Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Continuing Coverage of Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan; Vietnamese-American Community Hit Hard by Oil Leak; John Isner on Hard-Won Wimbledon Match
Aired June 28, 2010 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Live picture of the Supreme Court there. A dramatic day for the court. The last day on the bench for Justice John Paul Stevens. Also a dramatic day in Washington on the big question of who will get that spot next.
And right there in the United States' Capitol building is where Elena Kagan, the president's nominee to be the 112th member of the Supreme Court. You see her sitting right there. Let's listen into the hearing. The second ranking Republican, the number two Republican on the committee, Orrin Hatch, beginning his opening statement. Let's listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: -- stood up for it all the time. And, of course, I had nothing but great respect for him. I remember in the early years, when I led the fight against labor law reform, he wasn't very happy with me, and frankly, I wasn't very happy with him, either. But in the end, I gained such tremendous respect for him and love -- and even though we differed on so many issues. He was a towering figure.
The Ginsbergs celebrated their 56th wedding anniversary just a few days ago. Not as long as the 68 years that Senator and Erma Byrd were married before her death, but a good long time, nonetheless. Cancer was a part of the Ginsbergs' individual lives in their life together, and for many years, I know each of them was a source of strength and stability to the other. The Ginsbergs have been a model of dignity and grace, and Justice Ginsberg and her children will be in my prayers.
Now I want to welcome you back to the judiciary committee, General Kagan. Something tells me this is likely to be your last confirmation hearing. As America's founders designed it, the Senate's role of advice and consent is a check on the president's power to appoint. Fulfilling that role requires us to evaluate a nominee's qualifications for a particular position for which she has been nominated. The qualifications for particular position for which he has been nominated.
Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and -- and judicial philosophy. While legal experience summarizes the past, judicial philosophy describes how a nominee will approach judging in the future. My primary goal in this confirmation process is to get the best picture I can of the -- General Kagan's judicial philosophy, primarily from her record, but also from this hearing, as well. I have to make my decision whether to support or not support her nomination on the basis of evidence, not on blind faith.
I have never considered the lack of judicial experience to be an automatic disqualifier for a judicial nominee. Approximately one- third of the 111 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court have had no previous judicial experience. What they did have, however, was an average of more than 20 years of private practice experience. In other words, Supreme Court nominees have had experience behind the bench as a judge, before the bench as a lawyer or both.
Ms. Kagan worked for two years in a law firm. The rest of her career as an academia -- academia and politics. As the "Washington Post" described it, she brings experience, quote, "in the political circus that often defines Washington," end quote.
One of my Democratic colleagues on this committee recently said that Ms. Kagan's strongest qualifications for the Supreme Court are her experience in crafting policy and her ability to build consensus. The value of such experience depends on whether you view the Supreme Court as a political circus or view its role as crafting policy.
I believe that the most important qualification for judicial service is a nominee's judicial philosophy, or her approach to interpreting and applying the law to decide cases. This is what judges do. But different judges do it in radically different ways. Our liberty, however, requires limits on government, and that includes limits on judges.
Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury vs. Madison that America's founders intended the Constitution to govern the judicial branch as much as the legislative branch. Unfortunately, many judges today do not see it that way, but believe that they may themselves govern the Constitution.
The Senate and the American people need to know which kind of justice General Kagan will be. Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?
Does she believe that the words of the Constitution and statutes can be separated from their meaning so that the people and their elected representatives put words on the page, but judges may determine what those words actually mean? Does she believe it is valid for judges to mold and steer the law to achieve certain social ends? Does she believe that a judge's person experiences and values may be the most important element in her decisions? Does she believe that courts exist to protect certain interests? Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning? Does she believe the judges may change the meaning of statutes in order to meet what judges believe are new social objectives? These are just some of the questions that go to the heart of a nominee's judicial philosophy. I want to clarify as best I can what kind of judges -- what kind of a justice General Kagan would be. To do that -- excuse me -- I have to examine her entire record.
As in previous hearings, there will no doubt be some tension during this hearing between what senators want to know and what General Kagan is willing to tell us. Unlike previous hearings, however, Ms. Kagan has already outlined quite clearly what she believes a Supreme Court nomination would be willing to be talk about at a hearing like this. Without this information, Ms. Kagan has written the Senate, quote, "becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public," end quote.
Ms. Kagan identified the political inquiry about a Supreme Court nominee as, quote, "the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add, and the direction in which she would move the institution. But the bottom line is you in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the court's decisions. If that is too results-oriented, so be it," unquote.
Now, Ms. Kagan outlined that approach, which she argued as necessary for Supreme Court confirmation hearings to be more than futility and farce in a law journal article when she was a tenured law professor after working for this committee on a Supreme Court confirmation. I believe you'll hear a lot about her remarks in the past, the law review article of the past. She was not a student writing a blog about some hypothetical topic that she knew nothing about.
I'm confident that senators will give Ms. Kagan many opportunities in the next few days to provide the information and insight that she has argued is critical for the Senate properly to make a decision on her confirmation.
This is a critical decision, and it is about more than just one person. Our decision will affect liberty itself. George Washington said this in his federal address. Quote, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all," end quote.
The people's right to make and order the Constitution means nothing if the people choose the Constitution's words. The judges choose what those words mean. A judge with that much power would effectively take an oath to support and defend not the Constitution, but herself. I hope that this hearing will help me further understand what kind of a justice Ms. Kagan would be. And I wish you well, and look forward to the rest of these hearings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, very much, Senator Hatch.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Orrin Hatch, who is the No. 2 Republican on the committee, used to be No. 1, but gave it up to go over in the health committee on the U.S. Senate side.
He sort of gave it up at the beginning of his statement, saying that he suspected that this would be the last time that Elena Kagan would be up for confirmation hearings. Sounds like he thinks she's going to be confirmed.
We want to continue, of course, monitoring this for you, but we also have our Dana Bash up on Capitol Hill who has been watching and listening to every word -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think Orrin Hatch, Candy, might be a barometer of what we might see going forward with Republicans. And here's why.
Orrin Hatch has served on this committee since 1977, and he has voted on a dozen, twelve Supreme Court nominations. And guess what? The only one he voted against -- we're talking about nominees from Republican and Democratic presidents. The only one he voted against was last year, Sonia Sotomayor, and she is somebody who he had said good things about, just as Elena Kagan is somebody who he had applauded in terms of her intellect and her judicial mind.
So, you know, I'm not saying that Orrin Hatch is for sure going to vote no, but in this political climate, that senator from Utah who saw his colleague toppled by fellow conservatives for not being conservative enough, that just gives you a window into the political climate, particularly that these Republicans are dealing with, the pressure that they are under from conservative activists in particular, to be pretty tough on the people who President Obama puts forward, especially -- especially for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
CROWLEY: Can't take the politics out of Washington, no matter what you do, especially so in an election year. Thanks so much, our senior political correspondent, Dana Bash.
We're going to take a quick break -- a quick break, and after that, much more of the Kagan hearings.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Live picture of the Supreme Court there on a beautiful but steamy summer Monday in Washington, D.C. The heat outside, we will see if it is matched inside, as the confirmation hearings in that building right there, the United States' Capitol for Elena Kagan. She is President Obama's choice to take the place of Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
You see Elena Kagan right there, currently the solicitor general, meaning the administration's top attorney to argue cases before the Supreme Court. At the moment, she is listening to the opening statement of a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein.
But just a short time ago, the ranking Republican on the committee -- his name is Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama -- he set the tone. He was polite, relatively soft-spoken, but very tough in setting the tone as the Republicans prepare to question this nominee in the coming days. Let's listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: But there are serious concerns about this nomination. Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. And it's not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think real legal understanding occurs.
Ms. Kagan has never tried a case before a jury. She argued her first appellate case just nine months ago. While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of years.
KING: Again, that is Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, essentially laying out the broad outline of what will be the Republican case against Elena Kagan in the coming days.
Let's take it around the table a little bit. A great group here to talk about the law and the politics. Essentially, if you boil Jeff Sessions down, his argument is she's too political, and she's not ready.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's true. And the fact that she does not have a record is a problem for both sides, actually, here. Because even her call, the Democrats said, "I don't really know what you stand for."
So in a way, it's helpful to her, because no one can tar her with specific problematic positions she's taken. But on the other hand, it is a little mysterious, including to people who know her well, what she stands for, other than being a Democrat.
KING: Reporters like mysteries, but nobody else in town does, right?
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY: Not the unknown. Jeff Sessions is a very interesting person, if you know his history. When I was at the Justice Department, he was the U.S. attorney from Alabama. He went through a horrible non-confirmation hearing. He was turned down and the Democrats treated him quite rudely when he was nominated after he had been U.S. attorney for a federal judgeship. So he kind of remembers that.
Jeff is a real southern gentleman, if we can have that kind of stereotype. So he will, throughout this hearing, never be impolite, because he was treated so impolitely by the judiciary committee when he was up for confirmation.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, it's interesting, and Ed and I were talking about this. Of course, Ed knows more about Republican politics than I'll ever know. But Jeff Sessions could be the next chairman of this -- of this committee.
And what you heard today was a really tough statement for him, sort of laying out every wedge issue for the Republicans that have to do with her, including guns, including big government, including the military, saying, "You know, OK, if I'm the next chairman of this committee, these are -- these are things that I care about."
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Forty percent of all Supreme Court justices never served as judges before becoming a justice of the Supreme Court, including legal giants like Thurgood Marshall and Brandeis and Frankfurter. So we have a history of putting non-judges on the Supreme Court, and that shouldn't be a disqualifier.
The other thing I believe Mr. Sessions -- while being a southerner, he has a certain amount of charm, but a lot of -- he was also combative. And that will get you so far, especially when you're raising questions about her political experience, mentioning, of course, the Dukakis campaign, a campaign that also served him.
But look at Justice Roberts. Look at some of the Republicans, Justice Thomas. They also had significant political experience, as well, prior to going on the bench and serving in the executive branch. So, again, I don't think that's a disqualifier, as well.
ED ROLLINS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think any of it is a disqualifier. I don't think there hasn't been in recent history -- there has been a pattern where most of the recent judges have served on a circuit court somewhere, or been at least been a federal judge. And I think to a certain extent we're kind of going back to a different place.
Obviously, Harriet Miers, is she would have fit a similar pattern as this. I think everything he put forward were very legitimate things that have been asked for weeks and weeks now. And I thought his tone was decent, and I think at the end of the day, if he didn't do it, someone else would do it.
But I think, obviously, as he knows well, everybody is not going to sit here all day and watch every one of these opinions, and so he laid out exactly what Republicans want to know. At the end of the day, she is probably going to be confirmed. But at the end of the day, she's going to have to answer these questions, or at least satisfy some -- some people or she will lose a few Republicans votes.
KING: And to Donna's comment about, yes, 40 percent of the justices never had experience, but not in the cable TV era and not in the polarized politics of this year in particular, where as Gloria noted, if the Republicans can pull off winning ten seats, ten Senate seats in the election, you'll have a change of power in Washington. It's a long shot, but some think it is possible in this election year.
CROWLEY: It is. And nothing is more important, particularly in the Republican Party, I think Ed would agree, than the Supreme Court nominees. Because they really -- I mean, every time -- if you're at a rally, as you know, when a presidential candidate mentions the Supreme Court, if it's a Republican rally, the crowd goes crazy.
And in some ways, there is -- you can liken this to who's watching these hearings. It's really -- if you're going to watch these hearings and follow them really closely, you are pretty much a die-hard policy political wonk. And that's who their audience is here, and that's the kind of thing they want to have out there.
TOOBIN: One of the things that has struck me so far, and of course it's very early, is the absence of certain subjects that have been standards at these committee hearings: abortion, same-sex marriage. Both of them are incendiary issues that always wind up in front of the Supreme Court.
BORGER: Give it time.
TOOBIN: Actually, I'm not sure, because I think both sides recognize that there are real down sides to making this a -- an issue about abortion or those social issues.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: -- watching this are not going to --
TOOBIN: Guns is different. I'm talking about abortion and gay rights. Those are -- you know, have been big parts of confirmation hearings. But I think both sides may recognize that they may alienate more people than they bring over.
BORGER: You know what we're going to hear? We're going to hear new issues. We're going to hear health-care reform, the constitutionality of health-care reform, the question of immigration law. Was the law in Arizona a good law, a bad law? You know, so I think these are new issues that could, in fact, replace those.
TOOBIN: Absolutely. But that's a change.
ROLLINS: For the foreseeable future, this is going to be -- this is going to be a 5-4 court. And even if it shifts the other way, and every vote is going to matter. Who ends up being the swing vote may alter. Right now, it's Kennedy. But long-term, he's not going to get two or three more Supreme Court justices, at least not in this term. And I think to a certain extent, Republicans see an opportunity to shift to the other way.
CROWLEY: Giving you a quick break here. We, of course, will be right back, but we do have to take a break. More of the Kagan hearings, more of the panel right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Live pictures of the Supreme Court. A Monday in Washington, D.C. The court wrapped up its business today, said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens. He is leaving the court, an iconic figure on the court, one of the liberal leaders of the court in recent years, recent decades, even. Now right there, the woman President Obama has chosen to replace Justice Stevens, Elena Kagan, currently the solicitor general of the United States, a long history in Democratic politics and in academia. Some of the questioning focusing on the fact that she has never been a judge.
We will continue to track these hearings as we go on. And we should also make the footnote: before she came up to the Capitol this morning, where she will listen patiently for hours as senators give their opening statements, she also stopped by the Oval Office. The president of the United States wishing her well as she begins what is likely to be a path to Senate confirmation, but not first without some tough questioning from the Republicans.
We will continue to track this throughout the day. We'll be back with our panel many times throughout the day, but, of course, there's other news happening. We want to go back to the CNN Center in Atlanta now and check in with Richard Lui.
RICHARD LUI, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thanks a lot, John.
Of course, yes, we'll be following the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings right here on CNN. We are watching other news of the day.
And of course, our top story is what's happening in the Gulf. The Gulf Coast and that oil leak. Want to get you a reset today. It is 70 days since that spill first began. Now, this is what we understand and what we know at the moment.
Seventy days in, and 28 days into hurricane season. That's a dangerous combination right now. But we understand we could have our first hurricane also entering the Gulf before the end of the week. So we're going to be watching that, of course.
And fortunately, Tropical Storm Alex looks like it's heading a little bit south and a little bit west at the moment. Before we see where the storm is headed, we'll of course, get a handle on where we stand at this 70-day point.
So fortunately, as we look at this, there is some issues that we have to tell you about the tar balls. They're now washing up on Mississippi beaches for the very first time.
Pascagoula Mayor Robby Maxwell saying that they have been planning for this moment for quite some time. The clean-up crews are there. They were ready to attack and are already hitting the shore there.
Also, let me give you some more details here. The estimates that we're seeing right now, 35 to 60,000 barrels each and every day. That total can be quite large. And we did that -- put that all together for you. Over the 70 days, that adds up to about 2.3 million barrels, all the way up to close to 4 million barrels, 3.9.
BP is saying they've now got 39,000 people that are working on this. The numbers before, about 22,000. They also have 5,000 vessels that are part of this clean-up effort.
And when we take a look more at the numbers, 652,000 barrels skimmed off of the surface that from the oil that has been coming up from, again, a mile underneath the sea surface. Two hundred seventy- five controlled burns have gotten rid of another 238,000 barrels, as well.
And then 460,000 barrels have been siphoned at the leak site, through that cap and through what's called the Q4000. The high waves from the storm in the Gulf are delaying BP's plan to beef up the siphoning operation.
And as for the cost, BP now says it has spent $300 million in the past three days alone. That brings the clean-up recovery for them to about $2.6 billion so far. That's where we're at, at 70 days into this spill.
BP is not the only business, though, paying a high price for all of this. Of course, we've been telling you the stories of the workers, of the families that are living in the Gulf, losing their ways of life, and sometimes losing hope, as well.
T.J. Holmes is live in New Orleans. He visited a Vietnamese fishing community in Mississippi to get their story. And T.J., a very interesting sub-community that is involved and affected by this.
T.J. HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's a good way to put it there, Richard, a sub-community. We have been talking about the Gulf community as a whole that's involved with the seafood industry; they're all one big family. And many of these folks have had this in their system, in their blood, in their families, for generation after generation.
But that subset you talk about, the Vietnamese-American community, has had fishing in their family for one generation, one generation that came to the U.S., and this Gulf. The Gulf waters allowed them to start a family, to start a life, to have that American dream here in the U.S. Well, now it appears the Gulf waters that gave them that life, that is now about to be taken away.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And usually during the summer, imagine the crabs stacking high up on the ceiling.
HOLMES: How long has it been like this now?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (speaking foreign language)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ever since the oil spill.
HOLMES: Ever since the oil spill. So is this the last of it? This is the last of the Jennifer Le crab?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, the last of it. HOLMES (voice-over): After a decade, the Jennifer Le seafood company in Biloxi is down to this, a few baskets of fresh crab. And the owner, Thai Van Le, has no hopes that more crab is on the way any time soon.
So as of Monday, he's shutting down the company he built from scratch, the company he named after his only daughter.
(on camera) Do you have any ideas yet what you're going to do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Me?
HOLMES: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know what now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (speaking foreign language)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He say coming over to America, he had nothing in his hand. So this is just like the same thing again.
HOLMES (voice-over): The oil disaster forced the closure of the Gulf waters where Le's suppliers catch crab. His supply has essentially been cut off.
Le and other Vietnamese Americans in the Gulf are in a particularly dire situation: 80 percent of them work in the seafood industry. Many have been doing this work since they fled their country after the Vietnam War to start a new life in the United States. And it's all they know how to do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is my job. This shrimp was my job; shrimp boat was my job. So I don't plan to go anywhere.
HOLMES: Ton Nguyen is a shrimper who's been getting by working on the vessels of opportunity, mobilized by BP as part of the oil spill cleanup.
(on camera) How long can you sustain this? How long can you make it by going out and working for BP before you run out of money?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hmmm. I have no idea.
HOLMES (voice-over): The Les are ready to start over, but for sentimental reasons, not quite ready to let go of this place.
(on camera) Why not just sell it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (speaking foreign language)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (speaking foreign language)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He say how much are you offering?
(END VIDEOTAPE) HOLMES: And it's amazing to see them. We visited them the day they were locking their doors, and it's amazing to see them in such good spirits.
And the way they put it, they understand. A lot of people are hurting and emotional, and this is a tough time for everyone. But they say, for them at least, given what they've gone through, he said literally, "I survived the fall of Saigon. I survived coming to this country with nothing in my hand. I survived Hurricane Katrina, and you bet, I'll survive this, too."
And he's, Richard, just moving on to the next thing. He's going to do something else in the seafood industry. He said possibly farmed craw fish, but he is moving right on to the next thing.
LUI: So very resilient, T.J., but not angry is what you're saying. Not angry.
HOLMES: Not anywhere close. I asked him that specifically. He said, "I'm not mad at BP or the government."
About BP, and you will find a lot of people will tell you this, certainly here in the Gulf, that BP, it was an accident. They wish it hadn't happened, but he said it was an accident, what can you do? And let's move on.
And one other note there. They're so proud, the Vietnamese community here, about what they do, about their water, about their job. They don't want to go out and work for BP on those vessels of opportunity, but some have had to, and they have a choice to either do that and get paid or you take the BP claim check. Once you show income on the vessels, you can't get the BP claim check.
So a tough decision a lot of them are having to make. But the Vietnamese-American community here, Richard, really having a tough time as anybody, and certainly mentioned the language barrier is a big issue, as well.
LUI: T.J., a great nuance to the struggle that's happening there in the Gulf. Thank you so much for that story, the Vietnamese community that's down there in New Orleans. Appreciate it.
Straight ahead, game, set match. Whew! Exhaustion. The longest tennis match in history was played last week. Are the players still alive? Do they still have any energy? We've got the winner live right here after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LUI: All right, we've all had long tennis matches, maybe a couple hours long or went into the evening, got a little hungry. But how about the longest in history of tennis that lasted over two or three days? We're talking about Wimbledon. We're talking about John Isner, and he is joining us right now with how he's doing today. Because after 180 games, 11 hours -- do I got that right, John? And what was -- JOHN ISNER, PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: Yes.
LUI: -- I guess two nights you had to sleep through this entire thing. I was watching it as you did this, And I have to ask you, what happened?
ISNER: Yes, it was -- it was just absolutely crazy. I mean, the -- you know, we started off the first day, and it was a pretty standard four-set match that got suspended by darkness, which happens at Wimbledon. And so we just figured we would come back the next day and finish off one more set. That has really happened to everybody before.
But that one set just didn't want to end. We ended up playing I guess it was 118 games with no decider. And, you know, we had to come back the next day and finish it off.
LUI: So tell me then, what was going through your mind, because as I was watching you play in and serve, in my mind I was thinking, you know, I play tennis, you know, if I have a tiebreaker, I'm thinking, boy, I can't wait to get to the end of this. But you were, when you were hitting 30s and in the 40s and the 50s, did you think this would ever end?
ISNER: Yes. I think once it got to 30-all, I really didn't think it was going to end. Because first of all, you know, both of us were serving fantastic and it got to the point where, you know, we didn't want to make a mistake on our service game, so we were, you know, just conserving our energy, you know, for our service games. And, you know, we were still somehow able to hit an inordinate amount of aces time and time again. And every time someone got in a jam, we were both able to claw our way out of it.
LUI: You don't mind if I sing your praises a little bit, do you? Let's see, let's take a look at the previous record for aces by an individual -- previously it was 78, now our good friend holds that at 112. Most aces by two players -- formerly it was 96, now it is 215.
So your service was right on throughout that entire game. Did you hit a point, though, where you felt your bones aching or were you just completely in a Zen moment?
ISNER: Yes, it was more like a Zen moment. It was so much that I was just hurting physically -- I had some pretty gnarly blisters on my feet. I remember, when I got back to the locker room, you know, I wear two pairs of socks on each foot just for kind of extra comfort, and my pinky toes bled through both of them. So that was pretty brutal. But --
LUI: That sounds great, John. That sounds really nice.
ISNER: Yes. It was ugly.
(LAUGHTER)
ISNER: Good thing there are no pictures of that. But, yes, it just -- we were both so exhausted and somehow were keep able to hit winners. The only thing that kept me going was wanting to get to the changeover for the 90-second rest so I could start pounding more bananas and pounding more water and pounding more nutrition bars.
LUI: Let's talk about that. What do you eat? I mean, you're like a superman out there with this number of games. What's your regiment?
ISNER: Yes, you know, I tend to eat a lot of pasta the day before a match. You know, and just right before the match, I will just eat a peanut butter and honey sandwich. And so I ate enough, you know, just to last me for maybe about two hours worth of tennis. I didn't know it was going to go eight on that one day that we didn't finish.
But, you know, also for me, since I sweat so much, I drink what's called coconut water by a company called Vita Coco, and it's able to put the electrolytes back in my body quickly and keep me from cramping. Because a lot of times in the past, I lost some matches because my muscles would cramp up and I just simply couldn't go on.
LUI: Well, you looked strong throughout this match. What did you eat after then, because obviously you completely depleted your body? What was that like? Were you just were completely ready to eat anything in sight?
ISNER: Yes. Actually, right after the match, I wasn't that hungry. I drank a protein shake immediately in the locker room.
And actually, Andy Roddick, whom I am sure you know, he left the locker room, went into town and brought, you know, my trainer, my coach and myself, you know, all sorts of food -- pizza, chicken, mashed potatoes, ham, turkey. I mean, you name it, he brought it. And so once I finally got a bit of an appetite back, I just started wolfing that down as fast as possible. And I remember, you know, staying up and eating until about 2:00 a.m. that night.
(LAUGHTER)
LUI: Just nonstop. You just tried to make up for that time.
So how do you train to prepare yourself for something like Wimbledon? In this case, you had no idea you would be playing over three days.
ISNER: Yes. Well, for me, you know, I practice in the heat of Tampa, Florida, which right now, it's hot as it can possibly be. It's 100 degrees, it's 100 percent humidity. You know, so I practice at Saddlebrook Resort in Tampa.
And, you know, I had had a good, you know, little bit more than two weeks prior to Wimbledon to get back in better shape and, you know, and just get strong and feel physically fit for the tournament. And actually, once we left, my coach actually jokingly said that I'll be able to play ten hours in Wimbledon, because just of the extreme conditions I was practicing at and sure enough, he was right.
LUI: Oh, he should have never said that to you. That's what actually made that match so long for you.
Now, I was watching how you and Mahut got together, how you sort of were eyeing each other as you were passing between every switchover. Since that game, since the end of that match, have you guys talked, and what are some of the more personal moments that you guys shared about what you accomplished together?
ISNER: Yes. Well, you know, prior to this match, he wasn't a guy that, you know, I was really good friends with. And it's not because he's a bad guy, it's just that our paths never really crossed that much.
But I knew going into the match that he is one of the classier guys on tour, and, you know, on the ATP tour, and he really showed that. Just way he competed and the way he fought the whole match and never really got down on himself, was really admirable. Because he was a champion out there, and it stinks that someone had to lose, but obviously someone did.
And we have exchanged words, you know, since the match. And it has just been both -- really just been a really complimentary of each other.
LUI: You guys are brothers in history now. And I was talking with one of my fellow tennis players about this, I was saying you guys effectively did win Wimbledon in your own way. I think after Wimbledon is over this year, we'll be talking about you and Mahut. Do you sort of see it the same way?
ISNER: You know, I'm not sure. A lot of people obviously were talking about that match, and rightfully so. We went 70-68 in the fifth. I think the longest previous match was 24-22. It's neat that we were both able to share that moment, but at the same time, you know, I lost in the second round. And that's not what I want to do. I'm at my highest ranking right now at 19 in the world, and losing in the second round in a grand slam isn't the best thing. But, you know, we both will probably be remembered for a long, long time.
LUI: And good for branding, too. We'll be talking to you no doubt, seeing you in the media in the coming future.
John Isner, congratulations again on what really was a yeoman's workout in Wimbledon and something really amazing for all of us to experience with you. Thanks again.
ISNER: Thank you so much for having me on.
LUI: You bet you.
Confirmation hearings going on right now for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. We're watching that. Just ahead, we go live to D.C. where the best political team on television is covering every angle of that. Stick around. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Welcome back.
That is the Supreme Court you're looking at, a live picture. On Capitol Hill, they are now beginning the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan. She is who the president wants to be the next Supreme Court justice, replacing the retiring and now retired Justice Paul Stevens, John Paul Stevens.
What we want to do is take you right now back into that hearing room where Elena Kagan, that's the nominee, is listening to Senator Arlen Specter. Lots of subplots here, and one of them is the Senator Arlen Specter lost his bid for the nomination to run for Senate. He is leaving, long-time member of this panel of the Judiciary Committee. This will presumably be the last time that he is involved in confirmation hearings, and we wanted to take a listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: -- since 1996 on congruence and proportionality, an impossible standard except as Justice Scalia described as a flabby test which enabled judicial legislation.
We have had nominees who sat where you sit not too long ago, who said they would the not jolt the system (INAUDIBLE) and then a grave jolts (ph) to the system. Assured this panel that the legislative finding of facts is not a judicial function, and then turned that on its head in citizens' united on a record that is 100,000 pages long, and finding that there's no basis for a 100-year-old precedent, which was overturned. Certainly, a jolt to the system.
When Senator Biden was considering the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, he said that he was qualified but would vote against him, because, as then-Senator Obama said, quote, "overarching political philosophy," close quote. Well, the presidents make their selections based on ideology, I think that's a blunt fact of life. And the difference that I had considered in earlier -- my earlier days of the Senate, I thought had come to the conclusion that senators have the same standing to make a determination on ideology.
It has become accepted that there should not be transgression into the area of judicial independence on how a case would be decided. There's an interesting case captioned Minnesota versus Wyatt, a Justice Scalia opinion in 2002, which struck down a requirement of the Minnesota Bar Association which prohibited judges from saying how they would decide cases. The Supreme Court said that was an infringement on first amendment rights of freedom of speech.
Now, that doesn't say that a judge should answer the question, but it does say that a bar association rule prohibiting answering the question is invalid, which leaves the judge, at least in as far as at least that standard is concerned, with latitude to answer the question. So that even on the ultimate question of how a case will be decided, and in your law review article you come very close to that when you talk about answering substantive relish use, really right on the line of how you would decide a case. But if we are precluded from asking how decisions would be -- what decision would be made on ground of judicial independence and the precedent on that? I do think it is fair for us to ask whether the Supreme Court would take a case.
The Congress has the authority to direct the Supreme Court on cases which must be heard, flag-burning case, McCain-Feingold and many, many others, so that the court's discretion is limited there if there is a Congressional direction. I think it is fair from that proposition to ask a nominees whether they would take cases.
I have spoken at length on the floor about what I consider the inappropriate decline of a number of cases considered. A hundred years ago, a little more, in 1886, the Supreme Court decided 146 cases -- 146 opinions. Little more than 20 years ago, 1987, 146 opinions. Last year, last term, 78 arguments, 75 opinions. A lot of circuit splits, important cases, are not taken up by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the conflict which arguably is the most serious clash between Congress's Article 1 powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which sets the exclusive means for getting a warrant -- listening to a wiretap, probable cause, and the president's warrantless wiretap program, justified under Article 2. A Detroit federal judge said it was unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ducked it with a standing decision 2-1 with admittedly the dissenting opinion much stronger, application for cert denied.
And this is something I discussed with you in our meeting, which I thank you. I sent you a series of letters on issues I intend to ask you about, and that was one of them. I was concerned about your decisions as solicitor general on the case involving the Holocaust victims suing an Italian insurance company. And the Second Circuit bows to the executive position, saying, well, that ought to be decided between Italy and the United States on how that's to be handled. I think that's wrong. But at least the Supreme Court ought to decide it. I'm not going to ask you how you would decide the case, but would you consider it?
KING: Republicans and democratic Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a veteran of many Supreme Court confirmation processes, laying out how he views the test ahead for Elena Kagan. She is on the right. She is, of course, the solicitor general of the United States, now the president's choice to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
We are waiting. Next, one of the leading republicans of the committee, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, a key conservative voice. We want to listen to his statement.
We'll take a quick break. CNN's continuing coverage of the Kagan confirmation hearings will resume in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Welcome back to CNN's continuing coverage of the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, that building you see right there, that woman you see right there, inside the Senate Judiciary Committee room where basically she's going to spend much of today listening to the senators talk about what they want to know and giving their preliminary feelings about her.
A lot of lawyers on this committee, that won't surprise you. One of them is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a republican, a conservative republican, not always as conservative as some in his state would like him. Because this is a political year, these statements are even more closely watched than they might be.
Here now, Senator Lindsey Graham.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: You supported the idea that a terror suspect could be charged with material supportive terrorism under the statute and that was consistent with the law of wars history, so there are things you've done as solicitor general that I think merit praise and I will certainly, from my point of view, give you a chance to discuss those.
As dean of Harvard Law School, you did two things -- you hired some conservatives, which is a good thing, and you opposed military recruitment, which I thought was inappropriate, but we'll have a discussion about what all that really does mean. This is a good example of what you bring to this hearing, a little of this and a little of that.
Now, what do we know? We know you're very smart. You have a strong academic background.
You got bipartisan support. The letter from Miguel Estrada is a humbling letter and I'm sure it will be mentioned throughout the hearings, but it says a lot about him. It says a lot about you that he would write that letter. Ken Starr and Ted Olsen have suggested to the committee that you're a qualified nominee.
There's no doubt in my mind that you're a liberal person. That applies to most of the people on the other side, and I respect them and I respect you. I'm a conservative person. And you would expect the conservative president to nominate a conservative person who did not work in the Clinton administration.
So the fact that you've embraced liberal causes and you've grown up in a liberal household is something we need to talk about, but that's just America. It's OK to be liberal, it's OK to be conservative, but when it comes time to be a judge, you have to make sure you understand the limits that that position places on any agenda, liberal or conservative.
Your judicial hero is an interesting guy. You're going to have a lot of explaining to do to me about why you picked Judge Brock (ph) as your hero because when I read his writings, it's a bit disturbing about his view of what a judge is supposed to do for society as a whole. But I'm sure you'll have good answers and I'll look forward to that discussion.
On the war on terror, you could, in my view, if confirmed, provide the court with some real world experience about what this country's facing, about how the law needs to be drafted and crafted in such a way as to recognize the difference between fighting crime and fighting a war. So you, in my view, have a potential teaching opportunity, even though you've never be a judge, because you've represented this country as solicitor general at a time of war.
The one thing I can say without certainty is I don't expect your nomination to change the balance of power. After this hearing is over, I hope the American people will understand that elections do matter. What did I expect from President Obama? Just about what I'm getting, and there are a lot of people that are surprised. Well, you shouldn't have been if you were listening.
So I look forward to trying to better understand how you will be able to take political activism, association with liberal causes and park it when it becomes time to be a judge. That, to me, is your challenge.
I think most people will consider you qualified because you've done a lot in your life worthy of praise, but it will be incumbent upon you to convince me and others, particularly your fellow citizens, that whatever activities you've engaged in politically and whatever advice you've given to President Clinton or Justice Marshall, that you understand that you will be your own person, that you will be standing in different shoes where it will be your decision to make, not trying to channel what they thought. And if at the end of the day, you think more like Justice Marshall than Justice Rehnquist, so be it. The question is, can you make sure that you're not channeling your political agenda, your political leanings when it comes time to render decisions.
At the end of the day, I think the qualification test will be met, whether or not activism can be part is up to you. And I look at this confirmation process as a way to recognize that elections have consequences and the Senate has an independent obligation on behalf of the people of this country to put you under scrutiny, firm and fair, respectful and sometimes contentious.
Good luck, be as candid as possible and it's OK to disagree with us up here. Thank you.
KING: Senator Lindsey Graham, a key conservative voice on the Senate Judiciary Committee laying out his test for Elena Kagan, the president's choice to be the next Supreme Court nominee.
Our continuing coverage of the Kagan hearings and also coming up, an emotional moment on the floor of the United States Senate as it comes in to order to remember its longest-serving member, Robert Byrd, who died this morning at the age of 92. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
