators over time, what truly bothered them was that a wise Latin woman could make a better decision than a wise white man without that experience. I mean, and that's why you heard the president say, OK, it was awkwardly worded. You know?
TOOBIN: You know, Dianne Feinstein made a great point in her opening statement when she said, look, these confirmation hearings have become almost useless because everybody is so careful not to say what they think about these issues. Why not say what you feel about Roe v. Wade? Those -- these -- they use this -- Ruth Ginsburg used these rule of no hints about where she's going to stand. I think that has had a pernicious impact on these hearings. I think Dianne Feinstein was right that they ought to be much more candid, but, you know, that candid gets them in trouble, so they say...
BLITZER: Well, they also make the point that these issues are going to come before them as justices, and they don't want to be prejudicial in giving advanced statements how they feel about it. But you make a fair point, as you usually do, Jeff.
All right, guys. We'll take a quick break, continue our coverage, go back to the hearing.
Remember, if you want to see these hearings uninterrupted, you can go to CNN.com/live, and you'll see the hearings uninterrupted.
We'll take a quick break. Our coverage will continue after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Senator Jon Kyl is the number two senator in the U.S. Senate. He's the Republican from Arizona. He's now delivering his opening statement.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: ... Richard Paez of the 9th Circuit, with whom I disagree on a number of issues, explained this in the same venue where, less than 24 hours earlier, Judge Sotomayor made her now- famous remarks about a wise Latina woman making better decisions than other judges.
Judge Paez described the instructions that he gave to jurors who were about to hear a case. As jurors, he said, recognize that you might have some biases or prejudice. Recognize that it exists, and determine whether you can control it, so that you can judge the case fairly. Because, if you cannot, if you cannot set aside those prejudices, biases and passions, then you should not sit on the case.
And then Judge Paez said, "The same principle applies to judges. We take an oath of office. At the federal level, it's a very interesting oath. It says, in part, that you promise or swear to do justice to both the poor and the rich.
"The first time I heard this oath, I was startled by its significance," he said. "I have my oath hanging on the wall in the office to remind me of my obligations. And so, although I'm a Latino judge -- and there's no question about that, I'm viewed as a Latino judge -- as I judge cases, I try to judge them fairly. I try to remain faithful to my oath."
What Judge Paez said has been the standard for 220 years. It correctly describes the fundamental and proper role for a judge.
Unfortunately, a very important person has decided it's time for a change, time for a new kind of judge, one who will apply a different standard of judging, including employment of his or her empathy for one of the parties to the dispute.
That person is President Obama. And the question before us is whether his first nominee to the Supreme Court follows his new model of judging or the traditional model articulated by Judge Paez.
President Obama, in opposing the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, said that, and I quote, "while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of the cases that are truly difficult, and those 5 percent of hard cases that constitutional text will not be directly on point, the language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision."
How does President Obama propose judges deal with these hard cases? Does he want them to use judicial precedent, canons of construction and other accepted tools of interpretation that judges have used for centuries? No.
President Obama says, and I quote, "that in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."
Of course, every person should have empathy. And in certain situations, such as sentencing, it may not be wrong for judges to be empathetic.
The problem arises when empathy and other biases or prejudices that are in the judge's heart become the critical ingredient to deciding cases. As Judge Paez explained, a judge's prejudices, biases and passions should not be embraced. They must be set aside, so that a judge can render an impartial decision as required by the judicial oath, and as the parties before the court expect.
I respectfully submit that President Obama is simply outside the mainstream in his statements about how judges should decide cases.
I practiced law for almost 20 years, before every level of state and federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. And never once did I hear a lawyer argue that he had no legal basis to sustain his client's position so that he had to ask the judge to go with his gut or his heart.
If judges routinely started ruling on the basis of their personal feelings, however well-intentioned, the entire legitimacy of the judicial system would be jeopardized. The question for this committee is whether Judge Sotomayor agrees with President Obama's theory of judging or whether she will faithfully interpret the laws and Constitution and take seriously the oath of her prospective office.
Many of Judge Sotomayor's public statements suggest that she may, indeed, allow or even embrace decision-making based on her biases and prejudices. The wise Latina woman quote which I referred to earlier suggests that Judge Sotomayor endorses the view that a judge should allow gender, ethnic, and experienced-based biases to guide her when rendering judicial opinion. This is in stark contrast to Judge Paez's view that these factors should be set aside.
In the same lecture, Judge Sotomayor posits that there is -- and I'm quoting here -- "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. No neutrality, no escape from choice in judging. And claims that the aspiration to impartiality is just that, it's an aspiration, she says, because it denies the fact that we are, by our experiences, making different choices than others.
No neutrality, no impartiality in judging? Yet isn't that what the judicial oath explicitly requires? Judge Sotomayor clearly rejected the notion that judges should strive for an impartial brand of justice. She's already accepted that her gender and Latina heritage will affect the outcome of her cases. This is a serious issue, and it's not the only indication that Judge Sotomayor has an expansive view of what a judge may appropriately consider.
In a speech to the Puerto Rican ACLU, Judge Sotomayor endorsed the idea that American judges should use good ideas found in foreign law so that America does not lose influence in the world. The laws and practices of foreign nations are simply irrelevant to interpreting the will of the American people as expressed through our Constitution.
Additionally, the vast expanse of foreign judicial opinions and practices from which one might draw simply gives activist judges cover for promoting their personal preferences instead of the law. You can, therefore, understand my concern when I hear Judge Sotomayor say that unless judges take it upon themselves to borrow ideas from foreign jurisdiction, America is going to -- and I'm quoting here -- "is going to lose influence in the world." That's not a judge's concern.
Some people will suggest that we shouldn't read too much in Judge Sotomayor's speeches and articles, that the focus should, instead, be on her judicial decisions. I agree that her judicial record is an important component of our evaluation, and I look forward to hearing why, for instance, the Supreme Court has reversed or vacated 80 percent of her opinions that have reached that body by a total vote count of 52 to 19. But we can't simply brush aside her extrajudicial statements. Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority, the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from, to paraphrase President Obama, deciding cases based on her heartfelt views.
Before we can faithfully discharge our duty to advise and consent, we must be confident that Judge Sotomayor is absolutely committed to setting aside her biases and impartially deciding cases based on the rule of law.
LEAHY: This is somewhat differently than normal. Senator Schumer will be recognized for five minutes and will reserve his other five minutes for later on when he will be introducing Judge Sotomayor.
So, Senator Schumer, you're recognized for five minutes.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sessions.
I want to welcome Judge Sotomayor. We in New York are so proud of you and to your whole family who I know are exceptionally proud to be here today to support this historic nomination.
Now, our presence here today is about a nominee who's supremely well-qualified with experience on the district court and the appellate court benches that is unmatched in recent history. It's about a nominee who, in 17 years of judging, has authored opinion after opinion that is smart, thoughtful and judicially modest.
In short, Judge Sotomayor has stellar credentials. There's no question about that. Judge Sotomayor has twice before been nominated to the bench, gone through confirmation hearings with bipartisan support. The first time, she was nominated by a Republican president.
But most important, Judge Sotomayor's record bespeaks judicial modesty, something that our friends on the right have been clamoring for in a way that no recent nominee's has. It is the judicial record, more than speeches and statements, more than personal background, that accurately measures how modest a judicial nominee will be. There are several ways of measuring modesty in the judicial record, and Judge Sotomayor more than measures up to each of them.
First, as we'll hear in the next few days, Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else. Given her extensive and evenhanded record, I'm not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda. Unlike Justice Alito, you don't come to the bench with a record number of dissents. Instead, her record shows that she is in the mainstream. She's agreed with Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases, against the immigration plaintiff.
She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases. BLITZER: The senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, making the case for Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation. He's delivering brief opening remarks. He'll formally introduce her just before her opening statement. That's coming up in a little while.
We'll take a quick break. Our coverage will continue right after this. Remember, cnn.com, you can see all of this streamed live, uninterrupted.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, member of the Judiciary Committee, is getting ready to make his opening statement right now. It's going to be significant to hear if there's an indication from him whether he will vote to confirm or reject this nominee.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: ... Honduran immigrant who came to this country as a teenager, graduated from Columbia magna cum laude, Harvard, 1986, magna cum laude and Law Review editor. A stellar background like yours, and that's just the way it was.
He never had a chance to have this hearing. He was nominated by President Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which I think most people agree is probably the second highest court in the land, and he never had this day.
So, the Hispanic element of this hearing's important, but I don't want it to be lost that this is mostly about liberal and conservative politics more than it is anything else.
And having said that, there are some of my colleagues on the other side that voted for judge Roberts and Alito, knowing they would not have chosen either one of those, and I will remember that.
Now, unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed.
(LAUGHTER)
And I don't think you will, but, you know, the drama that's being created here is interesting. And my Republican colleagues who vote against you I assure you could vote for a Hispanic nominee. They just feel unnerved by your speeches and by some of the things that you've said and some of your cases.
Now, having said that, I don't know what I'm going to do yet, but I do believe that you, as an advocate with a Puerto Rican defense legal fund, that you took on some cases that I would have loved to have been on the other side, that your organization advocated taxpayer-funded abortion and said in a brief that to deny a poor black woman Medicaid funding for an abortion was equivalent to the Dred Scott case. Now, that's a pretty extreme thing to say, but I think it was heartfelt. I would look at it the other way. To take my taxpayer dollars and provide an abortion to -- to pay for abortion I disagree with is pretty extreme. So, there's two ways of looking at that.
You were a prosecutor, but the organization argued for the repeal of the death penalty because it was unfairly applied and discriminatory against minorities.
Your organization argued for quotas when it came to hiring. I just want my colleagues to understand that there can be no more liberal group, in my opinion, than the Puerto Rican defense legal fund when it came to advocacy.
And what I hope is if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment, that you could be the NRA general counsel and still be a good lawyer.
My point is, I'm not going to hold it against you or the organization for advocating a cause from which I disagree. That makes America a special place. I would have loved to have been in those cases on the other side. I hope that wouldn't have disqualified me.
Now, when it comes to your speeches, that is the most troubling thing to me, because that gives us an indication, when you're able to get outside the courtroom without the robe, an insight into how you think life works, and this wise Latino comment has been talked about a lot.
But I can just tell you one thing: If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. That's true of most people here. And you need to understand that, and I look forward to talking with you about that comment.
Does that mean that I think that you're racist? You've been called some pretty bad things. No. It just bothers me when somebody wearing a robe takes the robe off and says that their experience makes them better than someone else. I think your experience can add a lot to the court, but I don't think it makes you better than anyone else.
Now, when I look at your record, there is a lot of truth to what Senator Schumer said. I don't think you've taken the opportunity on the circuit to be a cause-driven judge. But what we're talking about here today is, what will you do when it comes to making policy?
And I'm pretty well convinced I know what you're going to do. You're probably going to decide cases differently than I would. So that brings me back to, what am I supposed to do, knowing that?
I don't think anybody here worked harder for Senator McCain than I did, but we lost, and President Obama won. And that ought to matter. It does to me.
Now, what standard do I apply? I can assure you that if I applied Senator Obama's standard to your nomination, you -- I wouldn't vote for you, because the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your activism and background when it comes to lawyering and judging.
And he said something about the 5 percent of the cases that we're all driven by. He said something to the effect, in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is applied by what is in the judge's heart. Well, I have no way of knowing what is in your heart any more than you have knowing what's in my heart. So, that to me is an absurd, dangerous standard.
And maybe something good could come out of these hearings. If we start applying that to nominees, it will ruin the judiciary. I have no idea what's in your heart any more than you have an idea of what's in my heart, and I think it takes us down a very dangerous road as a country when we start doing that.
Now, there was a time when someone like Scalia and Ginsberg got 95-plus votes. If you were confused about where Scalia was coming down as a judge, you shouldn't be voting, any more than if you were a mystery about what Justice Ginsberg was going to do in these 5 percent of the cases. That is no mystery.
There's some aspect of you that I'm not sure about that gives me hope that you may not go down the -- Senator Feingold's road when it comes to the war on terror, and we'll talk about that later on.
But generally speaking, the president has nominated someone of good character, someone who has lived a very full and fruitful life, who is passionate. From day one, from the time you got a chance to showcase who you are, you've stood out, and you've stood up, and you've been a strong advocate, and you will speak your mind.
And the one thing I'm worried about is that if we keep doing what we're doing, we're going to deter people from speaking their mind. I don't want milquetoast judges. I want you to be able to speak your mind, but you've got to understand that when you gave these speeches as a sitting judge, that was disturbing to me.
I want lawyers who believe in something and are willing to fight for it and I don't want the young lawyers of this country feeling like there's certain clients they can't represent because when they come before the Senate, it will be the end of their career.
So, I don't know how I'm going to vote, but my inclination is that elections matter. And I'm not going to be upset with any of my colleagues who find that you're a bridge too far, because in many ways, what you've done in your legal career and the speeches you've made give me great insight as to whether -- where you'll come out on these 5 percent of the cases.
But President Obama won the election, and I will respect that. But when he was here, he set in motion a standard, I thought, that was more about seeking the presidency than being fair to the nominee.
When he said, "The critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart," translated, that means, "I'm not going to vote against my base, because I'm running for president."
We've got a chance to start over. I hope we'll take that chance. And you will be asked hard questions, and I think you expect that. And my belief is that you will do well, because whether or not I agree with you on the big themes of life is not important.
The question for me is, have you earned the right to be here? And if I give you this robe to put you on the Supreme Court, do I believe, at the end of the day, that you will do what you think is best, that you have courage, and that you will be fair?
GRAHAM: Come Thursday, I think I'll know more about that. Good luck.
LEAHY: Thank you.
I'd just note, just so we make sure we're all dealing with the same facts...
BLITZER: All right, so there you have the senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, delivering a statement hinting, sort of, that you know what, he might be vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court justice, if in fact he likes what he hears over the next few days. Certainly, he's suggesting he's open-minded about it. And he's saying he's going to have a different standard in voting yay or nay than then-Senator Barack Obama had on Samuel Alito's confirmation process.
Jeff Toobin, he says barring some major disaster on her part, unless she melts down or whatever, she's going to be confirmed.
TOOBIN: And I thought it was such an interesting statement because it really went to the heart of the dilemma of what does advise and consent mean? Which is the Constitution's duty that the Senate has in these nominations.
Because on the one hand he's saying, look, when a president wins, if he nominates a qualified person, it's the Senate's job to confirm them. Elections have consequences.
But on the other hand, he's saying, look, I don't want to vote for someone whose ideology that I don't share. That was what Barack Obama proposed his standard was when he was a senator. So, that tension has been around for centuries in the United States over the Senate's role. Do you just ratify a president making a choice that is reasonable or do you reflect your own ideology in voting whether to confirm or reject?
BLITZER: Because Republicans by and large, when it came to other liberal justices who were nominated, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they voted overwhelmingly for her even though they didn't like her philosophy.
TOOBIN: Overwhelmingly. Ninety-plus votes for Ginsburg. Ninety-plus votes for Breyer. But the judiciary has become so politicized that I think we have seen the last 90-plus confirmation of any president. The Alito and Roberts precedent, 60-40, in that range of confirmation, that's where I think we're headed.
BLITZER: I want to bring Candy because you've spent a lot of time covering Lindsey Graham over the years. And he himself made the point, no one worked harder for John McCain than he did. We know how hard he worked. He was at his side almost every single day. But he says elections do have consequences.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. If I had to bet right now, I'd say Lindsey Graham will probably go for her. But let me tell you why this is important politically, what Lindsey Graham had to say. And that is, if he does vote for Sotomayor, he does give an enormous amount of cover, because is he a leader in the Senate, for Republican senators who are up for re-election to say -- especially those in Democratic- leaning states -- they can go with him. And I think that was an important, sort of balanced statement that those Republicans will listen to.
BLITZER: All right. Hold your thoughts, guys, because I want to take a quick break. Remember, we're standing by to hear from President Obama. He's about to nominate a surgeon general of the United States, the top doctor in the United States.
You're looking at live pictures over there in the Rose Garden over at the White House. We'll have coverage of that and much more of these confirmation hearings right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The United States Supreme Court. The confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor are continuing right now before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but they're about to take a 10- or 15 minute break or so. During the course of this break, the president of the United States is getting ready to announce a new surgeon general for the United States, to nominate a surgeon general.
You're looking at the live pictures from the Rose Garden. It looks like the White House coordinated the timing of this announcement for the break before the Senate Judiciary Committee so that we'd be able to show you both of these live events. So, we'll have live coverage of the president with the surgeon general nominee.
But let's check in with Tony Harris right now. He's got some other important news that we're following as well. Tony, lots of stuff going on?
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Oh, absolutely. Let's get you caught up. Wolf, appreciate it. Thank you. Let's get you caught up on some of the other stories in the news today.
Three people have been charged in connection with the killings of a Florida couple who took in special-needs children. Two suspects are due in court today. Bryd and Melanie Billings were shot to death in their home near Pensacola Thursday. The couple had 17 children, 13 adopted. Nine children were in the house during the shooting. None was injured.
This morning, one of the couple's daughters spoke passionately about her parents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ASHLEY MARKHAM, DAUGHTER OF VICTIMS: Our mom and dad spent most of their time together. They shared the daily duties of getting the children ready for school, getting the children off the bus in the afternoons, and always preparing and having dinner together as a family.
Installing values and traditions in the children was very important to them. Those who have met any of the Billings children know how well-behaved and well-mannered they are. Our parents taught us to love despite difference in people. Christmas was always our favorite holiday in the Billings house. Our mom never left out anything when it came to Christmas. My mother and father touched many, many lives around the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: The local sheriff says there are more suspects but is releasing few details.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney now at the center of a heated debate over a secret CIA program. Some congressional Democrats want an investigation. CIA Director Leon Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that he had just ended a secret counterterrorism program. According to the committee chairman, Panetta said Cheney had ordered the agency to conceal the program from Congress.
Now "The Wall Street Journal," citing anonymous sources, reports the program was a plan to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives.
Eleven people killed in an explosion, eight of them children. The blast happened in eastern Pakistan, about 220 miles just south of the capital of Islamabad.
Let's get you back to Wolf Blitzer now in Washington -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Tony, thank you very much.
I want to show our viewers a live picture from the Rose Garden over at the White House. The president of the United States getting ready to walk out and to nominate a surgeon general of the United States. We'll have live coverage of that.
We'll also continue our coverage of these historic confirmation hearings. Sonia Sotomayor is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The opening statements are continuing. They're about to take a little break, though. Our coverage of all of this will continue right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The Senate Judiciary Committee is now in recess. You're looking at these live pictures of the U.S. Supreme Court. A beautiful sunny day here in the nation's capital. Inside the Senate Judiciary Committee, the members are in recess. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is taking a little break herself. They'll resume these confirmation hearings in about 10 or 15 minutes or so.
Meanwhile, we're waiting momentarily. The president of the United States to walk out of the West Wing of the White House from the Oval Office and go down those stairs into the Rose Garden, where he will nominate a new surgeon general of the United States. The president will make that announcement, and we expect that to be very, very shortly.
While we await the president and while the Judiciary Committee is in recess, let's assess what we just heard so far, these opening statements from Democrats and Republicans. There are 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 12 Democrats, 7 Republicans. We perhaps are maybe halfway through the opening statements so far.
One of the most important statements came from Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama. He's the top Republican on the committee. And he directly addressed one of the most important issues facing this nominee, the whole issue of the president's attitude toward empathy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: And I fear that this empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal activist, results- oriented, relativistic world where laws lose their fixed meaning, unelected judges set policy, Americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than as simply Americans, where the constitutional limits on government power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right, Maria Echaveste is helping us better understand what's going on. She's a Democrat. She teaches law at the University of California at Berkeley, served in the Clinton White House. How do you expect Sonia Sotomayor to respond to that issue of empathy and activist judges once she begins to answer her questions?
ECHAVESTE: I think there's two things that she can do. One is, she can direct the senators to look at her judicial record, where they will see that, in fact, she has been constrained by precedent, she has looked carefully at the law, and that while she may be empathetic to certain claims, she followed what she thought was the right interpretation of the law. So, that argues for a less activist.
Indeed, there are many folks on the left who have real questions about just how liberal she is. So, it's surprising that Republicans have really have tried to paint her. In a sense, if you're a woman and Latina, it's automatically assumed that you're going to be a liberal. I can't tell you how many times people assumed that because I was a Latina lawyer, and I did bankruptcy, I was representing poor individuals. Actually, no, I was representing big companies.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't even like poor people. That's great.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: But this is an issue, this whole issue of empathy, that she really didn't raise. The president of the United States raised the issue, and it's going to be used by a lot of Republicans, Alex.
CASTELLANOS: The president raised the issue, but also her speeches, which I think Lindsey Graham took head-on in his opening statement that he thought many great things about Judge Sotomayor, but concerned about the speeches she's made in which she said -- not only raised the empathy standard herself but that it would help her decide which facts a judge should see.
And those, I think, are the concerns that when you said the president says we need someone with empathy, when she says this would shape her decisions, it brings it front and center. You know, those speeches are going to be a problem, as Lindsey Graham noted. There are things in there where she talks about an evolving standard of feminist judges. Well, what is a feminist judge? How would they rule? How would they rule if we came before them? What does that mean? Those are questions she'll be asked.
BLITZER: All right, guys, hold all those thoughts because we're going to continue our discussion of this nomination, this confirmation hearing. But within a few seconds, the president of the United States will be walking out of the Oval Office, together with his nominee to become the nation's surgeon general, the top doctor of the United States.
And he selected someone with a rather extraordinary background. He will give us all of the information about this nominee, Dr. Regina Benjamin. It's a pretty extraordinary story that she has herself, going back for many, many years. A MacArthur fellow, someone who has worked with poor people over the years, especially in the South, someone who had an extraordinary role to play during the Katrina aftermath. That is coming up right now.
A lot of people, Gloria Borger, don't necessarily appreciate how important the surgeon of the United States is.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's essentially the public spokesperson for administration on issues that affect us every day regarding the public health, whether it's swine flu, whether it's childhood obesity, and it kind of sets the standard for the government's approach to health policy.
BLITZER: Candy, you've covered a lot of these surgeons general over the years. Some of them have been rather colorful, as we all know.
CROWLEY: C. Everett Koop comes to mind. But this is where empathy matters. See, this is a good thing now.
(LAUGHTER) CROWLEY: So, I predict that she'll sail through. But nonetheless, this is a woman -- rural I think is very interesting. I mean, she was a way rural doctor who often treated people for free, made house calls, said pay me what you can, so this is a trenches doctor. And it will also mean that Janet Napolitano doesn't have to explain swine flu to us when it comes back this fall. So, I think there are lots of things that a surgeon general can do, and first and foremost it is about the public.
BORGER: And it's also in keeping with the administration's emphasis on public service and giving back because her tuition for college was paid by something called the National Health Service Corps. In exchange for that, she went back and performed public service by opening up a health clinic for people under the poverty line. And so, it's something that the administration's been talking about an awful lot in terms of education and then giving back.
BLITZER: And we are bracing, Jeff Toobin, as you and our viewers know -- here comes the president right now -- for a lot of health- related issues. But the president is getting ready to speak to introduce this nominee for surgeon general of the United States, so we'll listen.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Before I introduce America's next surgeon general, I'd like to say a few words about our ongoing efforts to reform the health care system that she will help oversee. We are now closer to the goal of health care reform than we have ever been. Over the last several weeks, key committees in the House and the Senate have made important and unprecedented progress on a plan that will lower costs, provide better care for patients and curb the worst practices of the insurance companies.
It's a plan that will not add to our deficit over the next decade. Let me repeat that: It is a plan that will not add to our deficit over the next decade and eventually will help lower our deficit by slowing the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, even though we are close, I've got no illusions that it's going to be easy to get over the finish line. There are going to be more debates and more disagreements before all is said and done. But health care reform must be done.
I know there are those who believe we should wait to solve this problem or take a more incremental approach or simply do nothing. But this is the kind of criticism we heard when the country tried to pass Medicare, a program that is now providing quality care to generations of American seniors.
It's the kind of criticism we heard when we tried to pass the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided quality care and coverage to millions of kids.
It's the same Washington thinking that has ignored big challenges and put off tough decisions for decades. And it is precisely that kind of small thinking that has led us into the current predicament. So, make no mistake: The status quo on health care is no longer an option for the United States of America. If we step back from this challenge right now, we will leave our children a legacy of debt, a future of crushing costs that bankrupt our families, our businesses and, because we will have done nothing to bring down the costs of Medicare and Medicaid, will crush our government.
Premiums will continue to skyrocket, placing what amounts to another tax on American families struggling to pay bills. The insurance companies and special interests that have killed reform in the past will only continue to benefit even more, and they'll continue to deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. People will continue to lose health insurance just because they lose their job or they change jobs.
This is a future that we cannot afford. This country can't afford to have health care premiums rise three times faster than people's wages as they did over the last decade. We can't afford 14,000 Americans losing their health care every single day. We can't afford a future where our government will eventually spend more on Medicare and Medicaid than what we spend on everything else.
During the campaign I promised health care reform that would control costs, expand coverage and ensure choice, and I promised that Americans making $250,000 a year or less would not pay more in taxes. These are promises that we're keeping as reform moves forward.
This is no longer a problem we can wait to fix. This is about who we are as a country. Health care reform is about every family's health, but it's also about the health of the economy.
So, I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone: We are going to get this done. Inaction is not an option.
And for those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don't bet against us. We are going to make this thing happen because the American people desperately need it.
And even those who are satisfied with their health care right now, they understand that if premiums keep on doubling and if employers keep on shedding health insurance because it's unsustainable, and if you look at the trajectory of where Medicare and Medicaid are going, then inaction will create the biggest crisis of all.
And so I understand people are a little nervous and a little scared about making change. You know, the muscles in this town to bring about big changes are a little atrophied, but we're whipping folks back into shape. We are going to get this done.
And if there's anyone who understands the urgency of meeting this challenge in a personal and powerful way, it is the woman who will become our nation's next surgeon general, Dr. Regina Benjamin. The list of qualifications that make Dr. Benjamin an outstanding candidate to be America's leading spokesperson on issues of public health are long indeed. She was in the second class at Morehouse School of Medicine and went on to earn an M.D. from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an MBA from Tulane.
She served as associate dean for rural health at the University of South Alabama College of Medicine, and in 1995, she became the first physician under 40 and the first African-American woman to be named to the American Medical Association's board of trustees.
In 2002, she became president of Alabama's state medical association, and she has received numerous awards and recognitions, including the MacArthur genius award. It's very impressive.
But of all these achievements and experience, none has been more pertinent to today's challenges or closer to Regina's heart than the rural health clinic that she has built and rebuilt in Bayou La Batre. Did I say that right?
DR. REGINA BENJAMIN, SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: Well, tell me how to say it.
BENJAMIN: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: Bayou La Batre. That's in Alabama, people.
(LAUGHTER)
Bayou La Batre is a rural town of about 2,500 people. It's a shrimping town, where a lot of folks work for themselves, scrape by, and can't usually afford health insurance.
And by the way, Dr. Benjamin, while we were talking in the Oval Office, described for me -- the demographics of this town are actually very interesting. Because you've got whites, blacks and Asians in this community. There are a lot of Laotians and Cambodians who have moved there and are a part of this shrimping town.
So, it's a diverse but very poor rural community. And like so many other rural communities, doctors and hospitals are hard to come by. And that's why, even though she could have left the state to make more money as a specialist or as a doctor in a wealthier community, Regina Benjamin returned to Alabama and opened a small clinic in Bayou La Batre.
When people couldn't pay, she didn't charge them. When the clinic wasn't making money, she didn't take a salary for herself. When Hurricane Georges destroyed the clinic in 1998, she made house calls to all her patients while it was rebuilt.
When Hurricane Katrina destroyed it again and left most of her town homeless, she mortgaged her house and maxed out her credit cards to rebuild that clinic for a second time.
She tended to those who had been wounded in the storm. And when folks needed medicine, she asked the pharmacist to send the bill her way. And when Regina's clinic was about to open for the third time and a fire burned it to the ground before it could serve the first patient, well, you can guess what Dr. Benjamin did. With help from her community, she is rebuilding it again.
One disabled patient brought her an envelope with $20 inside. Another elderly man said simply, "Maybe I can help. I've got a hammer."
For nearly two decades Dr. Regina Benjamin has seen in a very personal way what is broken about our health care system. She's seen an increasing number of patients who have had health insurance their entire lives suddenly lose it because they lost their jobs or because it's simply become too expensive.
She's been a relentless promoter of prevention and wellness programs, having treated too many costly and -- diseases and complications that didn't have to happen. And she's witnessed the shortage of primary care physicians in the rural and underserved areas where she works.
But for all that she's seen and all the tremendous obstacles that she has overcome, Regina Benjamin also represents what's best about health care in America: doctors and nurses who give and care and sacrifice for the sake of their patients, those Americans who would do anything to heal a fellow citizen.
Through floods and fires and severe want, Regina Benjamin has refused to give up. Her patients have refused to give up. And when we were talking in the Oval Office, she said, "The one thing I want to do is make sure that this surgeon general's office gives voice to patients, that patients have a seat at the table, somebody's advocating for them and speaking for them."
And now we in Washington and across America have to refuse to give up on the goal of health care that is affordable and accessible for every one -- last one of us. We don't have to deal with hurricanes, and we don't have to deal with floods, and we don't have to deal with fires. All we have to do is pass a bill to make sure that the American people have a decent shot at getting the kind of choice and high quality health care that's affordable.
And i know that Dr. Benjamin is going to help us get there as the next surgeon general, and I am truly honored to nominate her for that post. And Secretary Sebelius is equally excited, even though she's just standing here.
(LAUGHTER)
With that, let me introduce the next surgeon general of the United States, Dr. Regina Benjamin.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: It's kind of hot out here. BENJAMIN: It is.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And thank you, Secretary Sebelius, for being here with me.
I am honored and I am humbled to be nominated to serve as United States surgeon general. This is a physician's dream.
But for me, it's more than just a job. Public health issues are very personal to me. My father died with diabetes and hypertension. My older brother and only sibling died at age 44 of HIV-related illness. My mother died of lung cancer because as a young girl she wanted to smoke, just like her twin brother could.
My Uncle Buddy, my mother's twin, who's one of the few surviving black World War II prisoners of war, is at home right now on oxygen, struggling for each breath, because of the years of smoking.
My family's not here with me today -- at least not in person -- because of preventable diseases. While I can't -- or I cannot change my family's past, I can be a voice in the movement to improve our nation's health care and our nation's health for the future.
These are trying times in the health care field. And as a nation, we have reached a sobering realization: Our health care system simply cannot continue on the path that we're on. Millions of Americans can't afford health insurance or they don't have the basic health services available where they live.
I went back home to Alabama as part of my obligation to the National Health Service Corps. It's a program that provides underserved communities in America with qualified clinicians.
The National Health Service Corps paid for my medical school education and in return placed me in an area that desperately needed physicians -- and I stayed.
So in 1990, I founded the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic in Alabama. And as a physician, my priority has always been the needs of my patients. I decided I would treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.
However, it's not been an easy road. As has been explained, hurricanes destroyed my office and devastated our community. And for years, I've worked to find resources to sustain a doctor's office that treats patients without health insurance or the ability to pay out of their pockets.
It should not be this hard for doctors and other health care providers to care for their patients. It shouldn't be this expensive for Americans to get health care in this country.
And Mr. President, thank you for putting health care reform at the top of your domestic agenda. My hope, if confirmed as surgeon general, is to be America's doctor, America's family physician. As we work toward a solution to this health care crisis, I promise to communicate directly with the American people to help guide them through whatever changes may come with health care reform.
I want to ensure that no one, no one falls through the cracks as we improve our health care system. I will also work to shine a light on the inspiring work of the 6,200 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commission Corps. These men and women serve on the frontlines in the nation's fight against disease and poor health conditions.
I'd like to close by thanking two of my medical school professors. First, former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher, who instilled me a passion for community medicine. As a medical student, he required me to go out into these small towns, spend time with rural physicians and participate in public health projects. Those experiences no doubt led me to open my practice in Bayou La Batre.
I must also thank former Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Louis Sullivan. Dr. Sullivan was my dean and he taught me hematology. But more importantly, he taught me leadership. From him, I learned how to impact policy at the federal, state and local levels to help our patients and to help our community.
I'm indebted to both of my mentors. And finally, I'd like to thank my staff and my patients in our rural health clinic in Bayou La Batre. All of the work over the past 20 years have been for them, and for patients like them. And today is no different. So, thank you, Mr. President, for having the confidence in me. And if confirmed, I promise I will give you and the American people my best.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
