talking about democratic and republican parties, she has been appointed by both the democratic administration and a republican administration. so, clearly, there -- clearly there were some things sean by her in -- sean -- she's participated in 3,000 decisions, she has written efer 4 -- over 400000 -- would bring more federal judicial decision to the supreme court than any justice in 100 years. i mean, that's a very strong and powerful statement and i think compelling statement to the members of this body. i had, as many of us had the opportunity to meet with judge sotomayor in my office earlier this month. in addition to having an impressive professional resume,

her personal journey also captured my attention as a young woman from a struggling, very middle class background from the bronx, came up the hard way with a lot of hard knocks, wit but wa loving an supportive family around her to lead her and guide her, tutors and teachers who saw in this young girl a tremendous amount of promise and potential. and asia has certain -- and she has certainly lived up to that potential that her mother and others saw in her at a young age. and i believe she is the kind of person that will bring not only strong intellect and character and credibility, but a tremendous breadth of experience that will be very helpful to 0 the court and the issues before them today and in the near

future. she's not only been a champion in many ways, but her life has been an inspiration to all americans proving that with determination and hard work anything's possible. and, finally, it goes without saying, she's a historic choice that will bring a wealth of experience and added diversity to the nation's highest court. when confirmed, she will become only the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court and the first hispanic justice in the history of the united states. this is truly a remarkable turning point. i wish she could receive because of her outstanding resume, not just because of her gender or cultural background, i believe her resume should garner the support of a broad range of members of this body. hopefully that is the way it will come out in the final vote. she most certainly, from my

review, deserves our support, and i look forward to doing what i can to process through her nomination when it's debated as it is today by the full senate. and i thank my colleague from minnesota. and i yield the floor. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? i thank my colleague, senator landrieu, -- mr. coburna senator: we are joi- ms. klobuchar: we are joined by senator mccaskill, and i wanted to thank the senator from kansas for allowing us to take an additional five minutes year. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mrs. mccaskill: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: i want to thank my friend, the senator from minnesota, for helping us get organized this afternoon to spend a little time talking about an outstanding --

outstanding federal judge. i also want to thank my colleague from kansas in giving us a few minutes to -- to make these remarks. i -- as i started looking, i'll confess, that i wasn't familiar with judge sotomayor, before she was nominated, and i started looking at her resume. and there are so many things in her resume that are, frankly, amazing, that you can get distracted by where she went to school and where she got her law degree and the fact that she has been at several levels of the federal bench and also, of course, that she had a very big job in a -- with complex litigation in a law firm. but the part of her resume that spoke to me was her time as an assistant district attorney in new york. now, i don't know that most americans truly understand the

difference between a state prosecuting attorney and a federal prosecuting attorney. well, those of us who have spent time in the state courtrooms like to explain that we're the ones that answer the 911 calls. when you're a state prosecutor, you don't get to pick which cases you try. you try all of the cases. when you're a state prosecutor, you don't have the luxury of a large investigative staff or maybe a very light caseload. it would be unheard of for a federal prosecutor to have a caseload of 100 felonies at any given time. that's the caseload that judge sotomayor handled as an assistant district attorney during her time in district attorney's office in new york.

when she came to the prosecutor's office, ironically it was almost the exact same year i came to the prosecutor's office as a young woman out of law school. i was in kansas city, she was in new york. i know what the environment is in these prosecutor's offices. there are a lot of aggressive type-a personalties, and it's very difficult to begin to handle serious felony cases. because everybody wants to handle the serious felony cases. in only six months judge sotomayor was promoted to handle serious felony cases in the courtroom. she prosecuted every type of crime imaginable including the most serious crimes that are committed in our country. she had many famous cases. one was the tarzan murder, where

she joined law enforcement to scour looking for witnesses and after a month of trial she convicted richard mathis on different murders. a new york detective had a hard time finding a prosecutor willing to take his child pornography case. judge sotomayor stepped up, winning against two cases. these were the first child pornography convictions after the supreme court had upheld new york's law that barred the sale of consumely explicit films using children. and after her time as a prosecutor, she eventually became a trial judge. now, a trial judge is an unusual kind of experience for a supreme court justice. but keep in mind what the supreme court justices do -- they look at the record of the

trial. they are trying to pass on matters of law that emanate from the courtroom. what a wonderful nonknee we have -- nominee that we have that has stood at the bar and sat on the bench ruling on matters of evidence, ruling on matters of law. i am proud of the fact that she has this experience. and if she is confirmed, or when she is confirmed, she will be the only supreme court justice with that trial judge experience because she is replacing the only judge with that experience, judge souter. you know, this is a meat and potatoes moderate judge. this is a judge who has agreed with republicans on her panels 95% of the time.

this is a judge that has the kind of experience that will allow her to make knowing and wise diss on the most -- decisions on the most important matters that come in front of our country in this country we have a gotcha mentality around here. we all engage in it at one time or knows it's gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. it's an outgrowth of the political system that we all participate in in this grand and glorious democracy. not my favorite part, but it's real. justice sotomayor will become a supreme court justice after having gone through a gotcha process. and we're going to hear a lot of gotcha's over the coming weeks. but at the end of the day, this is a smart, prow woman who has fought her way through a system against tremendous odds to show that she has integrity, grit, intellect, and the ability to pass judgment in the most

difficult intellectual challenges that face a supreme court justice. i'm proud to support her nomination and i look forward to the day and i'm confident that the day will come that she will take her place on the highest court in the land. thank you, mr. president. and thank you to the senator from kansas for his indulgence. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. cloib cloi i want to -- ms. klobuchar: i want to thank the senator from kansas, and i know that senators feinstein, boxer, and murray will speak -- may have already and will in the next few weeks on this nominee as will many of my colleagues, but i really appreciate this, mr. president. we're very excited for this upcoming hearing and we're glad to be here as ambassadors of truth. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: thank you very much.

i believe under a previous agreement i have time allotted at the present time. is that correct, if i could inquire of the chair? the presiding officer: the senator may be recognized under cloture. mr. brownback: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to discuss the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i've had the opportunity to meet with judge sotomayor two weeks ago. i was in the senate when she was previously before this body on the second circuit court nomination. i appreciate the chance to meet with her recently. i appreciate the chance to review her record in depth and also to hear my colleagues, actually, to speak about judge sotomayor because i think it represents the distinction that i think is very important to note here. my colleague from missouri just spoke and was talking about the wonderful qualifications of judge sotomayor and the background, the experiences she brings, and she has a very interesting, a very american

story to be able to tell in her background. a compelling story, a daughter of immigrants, overcoming adversity to go to two of the nation's best universities. i admire that. and i admire the things that they pointed out in her presentation, in her background, in what she has done. i think those are all admirable characteristics. but what we're doing here is picking somebody to go on the united states supreme court. what is their judicial philosophy they take with them? it isn't all about the background of experiences, it's about the judicial philosophy that comes forward and that's what my colleagues didn't discuss, and that's what i want to discuss here this afternoon. i've had the chance to review judge sotomayor's record in 1998, the senate voted to promote judge sotomayor to the appellate court. i voted against her at that time because i was concerned not about her background, not about her qualification, i was concerned that she embraced an

activist judicial philosophy, and that's what i want to talk about. because that's what your deciding when you put something on -- somebody on the supreme court. what is the judicial philosophy that this person carries with them? it's not necessarily about their own back ground, it's not necessarily about their qualifications. those are important to review. but at the heart what is -- heart what is the judicial philosophy? is this a person that supports an activist judiciary, getting into areas where many of the public don't think they should go into or is it a person that believes in a constructionist view that a court there 0 to be an umpire, is this a ball or strike and not how do we do law, how do we rewrite what is here? and i think the court loses its luster when it gets into becoming an active player in policy development instead of being a strict umpire of policy development. and, unfortunately, what i saw in judge sotomayor in 1998 was

somebody who embraced an activist judicial philosophy. during a 1996 speech at suffix university law school two years before she was voted to the second circuit judge sotomayor said -- quote -- "the lawyer that lawyers practice an judges declare is not a definitive capital of law that many would like to think exists." translated that's to say the law is not set, it's mobile as moved by judges. not by legislators. this is not the rule of law. but this is the rule from the bench. this is the rule of man and it makes your law unpredictable and that's not good for a society like ours that's based on the rule of law, not the rule by a person. any nominee to the federal bench, and especially to the united states supreme court must have a proper understanding and respect for the role of the

court, for the role that they would assume. the court must faithfully hold to the text of the constitution. and the intent of the founders, not try to rewrite it based on ever changing cultural views. and this is at the heart of what a judge does. democracy, i believe, is wounded when justices on the high court who are unelected invent constitutional rights and alter the balance of governmental powers in ways that find no support in the text, the structure, or history of the constitution. unfortunately, in recent years the courts have assume add more aggressive political role. in many cases the courts allowed the left to achieve through court mandates what it cannot persuade the people to enact through the legislative process. the tugs contemplates the federal courts will exercise

limited jurisdiction -- limited jurisdiction. they should neither write or execute the law. and this is very basic in our law and goes back to the very founders. as chief justice marshall said in the famous 1803 case, marbury vs. madison that every law school has studied: the role of the court is simple. it is to say the law. not to write the law, or we write the law but say what the law is. what did the legislature pass when it needs interpretation? it is not about writing it. it is not about the mobility that the law isn't with a capital "l." and we can move it here based on these factors because of the cultural environment, but if the law is to change it is by legislature that the law changes, not by courts. and that's why marbury vs. madison said the role is to say

what the law is. not to rewrite it. in federallest 78 hamilton wrote this and law students study this: whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other the judiciary, by the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution. because it will be leased in a capacity to annoy or injure them. the executive dispenses the honors and holds the sword of the committee. the legislature commands the purse and prescribes the rules by which the duties of every citizen are regulated. the judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse; nor direction either of the strength or wealth of the society and can take no active resolution whatever. it may truly be said to have neither force nor will but mere himerely judgment and must depes

open the aid of the executive arm and even the efficacy of judgments. the court is to have judgment. a judge is to have judgment. not writing the law. in hamilton's view judges could be trusted with power because they would not resolve divisive social issues. that is for the legislature. short circuit the political process or invite rights which have no basis in the context of the constitution. now, i've long believed the judicial branch preserved its legitimacy with the public and has its strength with the public through refraining from action on political questions. this concept was perhaps best expressed by justice frankfurter, a steadfast democrat, appointed by president franklin delano roosevelt. justice frankfurter said --

quote -- "courts are not representative bodies. they are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. their judgment is best informed and therefore most dependable within narrow limits. their special quality is detachment founded on independence. history teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become. broiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political, economic, and social pressures. primary responsibility for a just in the interest that compete in the situation belongs to the congress." that was quoting justice frankfurter. i recall the private meeting i had with then judge roberts before assuming the position of chief justice roberts when he was nominated to be chief justice. a wonderful justice. on the supreme court who, then

senator obama voted against. senator obama voted against the confirmation of john roberts, votes against the confirmation of samuel alito to the supreme court. based, i believe, primarily on judicial philosophy because they believed in strict constructionist that a court was to be a court and not a legislative body. then senator obama voted against both john roberts and against samuel alito. in our meeting, my meeting with judge roberts, he talked about baseball. and about the courts. in his analogy on baseball and gave a great anatural genuine he said -- quote -- "it's a bad thing when the umpire is the most watched person on the field o now, imagine that, watching a baseball game and the thing you're watching the most is the umpire because the umpire is a umpire and a player. how confusing. how difficult. and what a wrong way to have a going. he, of course, judge roberts,

was alluding to the current situation where the legislature can pass a law, the executive sign it, but everybody waits holding their breath to see what the courts will do with it. unfortunately, judge sotomayor seems to me far too interested in being both an umpire and an active player. prior to becoming a federal judge, sonia sotomayor spent more than a decade on the board of directors of the puerto rican defense and education fund. a september 25, 1992 article in the "new york times" referred to judge sotomayor has a top policy-maker on the group's board. in 1988 the group brought suit against the new york city police department claiming a promotion exam was discriminatory because the results gave a disproportionate number of promise motions to white police officers. as a judge on the court judge sotomayor was involved in a nearly identical case involving a imup of white firefighters -- a group of white firefighters

seeking a promotion and the city officials voided a result because of the impact on minorities. judge sotomayor agreed with the city's decision and we are now waiting on a ruling from the supreme court. sonia sotomayor's work as an activist challenging the narc police department's test results in 1988 is evidence that she may have allowed personal biases to guide decisions to rule against new haven firefighters. now, that, i hope, we can find out more in her qummation interesconfirmationinterviews a. i am troubled by the number of briefs filed by road cat positions -- radical positions on pro abortion issues. six briefs were filed taking positions out of the mainstream in support of abortion rights in prominent cases such as webster v reproductive health center and

the ohio v. akron case they upheld the parental consent laws that say before an underage minor can have -- before a mirier could have -- a minor can have an abortion they must have parental consent. sandra day o'connor and john paul stevens were in the dissent and the group that judge sotomayor was associated with filed a brief opposing this parental notification law saying -- quote -- "any effort to overturn or restrict the rights in roev. wade," they opposed any restriction, even allowing participates of a minor child to give parental notification or have parental modification their child would go through a major medical procedure and she took a stand opposed to that parental right that most of the american public, 75% of the american

public support that parental right of that notification. she opposed it. according to the "the new york times" -- quote -- "the board monitored all litigation undertaken by the funds' lawyers and a number of the lawyers said miss sotomayor was involved and ardent supporter of the various legal efforts during the time with the group." i'm concerned judge sotomayor will bring this agenda to the court. judge sotomayor has given speeches and written articles promoting judicial activism and the president said "judges should have the empathy to recognize what it is like to be a young teenage mom, to understand what it is like to be poor, african american, or gay, or disabled, or woald and a difficult case should-or old and a difficult case should decide what is in the justices' heart." it is admirable to have empathy, a justice, in a person sitting on the bench is to decide this based on the law. that's what they are to decide

upon, not an interpretation or rewriting of the law. the president's view of role of a judge on the court is not shared by justices marshall or frankfurter nor is it the view of hamilton and the drafters of the constitution. the oath that all supreme court justices take says -- quote -- "i will administer justice without request to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." that's the oath they take. that justice is blind. just to hear the case and decide it based on the facts and what the law is. and say what the law says, not what they wish it to be nor what is in their heart. it is to be blind. and it is to hold these and weigh this equally and fairly to determine the truth and to tell the outcome in the case -- and to determine the outcome in the case. the president is asking the nominees to ignore their oath.

i fear judge sotomayor's all too eager to comply. in writings judge sotomayor has rescwebted the principle of -- rejected the principle of impartiality and embraces a judge's personal life story should come into play in the courtroom. in 2001 speech at the ucla berkeley law school, judge sotomayor dismissed the idea that -- quote -- "judges may transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on their reason of law." by thaiing 10 -- quote -- "ignoring our differences as women or man of color we do a disservice to the law and society." i'm not sure why judge sotomayor believes the law is different when interpreted by people of different gender but we do a disservice when we don't transcend our personal

sympathies and prejudices and base our decisions based upon the facts and the law. judge sonia sotomayor's view is contrary to the words engraved upon the supreme court's entrance which states, "equal justice under law." and the same 2001 speech judge sonia sotomayor made the following astonishing statement: quote personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see. i simply do not know what the difference will be in my judging but i accept there will be some." when judge sotomayor says "personal responses affect the facts judges choose to see," does that people she is willing to ignore other facts? that justice is blind? or is it actually interpreting and seeing which facts to pick and which facts not to pick? the role of judge is to examine all the facts of a particular

case, not solely the facts that deliver a desired outcome. or solely the facts that the judge can relate to based on his or her personal biography. it is dangerous to this body to consent to elevating a judge who believes justice equates with picking winners and losers based on his or her own personal bias. that's not judging. i hope my colleagues understand this 2001 speech at berkley was not an isolated incident. in 1994 speech, which i will ask later to be placed in the record, judge sotomayor used language nearly identical to that of the 2001 speech saying that judgments should not ignore that are differences as women and people of color and to do so would be a disservice to the law and society. in 1994, judge sotomayor discussed the impact that more women on the bench will have on the -- quote -- "development" of the law, like this is about the

writing of the law. well, if that's the case, that is done by the congress, not by the courts. mr. president, scwjs do not make law -- judges do not make law and should not be under the impression they do. judge sotomayor sees judges as lawmakers, as both umpire and player. in 2005 appearance at duke law school she said the court of appeals is where policy is made. i wonder how hamilton would respond? i think he would wholly disagree with that interpretation. unfortunately, judge sotomayor's writings and statements lead me to believe they have a proponent, a clear proponent, of an activist judiciary. i cannot support her nomination. i will vote "no" when it comes before the full senate.