Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Time for context on Fox -- top story today president Obama's nomination heavily get -- -- Kagan at the Supreme Court.
Without help break it down Fox News senior judicial analyst the former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano -- -- -- so Mike let's see.
That their complaints about her from the left and the right there's not much of a paper trail bright how to and we see this playing out.
Well what we see this playing -- she will probably be confirmed.
Unless there's some glaring defects in her background or some major flub -- the time of her.
Confirmation hearings which could happen but hasn't happened with her in the past.
I think people should just be intellectually honest every president especially when the president is a lawyer.
Wants to appoint people who basically agree with him.
So as to agree with whatever is legislation.
Makes its way to the bench.
And so as to extend his legacy beyond his years in the White House President Bush did this with Justice Alito and chief Justice Roberts President Obama is doing this.
With justice Sotomayor and justice -- designate.
-- Elena Kagan there's no mystery to it there's no magic about it.
The politics are you vote for the president because he -- and he appoint somebody who basically agrees with them he found somebody like that anything in the -- Her credentials are impeccable.
She should be easier to confirm.
Because there aren't two or 300 opinions that she wrote like justice Sotomayor did when she was Judge Sotomayor that people can pick apart those things just don't exist.
Editorial she wrote when she was an undergraduate at Princeton.
There are lectures she gave when she taught at the university Chicago law school and at Harvard Law School.
There are speeches she's given since she's been solicitor general there are opinions she drafted for justice Thurgood Marshall when she was this -- so there -- a lot of things people can look at.
To get an indication.
Of where her thinking it -- sometimes our leaders foreshadow.
And today Jon Kyl the Republican senator of Arizona said she's a liberal what we get it and word she says she's she's not too far off the off off base for him at least.
Editor of the weekly standard and a columnist for -- contributor Fox News Channel.
Noted conservative said today that she is anti military.
Because of her.
Push to keep the recruiters off -- -- -- -- and don't ask don't tell which looked more like it.
Statement maker than anybody else the the issue -- the Solomon amendment named after an upstate New York congressman.
The Solomon amendment said take federal -- you have to allow federal recruiters to come onto your campus.
At the time she denied the Federer -- permission to come on the Harvard Law School.
The solemn and it was unconstitutional.
Trial judge declared it unconstitutional.
The appeals court in Philadelphia the -- on constitutional.
It wasn't the law of the land until the supreme court for years later reversed the appeals court she was following the law as -- that existed.
With the previous.
Well now associate justice from the state of new York and from New York City.
Sonia Sotomayor there was wise Latina line -- nothing like that has emerged on this candidate right.
No and as you know I spent a lot of time reading as much about her background as I can I haven't seen anything for sure somebody will find something I'm trying to do trying to hang.
Their -- on on that book.
She is what the president said he would appoint a person who thinks like she does in terms of the actual outcome of votes -- be very little between the five to four.
She you are replacing a ninety year old.
Liberal Republican with a fifty year old.
Liberal Democrat she's likely have a very similar to justice -- it's not a game changer in any -- not a game changer and one of the conservatives leaves for whatever reason we might have a different or Justice Kennedy -- the slowing growth low yield and you'll see here about a world we haven't seen since.
Justice Thomas or judge -- -- Those were good times.
I want to ask you about another matter because this is one of the issues that the next Supreme Court justice.
Will likely -- have to consider or have to recuse himself or herself from consideration.
And that's how the United States treats terrorism suspects.
Just yesterday the attorney general Eric Holder announced he was seeking to change the -- and the rights law.
That's the law which mandates the police or the feds or whomever.
-- you as a suspect your rights before your question or at least before any questioning that can be used against you record of law.
But the Obama administration wants an exception to allow interrogators -- investigators I should say to interrogate terrorism suspects without first informing them of their rights.
They just did this -- this suspect from Times Square.
Using the what I call -- the public safety -- well the public safety exception.
Occurs for an excited moderates like a cop arrests someone and he says.
-- -- -- Not you don't have to tell me where you're -- -- but where's it gonna don't want you to shoot me I want you to shoot -- -- -- -- I -- what -- -- yourself.
That's the public safety exception it's not.
What can you tell us about the people who sent you here.
That is protected by -- that no one is for -- to -- Miranda is basically what you see on television you have a right to remain silent.
If you start talking to us and you wanna stop and tell us when -- stop but we'll stop you have a right to a lawyer and that you say can and will be used against you.
If the police or the FBI or anybody interrogating a person in custody in America fails to say that.
Then whatever that person says can't be used against that person but can be used against somebody else.
Since the Miranda decision came down -- have been enacted that.
That require the police and require federal agents to give that warning as soon as the person -- in a place of custody as soon as the conversation starts.
The failure to do that would violated constitutional principle written by the Supreme Court last haven't looked at it.
By the -- serve and I think by the conservative Chief Justice.
William Rehnquist the -- they didn't do that would violate laws that require them to do it.
But the big problem -- You can't start wearing away -- constitutional liberties because of politics -- because of fear.
If you do that you go down the slippery slope whose constitutional liberties will they take next.
A Mexican drug lord in a mafia chieftain where will they stop the left jumped up and down constantly during the Bush Administration saying he is trampling on the constitution.
And Eric Holder comes in -- and starts to try to limit rights that you say are extra constitutional right what -- what ever attorney general holder said yesterday was.
Absolutely unconstitutional and he knows it.
Just -- I don't think --
Filter by section