Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Remembering Walter Cronkite; Should Sotomayor Be Confirmed?; Law Students and Women Calling Themselves 'wise Latina'

Aired July 18, 2009 - 16:00   ET

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

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And critical comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee all week. So come Tuesday, the vote. Do you think Sonia Sotomayor should be confirmed? Would she make a good Supreme Court justice? We want you to weigh in.

Along with experts, some law students and women proudly calling themselves "wise Latina" women all joining us this hour, breaking down Sotomayor's words, what she said and what she didn't say. And your blog and Facebook comments, as well. All that straight ahead. Your phone calls, all part of this conversation.

Hello again, I'm Fredricka Whitfield and you're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

So, our Avery Friedman is with us. Also, to talk about judging Sonia Sotomayor. How did she do? What kind of reception did she receive there at the Senate Judiciary panel?

Avery Friedman, right here, right now. So, we've been talking about this journey for quite some time. Now, finally the moment has come. Here she was in the middle of hearings.

How did she do, how did she hold up in

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, the fact is Fredricka, she did a terrific job, and primarily because she was prepared. If we heard one thing faced off with about 600 questions, it was I'm going to apply the law to the facts. So no matter how -

WHITFIELD: Broken record.

FRIEDMAN: No matter how dramatic it got, that was mantra, that's what we heard.

WHITFIELD: OK. But at the same time, you know, there were some complaints coming from the senators saying, wait a minute, we want more. We want to hear more about your personal experience, how do you explain that? And is that impacting the court? Did she handle those questions well?

FRIEDMAN: Yes, in other words, at least those senators who are really not too sure about her, wanted to know about empathy, wanted to find out whether or not she was going to be robotic. Well, the fact is she kept saying the same thing and Fredericka, she never really answered the question. She stayed with the mantra. WHITFIELD: That was plan. That was her plan, but I remember, you know, that there were other justices or other nominees, Alito being one of them, who felt like they learned from the Bork hearings that maybe this is the technique that you need to carry out. So she was very studied, wasn't she?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you just nailed it. Ever since Robert Bork back in the 1980s, every candidate, every nominee to the United States Supreme Court has done essentially a variation on the very theme that we saw there. And that is stick to the script, I will apply the law to the facts, we don't have the slightest idea what she's really going to be doing except as she said, look at my record.

WHITFIELD: And they did. And she seemingly held her own. How important was this moment in your view in terms of setting the tone of potentially other Supreme Court nomination processes from taking place? Because it's been pretty good possibility, right, that this administration may have at least one more appointee if not two.

FRIEDMAN: Well, John Paul Stevens is in his 80s, Fredericka, we're very likely to see at least one, if not two, maybe three changes during this administration. Bottom line is we're going to see a variation from this theme from this point on. And I think Sonia Sotomayor was the best example of it. We're not going to see a modification of the mantra, I'm going to apply the law to the facts. That's all we're going to hear.

WHITFIELD: All right. So Tuesday, come Tuesday, the vote is to take place, run us through what we might expect.

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, again, we have the entire 100 senators who are going to take their shots. It's not going to be at all as controlled as the Senate judiciary but the truth is by the end of the debate and discussion we're probably looking at 80 to 90 senators who are going to support this nomination. Why? Because she's prudential, she has a record. She's the only trial judge who frankly has been a nominee who will go to the Supreme Court that's going to be very difficult to suggest that we're going to see anything other than a confirmation.

WHITFIELD: Interesting. All right. So Avery, let's take a look at something right here. I want you to take a walk with me, if you could. And help me understand what's going to happen to this panel. Because as we see it now, with the current nine justices and we kind of decided to just isolate two of the most heated kind of issues that oftentimes kind of influence the court. Gun control, five to four, abortion rights, five to four.

And Souter is on his way out, but even if you were leave the scenario, what likely in your view would happen?

FRIEDMAN: Nothing.

WHITFIELD: Nothing?

FRIEDMAN: What's going to happen is David Souter, who was a moderate, who really bent to the left but not always will be replaced by a moderate who sometimes leans to the left but not always. So what it gets to the end of the day, we're essentially seeing a replacement.

The difference though is that Sonia Sotomayor will bring to the United States Supreme Court something that it's never seen before. And that is someone that grew up in the Bronx, grew up in the projects, led a life unlike any of the 110 white males who have served on this bench. And you want to know something? The Supreme Court now is looking a little bit more like America. And that's what's exciting. That's what we're going to see.

WHITFIELD: And you know, we replace the picture now with Sotomayor with Souter. We have the question mark here. But in your view it's still going to be a 5-4 generally on at least gun control and maybe abortion rights, but that's a guess because she has no judicial record on either of these issues to make one believe that she's an advocate or opponent of either?

FRIEDMAN: Sort of, sort of. She was part of a panel, Fredericka, that ruled that the United States could enact a rule, the executive branch that would restrict funds going to Federal facilities to provide abortions. And she upheld that rule. I don't think that really tells you anything, but the more important thing on gun rights -

WHITFIELD: Yes.

FRIEDMAN: The other issue you mentioned was that she upheld the right of New York to bar certain kind of weapons. So the showdown that we're going to be looking at constitutionally is when that case gets to the Supreme Court and it will this term, what is she going to do? And the answer is nobody has the slightest idea right now.

WHITFIELD: All right. Avery, you're going to be joining us again throughout this hour.

Josh Levs is also fielding a number of comments coming from people in so many different ways, we're also using phone service as well. Now we've got voice messages from many of you as well as you're sending comments on Facebook as well as the blog. Josh, are you with me?

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm here. There I am, see, I just showed up. Hey, Fred. How are you doing? Yes, I think it's funny that phone is now the last thing we add after all the fancy new technology. But yes, folks, you have every way to reach us. A few things that are happening I'll tell you about right now. First of all, a lot of you have heard Avery express support for her, many are sending in comments opposing Sonia Sotomayor.

We're going to post some of your comments to Avery, get his response. Also throughout this hour and even after the show is over, we have a discussion that happens online. Here's how to take part, go to this graphics. We got Fred's blog page at CNNNewsroom@cnn.com/fred.

And then we've also got our Facebook page and I think we can show them right here. There you go, CNN.com/Fredricka and you got the Facebook book page there. You also got mine going to. We have all our tentacles spread out. Facebook and twitter and in both cases it's slash joshlevscnn. We're going to have lots of discussion throughout this hour and we'll get your responses as well.

WHITFIELD: We're hearing the dial tone which means we're ready to take your calls, right.

LEVS: Phone's working.

WHITFIELD: Phones are working.

All right. Very cool. Thanks so much, Josh. Appreciate that.

LEVS: You got it.

WHITFIELD: All right. So what's not to like about Sonia Sotomayor? Well critics say a lot.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Should the Senate confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court? A CNN opinion research poll shows 47 percent of you said yes. 40 percent said no. 13 percent of you weren't so sure. So why is it there's some trepidation about Sonia Sotomayor?

We're being joined by Charmaine Yoest, she actually testified against Sotomayor's confirmation at the Senate hearings this week and she's also the president of Americans United for Life and served on Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign, quite an extensive resume. And she's joining us right now.

OK, well, you know, the senators did certainly try to get her to commit on certain issues and she repeatedly said she would want to apply the law. Do you suppose that strategy backfired to show why opponents are so critical of her?

CHARMAINE YOEST, AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE: Well, you know, first, Fredericka, thanks for having me. I have to tell you I have to disagree with Avery pretty strenuously. This is a judge who is going to be worse than Judge Souter.

WHITFIELD: In what way?

YOEST: We were, of course, very disappointed that he was a consistent vote to uphold Roe v. Wade but time after time he was also consistently willing to uphold the constitutionality of common sense abortion regulations like parental notification and informed consent even bans on partial birth abortions.

WHITFIELD: Well, you know, can I just stop you there. Because you know, I guess initially some thought that Souter might be because he was appointed by a republican president, much more conservative when there was that surprise in the view of some, so potentially might if confirmed Sonia Sotomayor has some surprises?

YOEST: Well, there's always that possibility, but I really don't think so. Because when you look at her record in its totality, you know, she was backtracking all week long off of a very clear record of a commitment judicial activism. You know, the "wise Latina" quote was just the tip of the iceberg. One of the quotes that I gave in my testimony to the judiciary committee was she said that she felt like that you need to appeal to your creative juices as you're coming before the bench.

I mean creativity is the least thing that you want from a judge when they are looking at the law. They're supposed to interpret the constitution as it's written. So when you take those kinds of comments that show her commitment to judicial activism and you take it together with her record on the abortion issue with the Puerto Rican legal defense fund, she served on the board of directors there for over 12 years. We think it's pretty clear that she has a commitment to activism and an ideological bent towards pushing the abortion agenda.

WHITFIELD: What were you hoping your testimony would do or reveal or potentially even cut down about Sotomayor?

YOEST: Well, you know, earlier, I believe it was Avery who said there wasn't much of a record that she has on the abortion issue. And what we were hoping to do with the senators is to let them know that there really is a significant record.

And I think one of the things we're very happy about is over the course of the week you did hear quite a bit of questioning about her service on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. It's really, really important because there were six cases, not one but six, that went forward to the Supreme Court that were very aggressively advocating unlimited abortion on demand as a fundamental right with no restrictions whatsoever. So we were very concerned that that get in the record and that she be asked questions about that.

WHITFIELD: Is it abortion that you're most concerned about as it pertains to Sonia Sotomayor?

YOEST: Well, Americans United for Life looks at whole host of life issues. You know, there's end of life issue, there's bioethics issue. There's a whole host of life issues that are going to come before the court.

WHITFIELD: Because she doesn't have a legal record, an opinion, a decision on anything as it pertains to anything as it pertains to abortion rights?

YOEST: She had a couple of cases she decided in which she upheld precedent. And our concern is that as a lower court judge, she's obligated to do that. So we believe that when you look at the totality of her record, she is going to be more reliable and aggressive than Justice Souter vote for undermining the kinds of regulations and restrictions on abortions that Americans want to pass at the state level.

WHITFIELD: But do you feel like upholding precedent is enough in which to read the totality of a jurist? YOEST: Well, you know, Fredricka, that is a really good question. It's important to understand for people who aren't steeped in the Supreme Court and the layering of the courts and how they work and how court cases come up to the Supreme Court, the job of the Supreme Court is to set precedent. So the fact that she upheld precedent on the Second Circuit Court doesn't really tell us what she'll do in the Supreme Court if she has the opportunity to implement the activism she's pretty clear she demonstrated she's committed to through her speeches.

WHITFIELD: OK. Charmaine Yoest, thanks so you for your time. Appreciate that.

YOEST: Thank you, Fredericka.

WHITFIELD: And even if you don't prefer her judicial record, Sotomayor on the Hill was a proud moment for many.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN TREAT, CALLER: I believe Sotomayor would be a great Supreme Court justice and I really want to see her elected. I'm excited over it, she's so qualified. And thank you for that. I'm Jean Treat(ph) and I come from New Jersey.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. We've been hearing from you. We also heard from at least one critic of Sonia Sotomayor. And everyone is kind of expressing themselves in a very candid passion about whether she should indeed be confirmed on Tuesday. So we brought back Avery Friedman who is joining us from Cleveland and Josh Levs also been fielding so many of these e-mails as well as comments on Facebook and even we got a phone line going. So Josh, what are people saying?

LEVS: Yes. We got it all. Let's zoom in to the board because I want to start off giving people some facts. A lot of people heard this week but some of you just coming around. I want tone courage you, go to cnn.com. At the very top of your screen click on Sotomayor.

And it's going to talk you through a lot of the facts to help you form your opinion. You'll be able to see some of the key events in her career that led up to this and also what you're going to see over here is a comparison between her and some others. It's not as fancy as Fred at the magic wall but it still does talk you through some of her stances and also we got this here, which I think is very helpful.

Can we zoom way in here? Will this show up? You've got some of her key decision, key rulings on issues like the environment, finances, health, civil rights, copyright, abortion, baseball. It's very interesting because it gives you some facts to work with. Now let's zoom over to our discussion pages, which we have going at the blog. And Avery, I want to toss this at you because we said you were going to come back and we just did hear from a critics.

Tom wrote this in other blog, I think she's qualified, her story is compelling. However what came out of her mouth, she owns. The white male comment was an egregious error, but will be allowed because of her minority status. Isn't that unfortunate.

I'm asking Avery, is there a double standard here that if someone has said something very, very, very similar about a white male potentially coming to a better conclusion, that person might never be considered for the Supreme Court?

FRIEDMAN: Well, actually, we heard that coming from some of the senators on the judiciary committee. Look, the best she could say, and I think she was accurate. She came up with a rhetorical flourish(ph) that fell flat. That's exactly how she put it. this was an inspirational, motivational effort to try to talk to the next generation of lawyers.

So that they understood what they can aspire to. It's a big difference between how she's conducted herself as a judge. I think the error and we've seen some criticism earlier during this segment was that well, what did she do before she was a judge? Well, let me tell you something, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsberg all did different things and were advocates before they went to the bench. So it's really not fair to judge what they did as advocates and how they're going to serve as judges.

LEVS: And Avery, let me follow up on that with a post we got here from Don which I find interesting. It's more pragmatic. We can zoom in right down here. It said her decisions will always be suspect. People will always feel they've not gotten a fair deal, any time race or gender can be alluded to in her decisions.

When you look, Avery, at previous disputes over potential Supreme Court justices, did that end up happening that something was introduced during the confirmation process later on cast a shadow over future decisions?

FRIEDMAN: Well, yes, look at Clarence Thomas, Josh. I mean, we had a situation where everybody knew where he was coming from. He actually said under oath that he had no preconceived notions of choice and abortion, but that frankly was untrue.

We have to take these nominees at face value under oath. And it's the duty of the Senate and judiciary committee in particular to get to the truth. Frankly, you know, we watched it four days, Josh, I'm not sure are what the heck we got out of that.

LEVS: Interesting. As a quick yes or no, are you concerned that this might cast a shadow over her future decision, yes or no?

FRIEDMAN: No.

LEVS: OK. All right. We got a matter of seconds. This discussion goes on throughout the entire hour. Here's how you can weigh in. Let's show everybody the few ways we got going. We got cnn.com/Fredricka, that's her blog page and you got the main one .com/newsroom, Facebook and twitter in both cases it's joshlevscnn. And Fred, I'll be back in a few minutes. We're going to read you lots of responses. I will tell you this. We have some criticism as you saw on the blog.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

LEVS: So far what I'm getting on Facebook and twitter, about 95 percent pro-Sotomayor. So we'll be hearing that, too.

WHITFIELD: Interesting. So Avery, you know, before we let you go. Do you feel like this was a different confirmation hearing than we've seen in most recent modern day?

FRIEDMAN: Nothing like this in American constitutional history, Fredericka. Absolutely, amazing. Again, the first Hispanic, the first minority Hispanic before this judiciary committee and the Senate, nothing like it.

WHITFIELD: Good. Because there was a lot of caution, we did see that and perhaps because -

FRIEDMAN: They didn't want to beat her up.

WHITFIELD: Right. There were some senators who say wait a minute, if I do then I'm going to be called a lot of other names, too, because this is the first Latina and it's a woman and there we go. All right.

FRIEDMAN: You nailed it. You nailed it.

WHITFIELD: All right. Avery Friedman, thanks so much for joining us on this. And Josh, we'll see you again.

Well, among those who are watching the hearings, law students. I caught up with a few who were very calculating, very observant and very analytical about all they saw this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. A look at the top stories, then we get back to our hour focus of judging Sonia Sotomayor. So right now, officials investigating yesterday's hotel bombings in Jakarta, Indonesia, have found a ninth body, it's not clear whether it's the body of a seventh victim or a third bomber. There's no claim of responsibility but a splinter group linked to Al Qaeda is suspected.

President Obama said Walter Cronkite was a guys that America could trust through wars and riots and marches and milestones. The long time "CBS Evening News" anchor died yesterday at the age of 92.

And 220 miles from earth, NASA astronauts, David Wolfe and Timothy Copra are midway through a space walk. They're building an addition to the International Space Station that will be used for outside experiments.

Let's resume our focus on "Judging Sotomayor." A primary focus of the hearings, her comments about being a wise Latina woman. Well, I caught up with a former deputy White House chief of staff, Maria Echaveste, about what went wrong and what went right during these proceedings.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: This is a really proud moment for Sonia Sotomayor's mother. She was dabbing her eyes occasionally with tears and smiling. How proud of a moment or what did this moment make you feel like?

MARIA ECHAVESTE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I am very, very proud. It's knowing that our highest court may very soon have someone who looks like me. And lots of millions of Hispanic across the country, but more importantly, it's rollingly (ph) the story of struggle, which we all - that's the American story we love.

WHITFIELD: It's the story of struggle meaning the odds were against her to graduate from high school, to go on to Ivy League schools and to reach such levels. She comes with a greater amount of trial experience as a prosecutor than any of the other sitting justices. However, it seemed these hearings the primary focal point was that wise Latina woman comment. In what way did you see that that shaped these hearings?

ECHAVESTE: It's unfortunate. But it definitely was the focus. I think there's so little, frankly, to argue about her qualifications, but we have a bipartisan process, right? And so they had to find something to attack her on.

And that statement, the "wise Latina" woman, which she now regrets because it did offend people and was misunderstood was a way in which some people, some of the senators were able to put the issue of race and raise the question that because she is Latina, will she be biased on the court? And I dare say we never ask that question of a white male. So it's unfortunate.

WHITFIELD: Did that disappoint you that she backpedaled on that language, that while she used it in so many different forums, so many different speaking engagements and seemed to stand behind it at that moment that even during the hearing she said she regretted using that language.

Was that the pressure that you supposed she felt from those senators who disputed that that language said that she was prejudicial or did she feel like she just needed to acquiesce just to move on?

ECHAVESTE: Well, I can't be in her mind but there's no question that this notion that one group might be better at is really unacceptable in our country. It really is unacceptable.

WHITFIELD: You like the argument being made that life experience is something that enhances, that embellishes your professional experience as well?

ECHAVESTE: Absolutely. I well remember one time having to speak debate about a certain type of change in our labor laws and realizing that in that room, there are only two people that I knew one of them was me who had ever actually punched a time clock. That made a difference in how I viewed that issue. And I think that's all we're asking and that's why we have nine justices because that group of experience hopefully will result in better decisions.

WHITFIELD: In looking forward, if confirmed, how do you see Sonia Sotomayor influencing young women, young Latinas?

ECHAVESTE: I think just by being there.

I can't tell you how often people will say, knowing that someone like you worked in the White House, or when they see that she is on the bench, they will know that anything is possible in this country, which is, of course, something that we are very extraordinarily proud of, and which the American dream just will get a new boost.

WHITFIELD: All right, Maria Echaveste, there, former deputy White House chief of staff. And sorry about that discoloration on her. Know it was not your television, but it was a problem on our end.

Also with a very analytical eye about the proceedings all week long, I caught up with a group of Georgia law students who watched picked apart very closely.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Was it fair play to focus on the definition of her personal experiences, her application of her life experiences, and weigh that with her law experience?

JASON ESTEVES, EMORY UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENT: I think it is fair game. The Republicans really didn't have anything to point out in her judicial record other than the Ricci case, which was a very closely decided case in the Supreme Court. So all they had to go on was a couple of speeches.

JEFF ZACHMAN, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA LAW STUDENT: I think that's all true.

I think concern that some senators have had is that she's been on the court of appeals where she was bound by Supreme Court opinion, and that on the Supreme Court, she may or may not be more likely to allow her life experiences to influence her judicial decision making simply because she has the opportunity to do so.

ESTEVES: It was disconcerting to hear Senator Graham and some of the other senators make it sound like the current justices on the Supreme Court have no personal experiences that they use or can think about when they write judicial decisions.

It made it sound like Alito, Roberts, Scalia don't have personal experiences at all. They just go strictly by the law, which, when you read these decisions, you can tell they do use those personal experiences.

WHITFIELD: Of what you witnessed this week during the hearings, did it inspire you in your pursuit in the field of law? Did it in any way maybe kind of stoke the fire of, hey, one day I want to become a Supreme Court justice, especially because of what I saw?

SEAN SOBOTTKA, EMORY UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENT: I think that Judge Sotomayor's nomination is general is an inspirational story. Where she came from, how hard she worked, the tremendous amount of achievement that she was able to achieve, I mean that's American dream.

WHITFIELD: We heard Justice Ginsberg say not too many months ago that it's that only being the only woman on the bench.

RHANI LOTT, EMORY UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENT: I think you see in cases, for example, the strip church case, which I can't remember the name of now. I think it was important, even though you have justices who are applying broader legal concept, it was still a 13-year-old girl who was strip searched.

And I think it was valuable to have someone who had been a 13- year-old girl on the bench when that decision was made.

WHITFIELD: So why is it that type of case, we're talking about life experience then --

LOTT: Right.

WHITFIELD: -- in other sense. Why would that not be disputed, yet to say "wise Latina woman," as that life experience -- that did ruffle feathers?

LOTT: I think it was her comparison, her statement that a wise Latina woman would make a better decision than a white male. I think, at least my perception is, that is the statement that really ruffled the feathers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right, some Georgia law school students from Emory as well as the University of Georgia.

So, Sonia Sotomayor, one of many wise Latina women, and that's why our Rick Sanchez went to Miami to talk to them and find out whether she is indeed an inspiration to them.

In the meantime, we're also taking your calls, and this is some of what you're saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a day job, and I'm a long haul truck driver driving across Oklahoma right now. I just wanted to make a comment about Sonia Sotomayor.

I don't think she answered the questions fair enough to be able to sit on the Supreme Court. I think when they asked a question, I think she ought to answer the question and not dodge it. And I listened to most of it on satellite radio, and that's my opinion.

Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: We will return to our special "Judging Sotomayor" in a few minutes.

But first, the state of marriage among African-Americans. It's been under siege for decades. Today's recession is making matters even worse.

But one woman is doing all she can to provide some relief. CNN Special Correspondent Soledad O'Brien reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Every night, Tina and James Barnes work a second job, delivering newspapers. It's extra hours for extra pay beyond his work in information technology and hers in benefits administration.

And it's all to better provide for their two daughters. But it leaves James and Tina little time for sleep or for themselves.

O'BRIEN (on camera): The schedule is just --

TINA BARNES WIFE: The schedule has been crazy.

O'BRIEN: The shifts --

TINA BARNES: That's exactly what our lives are. I may go to bed 8:00, 9:00 on a good night. I'm back up at midnight.

And even though he does most of the work Monday through Friday, I can't go back to sleep if I'm up at 5:00. My clock goes off and I have to get ready for work.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): Even as they work the night job together, they're emotionally apart, adding stress to a marriage already on the brink.

O'BRIEN (on camera): You're working together, and you were 500 miles apart.

JAMES BARNES: Yes, because that's what it was.

O'BRIEN: You had no emotional closeness.

JAMES BARNES: That's what it was. For me, that's what it was.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): James and Tina have come to this woman for help. Nisa Muhammad knows personally and professionally the enormous consequences when couples stop talking and start thinking about calling it quits.

O'BRIEN (on camera): You look at a couple like James and Tina Barnes. What's their big issue? What's their big problem?

NISA MUHAMMAD, BLACK MARRIAGE ADVOCATE: I think that their big problem is they've gone for so long down the wrong road that it's now very hard for them to get back on the road together.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): Nisa's Wedded Bliss Foundation has been dedicated to saving black marriages across the country since 2006. In that time, Nisa says she's helped more than 1,500 couples in crisis, and she boasts a success rate of nearly 90 percent.

Remarkable when you consider marriages have been in freefall in the black community for decades. In 1963, more than 60 percent of black households were headed by married couples. Today, it's less than half that.

O'BRIEN (on camera): Why is it particularly important to focus on this in the black community?

MUHAMMAD: We have the lowest marriage rates, the highest out of wedlock childbirth rates. And it's like when white American has a cold, black America has pneumonia.

O'BRIEN: It's an epidemic she's battling with marriage boot camp. She and teaching partner Jameel Muhammad host a eight-week course called "Basic Training for Couples."

MUHAMMAD: A the lot of our children today grow up and they don't see any marriages.

O'BRIEN: It's free and opening to any struggling couple. Those considering marriage, those brand new to marriage, and those close to divorce like Tina and James Barnes.

They've turned to Nisa as their last resort.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And this programming note -- next Wednesday on CNN at 7:00 eastern, "The Moment of Truth," with Steve Harvey and Tom Joyner live from Times Square.

And then at 8:00, the premiere of "Black in America Part Two." That's followed by President Obama's press conference. And at 10:00, "Black in America 2" continues. That's Wednesday night right here on CNN.

More on "Judging Sotomayor" right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, well, if she's confirmed, Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Supreme Court, a source of pride to many Latinas, especially those in the legal profession.

Our Rick Sanchez caught up with some ladies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACQUELINE BECERRA, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: We still have to give her an enormous amount of credit, to be a Puerto Rican from the Bronx --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Living in the projects.

BECERRA: Living in the projects and a single mother (inaudible) for the Supreme Court is one heck of an accomplishment.

I mean, we should all be, not surprised, but I think we should all be very proud of that. And this is a phenomenal accomplishment that she's reached, because not everybody --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a proud day in America for everybody.

LISA RODRIGUEZ TASEFF: For anybody who is a working class person. I think what it really speaks to is the fact that if you strip away the accent, the fact that it's a Bronx accent and not a Midwestern, eastern European accent, and there are many of them, and strip away the gender, and replace her, the life experience with that of a man, what you end up with is exactly the same American dream, American life experience that we all were taught to believe in since we were little kids.

So we can all sit here and go, but she's from the Bronx and she's a Latina and she made this comment. But you know what, strip all that away, and she's a symbol of everything we believe in, white, black or brown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So after Rick's trip to Miami for that conversation, I sat down with him, and there's more to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: They are convinced that it's about time that in this national with the growing number of Hispanics that you finally get somebody on the Supreme Court that has an understanding of what so many people in this country understand as well.

And the fact that it's a Hispanic woman, to them in particular, makes it that much more important.

They think, look, you've got to be a woman, and in many cases you have to be a Hispanic woman, to understand certain issues. Here's the point they make -- if you're a soldier, don't you want one of the Supreme Court justices to have some military experience so he will get you if one of your cases goes before them? Well, it's the same thing. If you're a woman or you're a Hispanic, don't you want someone who has that perspective to sit on the Supreme Court so they can get you and maybe any case that comes before them?

WHITFIELD: And some of the senators made an argument that intellectual empathy is different than personal empathy. And if she had more intellectual empathy, perhaps that would be less prejudicial in their view as the personal empathy. What do these ladies have to say about something like that?

SANCHEZ: They are convinced you do need to bring your own set of values and empathy to the court. As a jurist, she's going to do that. And they say -- these women were not people that we picked up off the street. These women are federal prosecutors. They've got experience, they've been on the bench.

They say that it's extremely important for someone to have a perspective that they can share. That doesn't mean that they are going to let it get in the way of how they view the law.

WHITFIELD: Did they take issue, did they find it insulting that the question would even be asked to a proven legal mind about whether they would allow their personal views to stand in the way of the rule of law?

SANCHEZ: They came away with the impression that many times, many of these senators were going way too far in seemingly lecturing this woman, who has really --

WHITFIELD: So they found it insulting.

SANCHEZ: They found it insulting, absolutely. This woman had raised herself up from the boots strap, made it in the projects of the Bronx, the projects, which means, she didn't --

WHITFIELD: She's a tough cookie.

SANCHEZ: -- she didn't have a father. And they're lecturing her on things like, on things like discrimination, on things like how much money -- there was a justice who asked her, do you think you can survive on the salary of a justice? This woman grew up in the projects and you're asking her that.

WHITFIELD: I know what it is to have no salary.

SANCHEZ: She knows exactly.

Another woman was quoting Martin Luther King, saying "Do you understand what Martin Luther King meant?"

I mean, it almost seems, and to many of these women, that's the point they're making like, like, do you know who you are talking to? Because maybe that's not necessarily fair.

(END VIDEOTAPE) WHITFIELD: All right, that was Rick Sanchez.

Our Josh Levs has also been hearing from many of you, your comments, pro and con for Judge Sotomayor.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, and Fred, earlier this hour, I mention with Avery that we had some criticism against her on the blog. I promised I would be back with some of the many pro-Sotomayor comments we have gotten.

We're going to start off with this one from the blog at CNN.com/fredricka. This is Charlotte writing "What a superlative woman. Sonia Sotomayor will be a standout on the Supreme Court. She will be a unique role model, not only for Hispanics and women, but for lawyers as well."

David Lunberg (ph) -- "This is almost a cake walk for the wise Latina, Sotomayor. She proved herself a qualified candidate and didn't melt down during the process."

Let's jump to twitter here. This one says, "If one sets aside Sotomayor's gender and ethnicity, one will see a very centrist jurist."

E. Purdue wrote here -- "When will America stop making decisions intended to absolve past guilts?" So we are hearing both sides.

Here's where you can weigh in, I'll show you the address on this page -- CNN.com/newsroom. The discussion is going to go all night, plus Facebook and Twitter, /joshlevscnn.

And even after the show is over, like I'm saying, people can keep weighing in. It's nice, Fred, people are listening to each other and they're responding to each other. It's a true discussion and debate.

WHITFIELD: People are candid. I like that. Josh Levs, thanks so much.

And our best political team on television, really, your best political team on television. Weighs in on what's at stake.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: "Judging Sonia Sotomayor." So this is how Senator Lindsey Graham saw the progression.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And so a lot at stake, not just for Sonia Sotomayor, who if confirmed, would become the first Latina on the bench, but lots of stake on Capitol Hill and the White House. We checked in with the best political team on television, our Candy Crowley and Brianna Keilar.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Candy, let me begin with you, Judge Sotomayor didn't meltdown. Should White House be confident she will be confirmed on Tuesday?

CANDY CROWLEY, SENATOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: The White House can plan the party, yes, absolutely.

Look, she went into these hearings with 60 votes, 58 Democrats and two independents. The real mystery now is how many Republicans will vote for her. I suspect you will be surprised by the number. A couple of them have already come out.

So yes, handily. And the Republicans said already that they weren't going to filibuster this. They can plan the party.

WHITFIELD: Well, Brianna, on Capitol Hill, during the hearings, it was very civil. How much did Capitol Hill need it to be as such?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: I think hearings like this are pretty civil. And we were expecting going into this -- remember when she was announced, there was a huge outcry from, for instance, conservative pundits, some of whom called Sonia Sotomayor a bigot. And you actually saw Republican senators pulling back on that.

We saw a continuation of that during this hearing. They treated her with respect, but they also asked some really tough questions at the same time, Fred.

But certainly --

WHITFIELD: Was it the feeling that Capitol Hill, at least the Senate Judiciary Committee, had a lot to lose if it got out of control?

KEILAR: I don't think that there was any sense that it was going to get out of control. Remember, on the first day we heard from Senator Lindsey Graham. He said to Judge Sotomayor, unless you have a meltdown, I expect that you're going to be confirmed. And he said he didn't expect her to have meltdown, and certainly there was none.

WHITFIELD: And so, Candy, this early on into this administration, how much of a feather in the cap is a potential confirmation for this White House at this juncture?

CROWLEY: Listen, it is also a feather in the cap. You know why? Because presidents last four or eight years, and Supreme Court justices last for decades.

So the fact of the matter is this is probably the most meaningful thing, certainly one of the most meaningful things, that a president can do. This was not a particularly tough victory for President Obama because of the numbers that he has up on Capitol Hill, and because, more importantly, certainly so far as Republicans are concerned, in terms of whether or not they would try to stop the nomination with a filibuster, is that this doesn't change the makeup of the court.

WHITFIELD: Might this serve as any indicator of what it will be like for this White House as it tries to push forward, whether it be other potential Supreme Court nominees during this administration, or perhaps any other big matter, big issues?

CROWLEY: The big issue is going to be tougher. Again, it depends on when a Supreme Court retirement comes up, from which side of the balance would the nominee come. And that's always a -- you never know about the individual, and so that's always an unknown.

Insofar as his agenda is concerned, I think we're already seeing that the president is having some trouble with getting his health care through. He wanted it before the August recess. It doesn't look as though he's to have it.

That has less to do with his popularity, which still remains above 50 percent, and more to do with the fact that health care is a huge issue, that there are contentious provisions in this, certainly very controversial, and, frankly, Capitol Hill doesn't do things quickly very much. And this would be pretty quick for such a huge measure.

So two things -- Supreme Court nominees is really hard to anticipate how the next nomination might go. But certainly, as any president moves through his administration and his years, things get tougher, particularly when you're talking about big things.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right, thanks to our best political team on television, Brianna Keilar there and Candy Crowley.

And we want to thank you for joining us for this hour of "Judging Sonia Sotomayor." And so many people who contributed to this discussion, Avery Friedman, are Charmaine Yost (ph), Maria Echaveste, Rick Sanchez and his guests, and, of course, the law school students from Emory as well as UGA, and, of course, our Josh Levs.

CNN NEWSROOM continues with Don Lemon right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)