(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish, was a bad idea. I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand what they might have concerns about.

But I have repeated more than once and I will repeat throughout, if you look at my history on the bench, you will know that I do not believe that any ethnic, gender, or race group has an advantage in sound judging.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Judge Sonia Sotomayor at her confirmation hearing today, that was talking about the now infamous line, 32 words that, says "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So what about the two Judge Sotomayors we saw today and the one from speeches and writings? Let's bring in our panel, Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard, Juan Williams, news analyst for National Public Radio, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Charles, first of all, your overview, your look - we heard from these two guys today - of how you thought the hearings went.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, she had a tough brief. She had to defend the indefensible. That statement is indefensible. She knows it, and that's why she contradicts it and pretends that anybody who reads her words as they were originally said is misunderstanding her. They are understanding her perfectly well.

What I found disappointing is how the Republicans backed off. I thought Sessions had a pretty good attack -

BAIER: Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama, the ranking Republican.

KRAUTHAMMER: He's the ranking Republican, and I thought he was the most on message.

Lindsay Graham, who was one of the leading Republicans, I thought, was disappointing. He had her on the ropes a couple of times, particularly on this issue, and also on issues of indefinite detentions of combatants in a war, also on the funding of abortion.

But it looked as if he had a checklist he had to fill out. And as she stumbled, he moved on, and he let her off the hook.

But her main issue is that she is a believer in identity politics. And to say as she did in that clip "judge me on my record" is, again, disingenuous.

As a lower court judge, her record of actions are constrained by precedent and the law. Once she is on the Supreme Court, she is unconstrained, un-tethered, and she will act on her beliefs. And you know her beliefs from what she said.

And it wasn't only a flourish said one. She said it about six times. And she had it published in a law journal article. That's a statement of who she is, and that's who she is going to be on the bench.

BAIER: Juan, you said she had a tough day.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NEWS ANALYST, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: I think she had a pretty tough day.

I think, if you think about it, she said that much of her statement was a bad idea. She intended it as a rhetorical flourish, she intended it to inspire minority students, and that much of it fell flat. And it has came back to bite her big time in these hearings.

I think that the whole notion of identity politics has been - she has come to personify it, and that is not to her advantage in terms of public perception.

So I think that it was a rough day, and my thought was Republicans not going to go hard at Sonia Sotomayor because it looks like she has the votes to win.

But I thought today they went at her pretty hard. Now, I know some of my more conservative colleagues will say we expected them to even go harder and hit her harder, but from my perspective, she came out of this thing pretty much roughed up. And she has got a lot of cuts on her after the first round.

BAIER: Steve?

STEVE HAYES, SENIOR WRITER, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: I think Juan was talking about me.

(LAUGHTER)

I think she survived. I think she seemed competent, certainly not brilliant. She basically answered the questions. She knew - she sounded like she knew what she was talking about.

But Charles is exactly right. She can't defend the comments she has made in the past, comments that were not off the cuff remarks she gave in an interview, but comments that appeared in her prepared remarks, in speeches.

People have called it her stump speech. This is what she said again and again and again. You can't make that disappear.

Jeff Sessions was very effective lining up questions about that, lining up questions about her identity politics, and many other areas where she - and what she said yesterday in her opening statement contradicted what she said when she was free to speak over the years.

BAIER: Democratic senators, Charles, obviously tried to rehabilitate her by saying, pointing back to her rulings, saying that there isn't a showcase of these speeches in what she has written on the bench.

We will likely see that again tomorrow in this back and forth between Republicans and Democrats.

KRAUTHAMMER: It is her only refuge. But, of course, it doesn't hold up, because, again, when you're on the court, you are on the circuit, or you're a district court judge, you have to act within constraints. You cannot be who you want to be, especially if you have aspirations as she always had, to be on the Supreme Court.

But once you're on the Supreme Court, you make the law. Look, abortion law was one thing the day before Roe. It was something else the morning after Roe.

On affirmative action, it was something before Ricci and something the morning after Ricci. She is going to be a person who is going to determine what the law is, and her defense I have fidelity to the law is disingenuous.

BAIER: So if you were -

KRAUTHAMMER: There is no controlling law if you are on the Supreme Court.

BAIER: So if you are a Republican senator in the line left to question, what do you do tomorrow? Let's say Senator Cornyn, who is next up in the line?

KRAUTHAMMER: I would say to her, you said that a wise Latina is wiser. Today you would affirm that a wise Latina is not wiser. Who are you trying to kid?

BAIER: That's it?

KRAUTHAMMER: I would just try to express, not outrage, but extreme skepticism at her change of tone and substance, because, obviously, it's disingenuous.

BAIER: Today we said the short questions worked the best.

WILLIAMS: The short questions are good, absolutely. It's like a prosecutor in court. Let the person who has got center stage hurt themselves.

But my thinking, Charles, is 17 years experience, a tremendous record of experience, and we know what kind of judge she has been. She has been in the mainstream.

And not just - you know, Charles Schumer, the senator from New York, her home state, tried to walk that through today and make the case that if you look at her rulings, they have been in the mainstream.

It's just that the overwhelming wave, I thought, came from the Republicans and was about identity politics and double standards that if a white male had made that statement, the white male's career would have been over.

BAIER: And so far, Steve, nothing approaching the Lindsey Graham meltdown?

HAYES: Certainly no meltdown.

If I were a Republican, I would focus on the fact that she said she disagrees with President Obama's empathy standard for judges.

That is something that I think Republicans going forward, looking forward to future Supreme Court appointments an appellate court appointments, the many that he has in front of him, if they challenge him on that, and challenge Democrats, who yesterday embraced President Obama's standard, I think they have an opening there.