everything so insurance companies, et cetera have i think the supreme court will want to see lower courts decisions. and see how they analyze the case before they get to it. at least gregg: this is one of the best, well reasoned i m not taking sides but wonderfully crafted, really all this supreme court needs. have to say good-bye. there is nothing unclear about that. gregg: lis weihl, david schwartz, thank you very much. heather: freezing temperatures sweeping across the country leaving many vulnerable to a winter cold, and wait until you hear what researchers say could help before it hits you hard.
to do that i have to examine her entire record. as in previous hearings there will no doubt be some tension between what senators want to know and what general okay zban willing to tell us. ms. kagan has outlined quite clearly what she believes a supreme court nominee should be willing to talk about at a hearing like there. without this information ms. kagan has written the senate becomes incapable of properly nominate i nominating for the supreme court. the votes she would cast the perspective she would add and the direction in which she would move the institution. the bottom line in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will affect the nominee s courts decisions.