Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Day Four of Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings; Five Police Officers Wounded in Jersey City Early Morning Shooting

Aired July 16, 2009 - 09:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to our coverage of the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The question is continuing right now.

Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California just starting to ask some questions. We'll go there in a moment.

But Jeff Toobin, Jon Kyl, the Republican senator from Arizona, they went through a long technical discussion of precedent. Some of the decisions she's made on the federal appeals court, the district court.

Explain in lay terms the differences that these two individuals have.

TOOBIN: OK, the gist of the conflict seemed to be that Kyl was accusing Judge Sotomayor of not following precedent. Of going off on her own with a social agenda. And Sotomayor was saying, no, no, no, I was following precedent. I was following the rules.

If I could just inject what I think is a note of the real world here is that a lot off this hearing has been conducted as if following precedent is something that can be done easily or automatically. These cases are before these courts because they're hard. Because they're difficult and because precedent doesn't necessarily tell you what to do. And some judges like some precedents more than others. So this is a lot more of an art than a science, but a lot of the hearing has been conducted as if judging is a science, which it's not.

BLITZER: It's obviously, if it were a science, they wouldn't need nine Supreme Court justices, they would have a machine that would just be able to do it and get the job done. Obviously, but they have nine and there's very often strong disagreements. 5-4 decisions because of the differences in what the precedents are and what the history is and what the facts are, as well.

Candy Crowley, as we look forward, and I want to look ahead because I think it's going to be significant, the Lindsey Graham questioning, Jon Kyl took his strategy, but Lindsey Graham has a different approach in terms of asking questions and trying to pin her down and he's someone who may yet vote to confirm her.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And he's also told her what he's going to ask her coming up. Because when he did his initial questioning of her, he say well, I'm going to get into this later, I'm going to get into this later. Here's where Lindsay Graham stands between his conservative base who have real problems with her and his feeling that a president should get what he wants if they're qualified. So I think we will see more leg here. I think he will signal again that he is inclined to vote for her and he, his style is, obviously, is real compelling. It certainly was to us the first time he did it. He has a sort of country lawyer feel to him that makes him accessible in a way that some of these other lawyers are. It doesn't make him any less, any less talented on this because he really went right to the point and his manner almost masks the toughness of his questioning.

BLITZER: It does, indeed. There was an exchange yesterday that John Cornyn, the Republican senator from Texas had with Sonia Sotomayor and her famous wise Latina comment. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: Are you standing by that statement or are you saying that it was a bad idea or are you disavowing that statement?

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: It is clear from the attention that my words have gotten and the manner in which it has been understood by some people that my words fail. They didn't work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. And she repeated that several times, Gloria. The Republicans aren't necessarily buying it all, but -- and I suspect that Lindsey Graham will continue to press the issue, but she's saying, you know what, I basically screwed up.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, he will continue to press the issue and in a little press availability he gave yesterday he said, "Look, you have to look at her speeches. 'Wise Latina' was made in a speech," and he said those things are kind of edgy and you have to compare them with the narrowly focused judge who says she relies on precedent.

And he sort of is trying to make the point, who is she? Is the real Sonia Sotomayor the person of the speeches or is it the one who rules very narrowly on precedent. Which one are we to believe?

BLITZER: Well, you know her -- do you know her, Maria?

MARIA ECHAVESTE, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: No, I don't know.

BLITZER: You don't know her at all? You never met her?

ECHEVESTE: I met her once, but long ago.

BLITZER: When you teach at the University of California Law School at Berkeley, you worked in the Clinton White House, are there two Sonia Sotomayors? ECHEVESTE: No, I don't think there are. I think all of us have our professional life, if you will. And we often give speeches in which we're trying to talk to different audiences. I think that what Lindsey Graham is trying to put in the public's mind is that she's dangerous -- not just Lindsey, the other Republicans, as well, that she is a dangerous person to put on the bench because she might bring her feelings and her background.

And what is really upsetting is that why is it that when it's a minority, somehow the fact that you have that ethnic background is called into question?

That somehow you're supposed to be neutral whereas we heard from other Supreme Court justices like Alito and Clarence Thomas that he was going to be able to walk in other people's shoes. But there's just -- I think what's being played here is race, unfortunately. And it's old politics of divisions.

BLITZER: Well, the Republicans point out, John King, the Republicans say, look, they just want to make sure that an activist judge doesn't legislate from the bench.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: She's been on the bench for 17 years and, in part, this is a bit of a generalization, but the basic Republican argument against her comes down to one word -- better.

In that wise Latina speech, she says a wise Latina could reach a conclusion that is better than a white male colleague. If she had just said you need wise Latinas on the bench because of our experience, it would not be as much of an issue because Justice Alito and then-Judge Alito did say, you know, my family has experienced prejudice and, of course, I'm aware of that and of course, that shapes my opinions, but then I'm a judge and I do my job.

The word "better" is what stands out. What we are seeing here, and what Senator Kyl was getting on was very arcane, trying to get here what was the precedent -- basing the Ricci case on. This is a connect the dots. They want to say, when there is no obvious, glaring-light precedent, she brings her personal bias to the bench.

BLITZER: And Lindsey Graham has just started asking questions now on Sonia Sotomayor.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: ...you can get rid of, and the difference of society being changed by nine unelected people who have a lifetime appointment.

Do you understand the difference in how those two systems work?

SOTOMAYOR: Absolutely, sir. I understand the Constitution.

GRAHAM: And the one thing I can tell you -- this will probably be the last time we get to talk in this fashion. I hope to have a chance to get to know you better, and we'll see what your future holds, but I think it's going to be pretty bright.

The bottom line is, one of the problems the court has now is that Mr. Ricci has a story to tell, too. There are all kinds of stories to tell in this country, and the court has, in the opinion of many of us, gone into the business of societal change not based on the plain language of the Constitution, but based on motivations that can never be checked at the ballot box.

Brown v. Board of Education is instructive in the sense that the court pushed the country to do something politicians were not brave enough to do, certainly were not brave enough in my state. And if I had been elected as a senator from South Carolina in 1955, the year I was born, I would be amazed if I would have had the courage of a Judge Johnson in the political arena.

But the court went through an analysis that separate was not equal. It had a basis in the Constitution after fact-finding to reach a reasoned conclusion in the law and the courage to implement that decision. And society had the wisdom to accept the court's opinion, even though it was contentious and literally people died.

We're going to talk about some very difficult societal changes that are percolating in America today, like who should get married, and what boundaries are on the definition of marriage, and who's best able or the most capable of making those fundamental decisions?

GRAHAM: The full faith and credit clause, in essence, says that when a valid enactment of one state is entered into, the sister states have to accept it. But there's a public policy exception in the full faith and credit clause. Are you aware of that?

SOTOMAYOR: I am. Applied in different situations.

GRAHAM: Some states have different age limits for marriage. Some states treat marriage differently than others. And the court defer based on public policy. The reason these speeches matter and the reasons elections matter is because people now understand the role of the court in modern society when it comes to social change.

That's why we fight so hard to put on the court people who see the world like us. That's true from the left, and that's true from the right. And let me give you an example of why that's important.

We've talked a lot about the Second Amendment, whether or not it is a fundamental right. We all know agree it is an individual right. Is that correct?

SOTOMAYOR: Correct.

GRAHAM: Well, that's groundbreaking precedent in the sense that just until a few months ago, or last year I guess, that was not the case. But it is today. It is the law of the land by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment is an individual right. And you acknowledge that, that's correct?

SOTOMAYOR: That was... GRAHAM: The Heller case.

SOTOMAYOR: ... the decision. And it is what the court has held, and so it is unquestionably an individual right.

GRAHAM: But here's the next step for the court. You will have to, if you get on the court, with your fellow justices, sit down and discuss whether or not it is a fundamental right to the point that it is incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and applied to every state.

Isn't it fair to say, Judge, that when you do that, not only will you listen to your colleagues, you will read whatever case law is available, you're going to come down based on what you think America is all about?

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir.

GRAHAM: So what binds you when it comes to a fundamental right?

SOTOMAYOR: The rule of law. And...

GRAHAM: Isn't the rule of law, when it comes to what you consider to be a fundamental right, your opinion as to what is fundamental among all of us?

SOTOMAYOR: No. In fact the question that you raise is it fundamental in the sense of the law.

GRAHAM: Right.

SOTOMAYOR: That's a legal term. It's very different. And it is important to remember that the Supreme Court's precedent on the Second Amendment predated its...

GRAHAM: I hate to interrupt, but we have -- is there sort of a legal cookbook that you can go to and say this is a fundamental right, A, and B is not?

SOTOMAYOR: Well, there's not a cookbook, but there's precedent that was established after the older precedent that has talked and described that doctrine of incorporation. That's a set of precedents that...

GRAHAM: Are you talking about the 1890 case?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes. Well, no. The 1890 case was the Supreme Court's holding on this issue. But since that time, there has been a number of decisions discussing the incorporation doctrine applying it to different provisions of the Constitution.

GRAHAM: Is there any personal judgment to be relied upon by a Supreme Court justice in deciding whether or not the Second Amendment is a fundamental right?

SOTOMAYOR: Well, you hire judges for their judgment, not their personal views or what their sense of what the outcome should be. You hire your point judges for the purpose of understanding whether they respect law, whether they respect precedent and apply it in a ...

GRAHAM: I don't doubt that you respect the law, but you're going to be asked, along with eight other colleagues, if you get on the court, to render a decision as to whether or not the Second Amendment is a fundamental right shared by the American people. There is no subjective judgment there?

SOTOMAYOR: The issue will be controlled by the court's analysis of that question in the case, fundamental as defined by incorporation in -- likely will be looked at by the court in a case that challenges a state regulation. At that ...

GRAHAM: I have -- go ahead.

SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry.

At that point, I would presume that the court will look at its older precedent in the way it did in Heller, consider whether it controls the issue or not. It will decide, even if it controls it, whether it should be revisited under the doctrine of stare decisis. It could decide it doesn't control it, and that would be its decision. It could decide it does control, but it should revisit it.

In revisiting it, it will look at a variety of different factors, among them have there been changes in related areas of law that would counsel questioning this. As I've indicated, there was a lot of law after the older cases on incorporation. I suspect, but I don't know, because I can't prejudge the issue that the court will consider that with all of the other arguments that the parties will make.

GRAHAM: Well, maybe I've got it wrong, then. Maybe I'm off base here. Maybe you've got the Seventh Circuit talking about the Heller case did not decide the issue of whether it should be incorporated to the states, because it's only dealt with the District of Columbia.

You've got the Ninth Circuit -- and I never thought I'd live to hear myself say this -- look at the Ninth Circuit. They have a pretty good rationale as to why the Second Amendment should be considered a fundamental right. And they talked about the longstanding relationship of the English man -- and they should have put woman. At least in South Carolina that would have applied -- to gun ownership.

They talked about it was this right to bear arms that led to our independence. It was this right to bear arms that put down a rebellion in this country. And they talked about who we are as a people and our history as a people.

And Judge, that's why the Supreme Court matters. I do believe, at the end of the day, you're not going to find a law book that tells you whether or not a fundamental right exists vis-a-vis the Second Amendment, that you're going to have to rely upon your view of America, who we are, how far we've come and where we're going to go in our relationship to gun ownership. That's why these choices are so important. And here's what I'll say about you. And you may not agree with that, but I believe that's what you're going to do, and I believe that's what every other justice is going to do.

GRAHAM: And here's what I will say about you. I don't know how you're going to come out on that case, because I think fundamentally, Judge, you're able, after all these years of being a judge, to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself, to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you, but for the group, they're necessary. That is my hope for you.

That's what makes you, to me, more acceptable as a judge and not a activist, because an activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change America through the Supreme Court by taking their view of life and imposing it on the rest of us.

I think and believe, based on what I know about you so far, that you're broad-minded enough to understand that America is bigger than the Bronx, it's bigger than South Carolina.

Now, during your time as an advocate, do you understand identity politics? What is identity politics?

SOTOMAYOR: Politics based simply on a person's characteristics, generally referred to either race or ethnicity or gender, religion. It is politics based on...

GRAHAM: Do you embrace identity politics personally?

SOTOMAYOR: Personally, I don't as a judge in any way embrace it with respect to judging. As a person, I do believe that certain groups have and should express their views on whatever social issues may be out there. But as I understand the word "identity politics," it's usually denigrated because it suggests that individuals are not considering what's best for America.

GRAHAM: Do you think...

SOTOMAYOR: That's my -- and that I don't believe in. I think that whatever a group advocates, obviously, it advocates on behalf of its interests and what the group thinks it needs, but I would never endorse a group advocating something that was contrary to some basic constitutional right as it was known at the time...

GRAHAM: Do you...

SOTOMAYOR: ... although people advocate changes in the law all the time.

GRAHAM: Do you believe that your speeches properly read embrace identity politics?

SOTOMAYOR: I think my speeches embrace the concept that I just described, which is, groups, you have interests that you should seek to promote, what you're doing is important in helping the community develop, participate, participate in the process of your community, participate in the process of helping to change the conditions you live in.

I don't describe it as identity policies, because -- politics -- because it's not that I'm advocating the groups do something illegal.

GRAHAM: Well, Judge, to be honest with you, your record as a judge has not been radical by any means. It's, to me, left of center. But your speeches are disturbing, particularly to -- to conservatives, quite frankly, because they don't talk about, "Get involved. Go to the ballot box. Make sure you understand that America can be whatever you'd like it to be. There's a place for all of us."

It really did, to suggest -- those speeches to me suggested gender and racial affiliations in a way that a lot of us wonder, will you take that line of thinking to the Supreme Court in these cases of first precedent?

GRAHAM: You have been very reassuring here today and throughout this hearing that you're going to try to understand the difference between judging and whatever political feelings you have about groups or gender.

Now, when you were a lawyer, what was the mission statement of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund?

SOTOMAYOR: To promote the civil rights and equal opportunity of Hispanics in the United States.

GRAHAM: During your time on the board -- and you had about every job a board member could have -- is it a fair statement to say that all of the cases embraced by this group on abortion advocated the woman's right to choose and argued against restrictions by state and federal government on abortion rights?

SOTOMAYOR: I didn't -- I can't answer that question because I didn't review the briefs. I did know that the fund had a health care docket...

GRAHAM: Judge?

SOTOMAYOR: ... that included challenges to certain limitations on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under certain circumstances.

GRAHAM: Judge, I -- I may be wrong, but every case I've seen by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund advocated against restrictions on abortion, advocated federal taxpayer funding of abortion for low- income women. Across the board when it came to the death penalty, it advocated against the death penalty. When it came to employment law, it advocated against testing and for quotas.

I mean, that's just the record of this organization. And the point I'm trying to make is that whether or not you advocate those positions and how you will judge can be two different things. I haven't seen in your judging this advocate that I saw or this board member. But when it came to the death penalty, you filed a memorandum with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund in 1981 -- and I would like to submit this to the record -- where you signed this memorandum.

LEAHY: Without objection.

GRAHAM: And you basically said that the death penalty should not be allowed in America because it created a racial bias and it was undue burden on the perpetrator and their family. What led you to that conclusion in 1981?

SOTOMAYOR: The question in 1991...

GRAHAM: '81.

SOTOMAYOR: I misspoke about the year -- was an advocacy by the fund taking a position on whether legislation by the state of New York outlawing or permitting the death penalty should be adopted by the state. I thank you for recognizing that my decisions have not shown me to be an advocate on behalf of any group. That's a different, dramatically different question than what -- whether I follow the law. And in the one case I had as a district court judge, I followed the law completely.

GRAHAM: The only reason we -- I mention this is when Alito and Roberts were before this panel, they were asked about memos they wrote in the Reagan administration, clients they represented. A lot to try to suggest that if you wrote a memo about this area of the law to your boss, Ronald Reagan, you must not be fit to judge. Well, they were able to explain the difference between being a lawyer in the Reagan administration and being a judge. And to the credit of many of my Democratic colleagues, they understood that.

GRAHAM: I'm just trying to make the point that when you are an advocate, when you are on this board, the board took positions that I think are left of center. And you have every right to do it. Have you ever known a low-income Latina woman who was devoutly pro-life?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes.

GRAHAM: Have you ever known a low-income Latina family who supported the death penalty?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes.

GRAHAM: So the point is there are many points of view within groups based on income. You have, I think, consistently, as an advocate, took a point of view that was left of center. You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream.

The Ricci case, you missed one of the biggest issues in the country or you took a pass. I don't know what it is. But I am going to say this, that, as Senator Feinstein said, you have come a long way. You have worked very hard. You have earned the respect of Ken Starr. And I would like to put his statement in the record.

And you have said some things that just bugged the hell out of me.

SOTOMAYOR: May I...

GRAHAM: The last question on the "wise Latina woman" comment. To those who may be bothered by that, what do you say?

SOTOMAYOR: I regret that I have offended some people. I believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent to leave the impression that some have taken from my words.

GRAHAM: You know what, Judge? I agree with you. Good luck.

LEAHY: Thank you.

Senator Durbin has actually responded...

BLITZER: All right. A dramatic exchange between Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. A lot to digest there. He's giving a strong, a very strong, powerful signal that he's certainly open-minded and may, in fact, still vote to confirm her as a Supreme Court associate justice. We're going to assess what we just heard and continue our coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Really extraordinary powerful moment. At the end of the questioning, Lindsay Graham and Sonia Sotomayor, we're going to replay that and digest what we just heard. Bill Bennett is going to be joining us, Maria Echaveste -- the best political team on television, but other important news unfolding right now.

I want to check in with CNN's Tony Harris for a complete update. Tony, what's going on?

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Good to see you, Wolf. Plenty going on. Let's get you caught up, everyone, with other stories in the news today.

Mayhem on the streets of Jersey City this morning. Five police officers were wounded, two seriously injured in an early morning shooting. Look at these pictures. Police shot and killed two suspects in the ensuing gunfight.

Listen to the mayor's account of what happened just a few hours ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF THOMAS CONEY, JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: We had five police officers shot. This was an active investigation, these individuals were being sought by our department for a major crime. We know what that crime is. I'm not willing at this point to release it.

This individual came fully ready to go to war with us. This is not a normal shotgun, this is not a street weapon, this is one that is meant to hunt nothing other than man. And he took it out on these police officers.

So, all things being equal, we can control everything we did, we just could not control the actions of this individual and his accomplice, and he decided to put these cops under fire.

Again, we're going to release a lot more later on. We're not 100 percent sure that every member of these police officers' families have been notified, so I'm not going to stand up here and release any of their names. I'm not going to release the names of the individuals we have shot and killed as a result of what transpired this morning.

I'll go back over the incident with my staff from square one. At some point in the early afternoon, we will have a lot more information to give you. But at this particular moment in time, anything that I give you other than general details that we've had five police officers shot -- two individuals have been shot and killed by members of our department or the Port Authority, because we were working jointly -- I'm not so sure we will determine that immediately until all the evidence is in. We'll going to work this to its proper conclusion and we're going to try to find out where this rifle came from, how it got into his hands. We're doing a lot of things right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: All right, they wanted to run an extended sound bite from the chief. That story developing just hours ago.

And an amazing and devastating scene north of Detroit this morning. A car collided with two big rigs last night. One of them a tanker, and the resulting explosion and fire caused the Interstate 75 overpass to collapse ten miles north of downtown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY GRIEB, WITNESSED CRASH: (INAUDIBLE) of flames go up when I was at the red light. It just went up in flames, and then I just left my car and I took off running.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: The drivers of the vehicles involved had only minor injuries and no one else was hurt. Those are some of the stories in the news this hour. Now, back to Wolf and CNN's special coverage of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: Dramatic stories in New Jersey, especially that mayor was, obviously outraged for good reason. All right, we'll continue to follow all those stories, Tony, and check back with you.

We'll take another quick break. When we come back, we'll digest what Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, said to Sonia Sotomayor and how she responded. Our coverage of these historic hearings in Washington will continue after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Confirmation hearings continuing for Sonia Sotomayor to become an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. One of nine justices on the Supreme Court. David Souter is retiring. She is set to succeed him.

The hearings are continuing. More questions going on right now. But you saw it live here just a few moments ago. Dramatic exchange between Judge Sotomayor and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Let me play this little clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: But I am going to say this, that as Senator Feinstein said, you have come a long way, you have worked very hard, you have earned the respect of Ken Starr, and I would like to put his statement in the record.

And you have said some things that just bugged the hell out of me. Last question on the wise Latina woman comment. To those who may be bothered by that, what do you say?

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I regret that I have offended some people. I believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent to leave the impression that some have taken from my words.

GRAHAM: You know what, Judge? I agree with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Strong words from Lindsey Graham, indicating he's still very much open minded, and when the dust settles he may still vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Bill Bennett is joining us, our CNN contributor. Bill, what did you think?

WILLIAM BENNETT, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, very interesting. Lindsey Graham is an interesting character, isn't he, and has a way of asking questions.

Look, I want to say this. I'm still troubled by some of the things that she has said. Also troubled by the Ricci case, but, you know, let me tell you what I think. I genuinely think this woman may have gotten into Princeton on affirmative action, and I think she would say she did. But she didn't graduate summa cum laude on affirmative action. I think she is ideological in her personal life, some extent, as she said, a lot of people are.

But I think she is quite genuine about saying she wouldn't apply it to her judging. And I would predict right now, if I am on CNN in two years -- and I hope I am by your grace, Wolf -- and others, that I would be able to say to you, you know, this is a more interesting and complicated judge. And the record would show a more interesting judge and complicated judge than David Souter. I don't think she will be as liberal a judge as David Souter.

I think that her life, her intellect, is much larger than her ideology. I think she has ideology in her, and I think the backing off the Latina woman statements are appropriate, but I think she meant them when she said them.

BLITZER: You can...

BENNETT: I think she...

BLITZER: I was going to say, Bill, you can really see some of these Republican members like Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and even Chuck Grassley -- they're really struggling to decide how they're going to vote. This is not easy for them at all.

BENNETT: It isn't. And there's two other things there that I'm proud of. They didn't patronize her. They were pretty tough. They were tougher, actually, than I thought they would be. They weren't afraid and asked her tough questions.

And that's good. She needs to be treated like everyone needs to be treated. White, black, Latina, male female, the same way. Second, one gets a sense among a number of these senators -- and I have to say, some of our best team members are on this committee -- that they're really trying to be thoughtful and conscientious.

I found her to be a more interesting person as the proceedings went on. How I'd vote, I don't know. But I'll tell you, in two years from now -- she will be confirmed. Two years from now, a lot of conservatives and a lot of the folks on my team would say, you know? She's turned out to be a lot better than Souter.

BLITZER: Let me bring Maria Echaveste into this conversation. She teaches at the University of California Berkeley Law School, former Clinton White House deputy chief of staff. Maria, I'll play for you what then-senator Barack Obama said back in 2006 when he explained why he was going to vote against Samuel Alito to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D), ILLINOIS: There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology and record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That was the standard that he put forward, philosophy, ideology and record. If you go by what some are now calling the "Obama standard," no Republicans would probably vote for Sonia Sotomayor, given her philosophy, ideology and record.

MARIA ECHAVESTE, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: No question that those words are going to haunt Democrats should the day come that a Republican takes the White House again. But I think what the questioning has shown is that, even in his own comments, he talked about temperament and philosophy.

And I think as we've heard that Sonia Sotomayor may, in fact, be more moderate than some people on the left. And it gives them a reason on -- not to vote against her on a strictly ideological -- but those are words that will be problematic.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Lindsey Graham in his questioning of her said something very interesting, and I think it applies to what Bill Bennett was just saying, which is, "I don't know how you're going to come out on certain things in your judging because I believe you're able to embrace a right you may not want for yourself." So, what he is saying is that while your ideology may be liberal, as he says it was when she was a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, I have seen in your ruling that you have given people rights that you might not like.

BLITZER: I think he was referring, Candy, to this notion that she probably isn't a hunter and doesn't want to have a whole lot of guns or anything like that. But he was suggesting, you know what, she is someone who could understand why there are others out there, millions of Americans, who do like to hunt and do want to have guns.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Certainly that's what he's hoping and that is what he is saying is, your judicial record is not the same as what you're saying publicly, so he finds that reassuring. I also like the way that he sort of laid out what this is all about in a simple sentence. People now understand the role of the Court when it comes to social change. That's why we try so hard to put on the Court people that think like us.

So, it sort of frames the entire -- what's been going on here. But -- but what he said was, I think you can understand whoever "us" is, even if you don't disagree.

BORGER: Right.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This is why this has been hard in many ways for the Republicans. You have the questions like Lindsey Graham because as an advocate for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund -- that stood for taxpayer funding of abortion, stood against the death penalty. On the bench, however, she issued rulings that uphold the death penalty and that uphold the rights of say, anti-abortion protesters to be out in public demonstrating their views against abortion. That is why you have not heard a steady drumbeat of activist judge... BLITZER: I don't know if you want to go up to the wall, John, and show us some of the waffling Republicans, some of the Republicans who may or may not decide in the end to join what I believe will be almost all, if not all of the Democrats in supporting this confirmation.

KING: Well, look at the committee here by going into it. This is a Democrat here. Let's start with the man we were just talking about, Lindsey Graham because he's quite interesting here. First elected to the Senate in 2002. He's in his second term and re-elected with 58 percent. So, he is safe in South Carolina, at least at the moment his seat is up.

What's interesting, if you look at his background. Remember, he was one of the impeachment managers in the House of Representative helping lead the case against president Clinton. But what's interesting is he is a reserve judge in the Air Force, sitting on its court of criminal appeals. He's a practiced attorney there and in the House of Representatives, as I mentioned, impeachment manager and served in the South Carolina state legislature. A judge advocate in the International Guard and holds the rank of colonel in the Air Force reserves and went to the University of South Carolina law school.

He has not been in the Senate for too many votes on nominations, only two. He voted in support of both Bush nominees, Roberts and Alito. But you heard him, Wolf, saying before, much like Senator Orrin Hatch -- and I'll bring his picture up as we continue the conversation.

Senator Hatch and Lindsey Graham have taken the position that elections have consequences. That a president gets their pick so long that person proves they are qualified. That Senator Hatch and Senator Graham have been outspoken saying, "You don't have to agree with me on everything. If you're qualified, I might vote for you because the president won." And this president won with a pretty good majority, so he gets his pick.

Senator Hatch, as I noted, has voted on 11 previous Supreme Court nominees and supported all of them, including Democratic nominees. So, those are the people we watch and this is what the White House hopes for. Hatch, a senior Republican whose views have influence. Graham, a conservative Southern Republican whose views have some influence among moderates and centrists, even though he is considered mostly a conservative.

Chuck Grassley, another veteran, Iowa. Conservative, but a pragmatist in many ways. The White House hopes at least those three on the committee will vote yes and if they do, they believe they can probably get 15, maybe as high as 20 Republican votes when the full Senate considers this nomination down the road.

BLITZER: Yes, he's not a member, John McCain, but a lot of eyes will be watching his yea or nay when the dust settles on the Senate floor in the coming weeks. John, thank you.

Bill Bennett, wrap this part of the discussion up for us. The sort of internal battle that's going on among some of these Republicans. What's good in terms of this immediate vote and long- term, down the road, because this may not be the last of Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominees.

BENNETT: Well, it's good they're struggling with it. I mean, you're not getting a knee-jerk, ideological reaction kind of thing. I think that's a good thing. And I would pick up on something you said, Wolf. You talked about, she may not be a hunter, but when Lindsey Graham asked her to imagine the world beyond the Bronx and beyond South Carolina.

But there are two kinds of empathy. There's the emotional empathy you might feel for members of the same ethnic group or whatever, but there's intellectual empathy. You know, the ability to place yourself in the point of view of another human being is very different from you, and that's what he hopes is there, and that's what I think he sees and a lot of Republicans see in a number of her decisions.

How about the invocation of Ken Starr, Wolf? Do you think that made any Democrats have doubts, maybe, all of a sudden? Ken Starr as a witness. But I -- but I think that's kind of interesting.

And Maria's point is very good, and I think what Republicans should do -- Maria's point about you can regret the Senator Obama comment about voting on ideology. But what Republicans can do here is take the opportunity to say, "We're not going to do that. We're going to assess her as a judge, and as a judge, certainly, the president deserves -- deserves deference."

By the way, final point. For anybody that thinks the Court has too much power and decides too much, like a lot of my team, a lot of conservatives think, then you should have more respect for the results of elections rather than Supreme Court decisions. Ironically, that means give more deference to presidents.

I remember when I was secretary of education, I got grilled by a Democrat chairman and he said, "Why do you have so many Reagan appointees in your department?". I said, "We won." And Obama won. He's entitled to some respect.

BLITZER: I mean, he will get that. There's no doubt about that. All right, guys, stand by, we'll continue our coverage. They're continuing to ask her questions. We'll go back to the hearing room and watch Sonia Sotomayor right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's get right back to the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. Republican senator John Cornyn of Texas is asking the questions right now. She's answering.