
The case has made international headlines – a father's desperate quest to get his son back. It's been exactly five years since David Goldman's wife, Bruna Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro, took their then 4-year-old son to Brazil and never came back.
Since then, he's been fighting to be reunited with his little boy, Sean. And just when he thought it was over, another setback. Goldman joined Kiran Chetry on CNN’s “American Morning” Tuesday to talk about the case.
Kiran Chetry: Today you're marking an unwelcome anniversary. It's been five years since you had your son Sean with you. It looked like things were turning in your favor. The high court ruled they were going to honor the Hague Convention on International Abductions. Most of those in the court said your son should come back to you. So what's the delay right now?
David Goldman: Well, what was filed in front of the [Brazilian] Supreme Court was, in fact, if the Brazilian judicial system was going to honor the Hague Convention. If their government was still going to be a party to the Hague Convention where they receive children back under the Hague from America, as well. And they decided yes, we are going to honor the Hague Convention, we will return children. This particular case, a couple of them pointed out that Sean has been here way too long and this needs to be resolved.
And then they punted it back to the second level federal court where there was a stay because of an appeal from this Lins e Silva guy to keep my son there. Hopefully with the [Brazilian] Supreme Court ruling, with the 82-page report from the first-level federal judge ordering my son to be returned home immediately as well as Brazilian court-appointed mental health experts evaluating my son, saying he's been under psychological trauma, emotionally damaged from this family in Brazil, pointing he needs to be home.
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/16/intv.anita.hill.art.jpg caption="Anita Hill tells CNN's John Roberts that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an 'excellent' choice for the Supreme Court."]
The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing for a history-making confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Another woman who once found herself before that same committee is sharing her views of the president's nominee.
Anita Hill testified in 1991 in front of the Senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas that he made harassing sexual statements to her as her supervisor. She is currently a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University.
Hill attended law school at the same time as Judge Sonia Sotomayor and supports her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. She spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Tuesday.
John Roberts: You were a year behind Judge Sotomayor at Yale University Law School. What qualifies her to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?
Anita Hill: Well, if you look at her outstanding record on the bench, you can look at her outstanding academic record. She has a wide variety of professional experience before she got on to the bench. I think she's infinitely-qualified to be the nominee and we will see during the confirmation process how well she's qualified to actually receive the vote of the Senate.
Roberts: Much has been made of the fact that she's a Hispanic woman. How much do you think that plays in to the nomination, her choice, and her eventual confirmation? Is she the most qualified Hispanic judge to sit on the Supreme Court? Or is she the most qualified judge who happens to be Hispanic?
Hill: I think she's very well-qualified. You know…if you look at her record, if you look at all of the credentials she brings, including all of her background, her incredible life story, I think all of those add to her qualifications. I don't know if we want to talk about what is the most qualified person in the country. There are a lot of very talented people out there. But certainly no one could question that this woman is not highly-qualified.
From CNN's Carol Costello and Bob Ruff
Anyone out there old enough to remember the days when flying was fun and the airlines made you feel, well, special?
"The powder rooms," says this Pan Am commercial from the 1950s, "...look like those in a private home." The commercial shows smiling "stewardesses" attending to every passenger's need. Viewers are assured that "the travail has been taken out of travel."
Those WERE the days.
Today, not getting bumped from an overbooked flight and scoring an aisle seat are considered triumphs.
And airline profits seem as dated as that Pan Am ad (Pan Am went out of business in 1991).
The airlines are losing money hand over fist. Here's the roll call from the first quarter 2009:
High fuel costs are only part of the problem. People just aren't flying as much as they used to. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) says so many people are in debt that, even if the economy improves, "a significant portion of existing income or any new cash could be used to pay down debt rather than spend and travel." Businesses too are figuring out ways to curb air travel.
So, are the airlines about to land on the same road that led GM and Chrysler to bankrupcy?

Here are the big stories on the agenda today:
“We fight, we die.” Breaking news out of Iran. The government's Council of Guardians is now agreeing to recount some of the ballots from last week's disputed presidential election. Seven people are now dead in a bloody protest for democracy. Iran state radio says they were killed when they tried to storm a military building yesterday in western Tehran. More rallies on both sides of the vote are planned this morning. CNN's Christiane Amanpour is live in Tehran – amid the continuing protests.
G.M. of the sky? Staggering losses being posted this year by the U.S. airline industry. The numbers, in the billions, are even worse than expected. Carol Costello has more on whether the government might have to step in and take over, like it did with General Motors.
And, “Late Show” host David Letterman is saying sorry to Governor Sarah Palin, for a joke about her teen daughter being “knocked up.” Some are saying it’s still not enough. We have Governor Palin’s response.
Editor's Note: Monday’s American Morning debate on heath care captivated the audience, especially guest Ron Paul. Viewers expressed deep concern about Rep. Paul’s contention that socialized medicine was a questionable choice for Americans. Many felt he was attacking such a system in favor of insurance and big pharmaceutical companies.
Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich has stepped back into the spotlight, if only for a few minutes.
Over the weekend he surprised the audience at a comedy show in Chicago that pokes fun at almost every aspect of his life – from his wife – to his political career.
Blagojevich made a special appearance Saturday night at Second City's production of "Rod Blagojevich Superstar."
As the curtain rose, there was Blagojevich with his arms stretched out mimicking a crucifixion.
The play is a parody of "Jesus Christ Superstar" and lampoons his rise and fall in politics. He opened the production with a monologue.
"What they say to you before you go out on stage I thought is very interesting and that is ‘we got your back.’ I've been in politics and that's not anything anybody said to me."
As Blogojevich left the stage, the cast launched into a song that asked, "What kind of idiot sells a Senate seat?" Of course, Blagojevich was indicted on charges he tried to sell President Obama's old Senate seat.
The former governor stuck around after the show to participate in some improv where he took issue with one particular part of the show, saying "That brush he has, it’s too small.”
The reviews were mixed. Some audience members cheered throughout the show while others found it a bit awkward. "He laughed a few times, he was quiet a few times, it was queasily uncomfortable even sitting behind him a few times."
The play was supposed to have its final performance this month but due to its popularity Second City has decided to extend it until August. Meanwhile, Blagojevich is facing as much as twenty years in prison if convicted on some nineteen counts, including racketeering and extortion.

