to whathe district court did, and i am not suggesting thatt was intending to violate wh i am describing buthe court took a differt view than whatqhe circuit did. we upheld the statute in lae meure to the extent we thought there were and found tw provisionshat we thought were unconstitutional, narrow construed them in ord to assistthem in effecting cogress's intent. that's what i tlked about in tt answer. >> a little bit alonghe sa line. in your law review articlesou ote that "ourociety would be raight-jacket etd were not the courts wi the aistant of the lawyers constantly overhaulinand i don't know if that your empsis or mine bu i havet underlined "overhauling the line and adapt -- i will srt over aga.

"our siety would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance f the lawyers, consntly overhaulingthe law and adapting it tothe realities of ever-changing social, industrial nd pitical changes." elanation of t satement from you, i think you're saying th judges can twist the l regardless what the legislature, the elected branch of governmen has enactedinto law. it is kind my interpretation of that. obiously or tell me you don't mean that, at least you know where i'm coming from. that interetation is clearly not my inte. and ion't really remember those particular words, but i do rememb it. i assum youre talng about returning majesty to the law d there i was talking aut a broader set of estions which

was how to bring the plic's respect ba to the funion of judges and was talking about that judges, that lawyers have an ligation to explain to the public the reasons why what seems unprictable in theaw has reon. and i mentioned in tha speech that one ot big reasons is that congre makes new laws. th was the very first reason i discussed. and also that the's new chnology, there's n devepments in society. and what lawyers do is come in d talk to abouth, ok, we've got these laws, ho do you app thm to this new situatn? what jud does and that'shy i was talking about the assistance of lawyers,s what you do is you look athe court's precedence, you look at what a statute says andyou try to

understand the inciples that are at issue and apy them to what the society is doing. and that was the focusf the speech. talk to the public abo the process. don't feed into the cynicism that dges are activists, tat judges areaking law. work a explaining to the publ what the proce is. whicalsoalked to part of my speechis what the judges can do to he impro respect of the public in the legal process. >> the u of the world "overhaul" does not in any - "overha the law" does not in any way apply usurpation of the law by t cous. >> no, if you look at what i as

talking about that society velops. we are n today what we were 100 years ago in terms of technology, medicin so many differt areas. there are new situations that arise and n facts thatourts look at. you apply t laws to those situations but that the process of judging which is sort of try to figure out. what does theaw say aout a set of facts tt may nothave be imagined at e time of the founding of the constituon, but it'shat the judge is fing them. how do you apply it tod. >> i want to go back to didden sed on my opportuty to reflect o some things that you id yesterday. the time limit to file in didd was thre years. mr. didden wa apoached for what he classified as extortion in november, 2003. two months lar in january2004 he filed his lawsuit.

but under yur ruling, mr. didd was requiredto file his wsuit inuly 2002, close to a year and a half before he was actually extorted. so that doest make sense to require someone to file a wsuit on a perceivedchance at an order might occur. you also testified that the supreme court's kelodecision wasot relevant to the dden holdg, but your opinionin cursoryassion which is a problem we addressed yesterday. states if tre is no state of limitation ssue, kelo would have permitted mr. didden prperty to be ten. it isard to believe an individual's property can b seized when he refes to be exorted without any constitutional olation taken place. it is harder to believe under these circumstances mr. didden

did not desee his day incourt or at lest some ditional legal analysis. can you plese explain how mr. didden cou have filed the lawsuit in july of 2002 before he was extorted november 2003? and also, please explai why a july2002 filing wou not have been dismissed beuse there was proof that mr. didden suffered an injury, only an allegation at he might be injured in the future. the bas mr. didden's lawsuit was the stat can'take my property and give it to pvate veloper. beause that is not consistent th the takgs clause of the conitution. to the extent he knewthe state, and the is no diute about it, that the state has found the public use for his property.

that it had a public purpose. that it had an argument with the private developerto let th developer tke the property he knew that he as injured because his basic argument was te state can't do this. it can'tape my prorty and give it to a private develer. the supreme court in kelo addressed th question and said und certain circumstances the state can do that if it's for a public use and a public purpose. and so his lawsuit essentially dressing that question cam time years afr he knew what the state was doing. the issue exttion was whether the private developer in settling a lawsuit was engaging in extorti and extorti is an

unlawfulasking of money wh no bas. but the prive developer had a basi he had an agement with the state. and so that is different sue than the timeliness of mr. didden's complain >> ank you. recognizing the nator, and then wewill reces until omorrow morning. >> judge, let me first sa tha since this will be my last time in this hearing to address you, to say this has been my first confirmation fr aupreme court justice. an you set a hi standardhat i may ha to consider because there are possibilities o future acancies. responding toour questions, being very on with us, and i thinkeally demonstrati the type of respe for th process

that h really shown dignity to you and ou comttee and i thank you for that. i thanked you in the beginning for you're wiingness to serve the public. as a prosecutor and as a jue, and now willing to take on this really incredible responsibily. and i just rlly want to emphasize that agn. i on't know if you thought when y were being consered for this what would you have to go through as far as t appearance befor the judicry committee, but it gets bette after our hearings i believe, so. let m ask you one or two questions if i might. i amoing to follow on senato senator'suestion on certiorari. there is maybe 1% of t cases that a petioned for the supre court,actually will t an opinion from the supreme court and will be decided. now, the senator asked y what standards you would usend i

realy want to concentra on the impact tha a supreme crt case can hav i want to rer to one o yr ses, the boyki n case which was a housin case where a borrower, you let an african-american goorward on a discrimination issue. and we hav seen through history discrimination with mirities and hoing. and led to the fa housing act enacted by congress. the supreme court long recognized title 7, 8 of the head housing ac and start of the scheme of thefederal rights laws enacted to end dirimination. buthere are still major challenges thatre out there. the predaty lending still takes place. it's hand during this hsing crisis with the suprime mortgage market started towar nority communities. a i say that in relatiohip

to t boykin case wre i agreed with your concsions. notonly could it affect t litigants that were befo you but have an impact on dustry practi if in fact there was discrimition and a case was decideby your court. the same thi is true in the supreme court a more so i the supreme court. it is e highest jument of our land. and yes, you have to be mindful when you take a cse on cert as to the impact it will have o t litigants. rtainly you have to take into consideration if there has been diferent inconsistent rulin in thedifferent rcuits. it seems to me one of the standards at i would hope you wouluse is the impoance of deding this case for the impactt hn a broader group of people in o nation. whether it a housing case at affect community ability to get fair access mortgages for

horship or whether it is a case that can have an impact on a classf peopl on environmental or economic issues. and i just would like to get from you whether thn fact is a reasonle request as you consider ctiorari reqsts, thaone of the facts that is consired is the imct it has on the communit at large. >> as i indicted earlr, we don't make policy coices that means that i uld think it inappropriate for a crtto choose aase because -- or for a judge cose a ca bed on some sense of i want thi rult on society. a judge takes a case to decide a legal issue, understanding i impornce to an ea of lawand to arguments tha parties are maing about whyt's impornt.

the question of impac is different than wh a judge looks t, which is what is the state of the law in this question. and how and whatclarity is need and other factors. but as i said, ther is a sube but important fference in separating t and making choices based on policy and how u would like an issue to come out than a questi th a dge looks ain terms of assessing the time inhich a legal argument suld be addressed. >> and i respect that difference and i don't want you to be taking a cse to try to make policy. but i do think theeed for clarity for the community as to hat is apprriate conduc well beyonthe litigants of a particular case is factor

where clarication is needed should weighheavily on whether the crt takes that type of case or not. there i just no oneactor that controls the cice where y say i' goingto look at ery case this w. as i said judges in -- i shouldn't talk becae i am not there. but my understaing of the process is that it' not based on those picy ilications of an outcome, it's based with on different question than that. >> well let me conclude on one oer case tat you ruled on where i also agree wi your cision. that ford versuscginnis and you wrote a unanimous pan opinn overturning a jgment finding in favor o the musli inmate died byrison officials acce toeligious meals markingthe endf

ramadan. and you head his fundamntal rits were violated a the opinns of the department of correction and religious authorities cannot trump the plain and sincre religious beliefs. the freedom of religionis a basic pnciple in our constitution as i sid in my opening mments. it was nder of the reasons why my grandparets came to america. the freem of religion expression is a truly ndamental american right. pleasehare your ilosophy, mayb it is the wrong use of terms, themportance of the provision in th constitution and how you would go abt dealin with cases that cou affect that fundamental right in r constitution. >> i don't mean to befunny, but the court has held that it's fundantal the snse of incorporation ainst the state. but it is a very important and

centr part of our democratic society that w do give freedom of religion the practice religion, that the constition restricts the sta from establishing religion and that we have freedom of expression in speech as well. tho freoms are central to our constition. the ford case, as oers i ha in this area, recognized the importance of tha in terms of one's considetion of tions thatre being taken to be restricted in a particular circumstce. speaking further is difficult to . again, because of the role of a judge, toay is imptant,

thatt's fundament and it's legal d common meaning i alwa looked at in the context of a pticular case. what is the state doing? in the ford case that you just mentioned the question there before the court was, d the districtourt err in consideringhether or not the religious belief the prisoner had was consient with the established traditional intpretation of the meal at issu ok. nd what i was doing was applyingery important supreme courtrecedent that said it's the subjective beli of the individl. is it real motivated by a religious belief? it's o of the reasons we recognize conscientious objectors because wean are aing

a court notto look at whether there is orthodox or not, but to look at the sinrity of the invidual's religious lief and then look at what t state isoing in light of that. so that is whatthe issue was in ford >> thank you r that answ. and again, thank you very much the manner u respondedo ourquestions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you verymuch, senator card. as i noted earlie we will now ecess until:30 tomorrow moning. and wish you all a pleasant evening. thank you. judy: with that, chairn patrick leahy gavels the judiciary committee to a close fo the day. theyecessed util 9:30 tomorrow stern time. a fewinutes for smarizing we

are catching jud sonia sotomayor leave. nd we have beenithout air conditioning for the la few hours a maybe that accounts for the weariness on faces of veral people out there. let's quicy recap marsha, whatome of the republica senators we in the last round. senator grassley in particular pushing or probing, you will. >> definitely. >> judge sotomayor. >> on one of the most controversial issuesin society today, and that's same-sex marrge. he was folling in the pathf the line questionsbout old precedents. and whether she coidered them settled law. one of which is a 1972 supreme cort decision at dismissed an apeal from a minnesota case involving a ste law that phibited same-sex marriages. the court dismisd it, but did not say anything o the merits. it simply said tre was no

federal question f it to take jurisdiction in this case. but heanted hero sayhat this s a precedt, settled law. she claime that she really wasn't familiar enoug with wh has happened since that1972 cision and she wouldeed time to look at at that. but he also raced the issue of the defense of maiage act that aederal law whichlso uld face challengesdown the road. everyone is aware that califoia has poposition 8 tha prohits same-sex marriages and a federal courtase was recently fled challenges proposition 8. so i think senor grassley is very aware that that issue is going to head to th supreme court, probably very quickly. >> marsha,t's interesting that it's not just t republicans, but t democrats who are pushing her to take -- if not take a positi to explain uder what circutances the supreme court wod take a number of different isses.

so she having to say to all of them no, i can'tet into that, ecause i don't know if i am on e court how we would make that decision. >> that's true. th sides have concer. th democrs have coerns abouwhere the currnt court is headed and why they rai issues on vettingrights. and senator feingold in the second round raised questions about campaign finance. they all have issues so to speak. >> and senator, in fact senator cardin of maland just in the last few minus king, aski so relate questions as well. ll right, we are gog to wrap up our coverage today. our live covege of the hearis and we will be bck at 9:30 in the morning with television verage. covera online at ewshour.pbs.org and covera or may of yo radio stations. i'm judy woodrf. see u tomorrow morning. thanks for joining us. oldest mo

died a age 69. no word on who will raise the ow 2-year-old twins. final, we have an excerpt tonight fm a new edition of the pbs series"wide angpe it's called birth a sergeant. the story of a remarkable familiar mozambiquehat trains idwives to take on the duty eaves surgeon. o year after the strule of amelia to train f herew duties "wide ane" return for anupdate. >> reporter: two weeksince the miives first arrivednd none of them isny closer to meeting

the requirement of 100 surgeries for their training. >> i haven't done. even twatch them. to s them. what is reay the idea o training tis group of professionals? >> we have some whoagree wh us. who support us. buthere are some who are not happy. but we'rnot too worried about who is not happy. we're worried about who can save lives. >> don't know why they say i is not for midwife becau we are women.

[ speakg in native tongue ]

>> reporter: but she has no intention on waiting. she calls her program supervisor to discuss the probm. [ speaking in tive tongue ] i feel what i feel. >> cck your lal television listings for "wideangle's birth of a surgn" and seen linet

pbs.org/wideangle. and that's "worldfocus" for a wedneay night. a reminder to visit ourwebsite, that's worlocus.org, you wre y can find last night's bog talk radio sh about the rent coupin honduras d houtmedia theris struggling tocort sto. i'm martin savge in new york. as always, tha you very much r joining us. 'll look foyou back here tomorrow and anytime onhe web. until th, have a good night. > "worldfocus" is made possible, in part, byhe following fuers -- -- captns by vitac -- www.vitac.com

jim stavrakakis is aroud veteran. my job was aerial phography, and i'd go up onombat flights. but he was also drawto the people. i've always haa curiosity ofpeo. and publicv answers your curiositof life. jim includedis consider joing the community of peoe who want public television to span generatns.