archaic doctrine which i thought was pretty decided that the supreme court has said all of the bill of rights have been incorporated for the over to the amendment. all i am saying is she went out of her way to deny the right to keep and bear arms is an elemental rights of the language i read to. >> we don't think that language was necessary to the opinion there as well as with a bit questions should only to talk about. until she can be asked about the opinion she wrote to. >> the democrats are going to try to get health care reform done next month and also trying to pass the appalachian trail nomination para how much more time to think this will? >> he has more experience with high and we both have to run to committee hearings. i would say that the supreme court nominations are perceived

as more and import now than 20 years ago for a lot of reasons. i think you'll have a lot of senators that want to speak on it and it will take some part-time. i think the nominee this service not just missile opportunity the solvent and that holding the real legal analysis why nominee was either incorrect or correct. will have supported and i'm sure that will then ruling in some critics on server rooms so i think that'll take some time and should. it is of paramount. >> [inaudible] with. >> i won't estimate that iraq in the past simply whatever time it took and the lack of the matter is it has been scrunch together in the way that there really wasn't justified without any consultation and the minority of all which was highly unusual. in my 33 years i have never seen whichever side was chairing the

committee just off the trail, they said retirement like that. and by the way we are not getting all of the documentation that we have asked for. hopefully we will but is it going to be a day before the hearings, some of it is voluminous. these of the type of things that i think cause a lot of banks of the committee among republicans and again i share the opinion of senator cornyn and the distinguished ranking member of the committee senator sessions. i expect judge sotomayor to be treated but much greater respect and care by our sign and then a number of one of our nominees to the supreme court and major circuit courts of appeal in the way they were treated in. when nobody has a desire to his

use of the process in an offensive way. but these are very of questions and at least four of us here today and out how to say and think the vast majority of the senate's were really concerned about loire one impromptu discussions about the second amendment in cases of law that were necessary in deciding the case. and especially when they buy in the face of what we believe loli's so these are matters of great concern to we would and i suspect that by raising this evidence will help judge sotomayor during the hearings with which is a lot more than they did for our nominee is somewhat. >> now we will hear from women senators on president obama's supreme court and pick sonia sotomayor. democratic senators amy klobuchar, jean chretien, barry

blanchett encorps mccaskill spoke about the nomination on the senate floor. this is about 20 minutes. >> mr. president, i will be joined on the floor by some of my fellow women senators to talk about the president's nominee for the supreme court. aldus some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to the floor yesterday and went to as one news report described it to kick off their campaign and against her. so we want to take this opportunity to get the tax out, to correct any misconceptions and to set the record straight. the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor will begin on july 13th. , but my consideration of her will not begin then. i began considering her the day she was announced because of the member of judiciary committee, i want to learn as much as i can

and will be about president thomas was to fill one of the most important jobs in our country. even though there are many questions that will be asked in many areas we want to focus on i would like to speak today in about how judge sotomayor appears to be based on my initial review. and after meeting with her and learning about her and a very positive about her nomination. judge sotomayor knows the constitution, she knows the law but she also knows america. what and americans have heard a lot of things about her, her background, her long career as a judge but it's real important for us to talk about what a solid nominee she is because we have to keep in mind that there have been some accusations and misstatements many made by people outside of this chamber on achieving the 20 for seven cables that have been some misstatements and they really all came to me if you lasik go mr. president when allison the airport in the twin cities in

minnesota and a guy came up to me on a tram in the airport and he said the know how you are voting on that woman and i said i want to listen to her and see how she answers the questions and he said i am worried, and i said why, she is actually pretty moderate judge, and he said because she is always putting her emotions in front of the law. i said to him to you know she is on a panel with three judges swinging one on the circuit for or she sits now and have her and to other judges together than 95 percent of the time she comes to an agreement with the republican appointed judge on the panel so you must be thinking the same thing about those guys because you can say that about her. so that incident made me think that we need to set the record straight year, about the facts. which would-be ambassadors of truth and get out the truth about judge sotomayor, her record and what kind of judge we are looking for in the united states supreme court.

we need to make sure that she gets the same civil their treatment than other nominees have been given. judge sotomayor's story is a classic american story. and what about what is possible in our country through hard work. she grew up in her own words in a modest and challenging circumstances and she worked hard for every single thing she got. many of you know her storing wet, her dad died when she was nine years old and her mom supported her and her brother by herself. her mom was devoted to her children's education and. in fact, her mom was so devoted to her education and her brothers education then she angeles save every penny she could such a good-bye encyclopedia britannica as for her kids. and this really meant a lot to me, i remember growing up in the encyclopedia britannica in the hallway were in the hallowed place in, these are the encyclopedia britannica and now show my daughter who is 14 and

in these, of course, on now from the 1960's, she doesn't seem interested in them but they meant a lot to our family and they clearly meant a lot to judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor graduated from princeton in summa cum laude me and private capital and was one of two people sue in the highest award that princeton guess to undergraduates was, she went on to yale law school which launched a three decades-long career in the law. with so when commentators have questioned whether she was smart enough i said you can't make up why did a capra, you can't make up did you have these high awards and you are summa cum laude, phi beta kappa, these are facts. that should go into evidence. since graduating the judge has a very interesting legal career, she has worked as a private sector is a litigator, she has been a district court and appellate court judge then she has taught law school class's

but the one experience with numbers that particularly resonates remaining is that immediately graduating from law school she spent five years as a prosecutor at the manhattan district attorney's office which was one of the busiest and well thought prosecutors' offices in our country. at the time it paid about half as much as a job in the private sector but she wanted the challenge white and the trial experience and she told me and she took the job as a prosecutor. before i entered the senate as a prosecutor with, an office of about 400 people, our biggest prosecutor office and our state so i was very interested in this experience that we have in common. one of the things i learned and i quickly learned that she understood based on our discussion which is as a prosecutor the law is not just some dusty book in your basement where and after you have interacted with victims' of crime and seen the damage that crime can do to a committee, the

havoc that it can make after you have interacted with defendants were going to prison and seen a family sitting in the courtroom, you know the law does not just an abstract subject. when you see that the law has a real impact on real people. and as a prosecutor you don't just have to know the law, you have to know people, you have to know human nature for former supervisor says that she was an imposing and commanding figure in the courtroom. who would weave together a complex set of fact, in forests along and never lose sight of whom she was fighting for and, of course, she was fighting for the people in those neighborhoods, she was fighting for the victims of crime. judge sotomayor's experience shows may she meets my criteria, i am looking for someone who deeply appreciate the power and

the impact that laws have and of the criminal-justice system has on real people's lives. from her first day at the manhattan district attorney's office judge sotomayor and learned that the law is not just an abstraction of. in addition to her work as a prosecutor, i have also learned a lot about judge sotomayor from her long record as a judge. she has been a judge for 17 years, 11 years as an appellate judge in the six years as a tryout judge. president george h. w. bush the first bush gave for the first job she had as and when a judge said she was actually nominated by republican president, that job was to be a district job and the southern district of new york. for nomination to the southern district was enthusiastically supported by both new york senators, democratic senator daniel patrick moynihan and republican senator dick motta.

now if you watch tv or read newspapers or blogs to know that judge sotomayor has been called names as always happens in these supreme court nomination processes. she has been called names by talking heads on tv and radio and in most cases these commentators may have read the case or two others or even read a speech and took a sentence or so out of context and have decided that they are entitled to make a sweeping judgment about her judicial litmus based on a few words have been taken out of context. i think just about everything in the nominee's professional record is fair game to consider. after all we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone to in incredibly important position with lifetime tenure. that is a constitutional duty that i take very seriously. with but that said, when people get upset about a few items in a

few speeches that a judge has given i have to wonder, do a few statements that someone has made in public for which they said they could have used different words, to those trump 17 years of a modest reason, careful judicial decision making? i don't think so. the b-1 to make -- connecticut to know the kind of justice you will be is in our best evidence to look at the type of judge she has already been? here are the tax -- as a town judge she presided over 400 of the cases on the second circuit participated in more than 3,000 panel decisions, she is offered more than 200 appellate opinions and in cases where judge sotomayor and at least one republican appointed judge sat on a three judge panel, judge sotomayor and the republican appointed judge agreed minute i percent of the time. the supreme court has only reviewed five cases where she authored the decision and affirmed the decision below and

two of them. so the vast majority of her cases, the vast majority have not been in any way overturned or refer by harcourt. it is worth noting that this nominee if confirmed would bring war of federal judicial experience to the supreme court then any justice and in 100 years. once so with that i see one of my colleagues this year, the senator from new hampshire and we're going to have a number of women senators here today. i will come back and finish my remarks sometime in this next half-hour and but i thought it was very important that senator shame, the senator from a hampshire's be able to say a few words about the nominee. thank you very much mr. president and i yield the floor.

>> i'm delighted to be here to join my friend and colleague from the state of minnesota senator klobuchar in supporting the nomination of the justice sonia sotomayor to be a justice of the supreme court. you know, everyone in my home state of new hampshire who was very proud of 19 years ago when former president george bush nominated in new hampshire is on who david souter as an associate justice of the supreme court. every anshan justice souter has taken since he began his service to our nation's highest court has only reinforced that pride. so when justice souter announced that he intended to retire at the end of his term and return home to new hampshire, i took particular interest in him president of, was selected to fill it david souter's seat.

and believe the president has made a boffo an outstanding choice in nominating judge sonia sotomayor. judge sotomayor has had a distinguished career as a federal judge as has been widely noted. if confirmed she would bring more federal judicial experience to the supreme court than any justice in 100 years today david souter is the only member of the supreme court with prior experience as a trial court judge. sonia sotomayor to would be the only justice, the only justice with experience as a trial court judge. i happen to agree with senator klobuchar. i think it is important that at least one of the nine supreme court justices have that experience. it is a trial judge's out of the day in and day out must apply the legal principles enunciated

in supreme court opinions perrin. she also served five years as a local prosecutor and practice law for seven years as a trial attorney with the law firm baron judge sotomayor because of poor experience will be ever mindful of the the need to provide those in the courtroom with clear and practical decisions and more important she will understand how supreme court opinions affect real human beings. as a trial judge, judge sotomayor every day directly based innocent victims of crime from a vicious perpetrators of crime and occasionally an the wrongfully accused. two directly face injured parties seeking silber dress and as a man have made honest mistakes. she had to answer what is the right verdict. what is the right length of

incarceration? what is the right level of damages? these are not easy decisions. all i know that because my husband was a state trial court judge for 16 years. trial court judges must be able to live with the justice the meat out. to do it well it takes more than an understanding of the law, it takes an understanding of people. and judge sotomayor has a greater understanding of both. the had the pleasure of meeting with sonia sotomayor that they she fractured her ankle one. i said to her as she came into my office, boy, your top, she said i grew up in the bronx where we had to be tough. she handled the last panel injury with grace and humor, she has a first-rate temperament. she also has a first-rate intellect. after growing up in public housing project in the south bronx to she excelled at both princeton and yale law school.

quote i believe judge sonia sotomayor is an excellent choice to replace david souter as a supreme court justice. and she deserves a fair in a thorough hearing without delay. mr. president, i look forward to that hearing and i yield the floor. >> thank you very much, mr. president. it can ask to be recognized? >> seven tourette's minnesota. >> and want to thank my colleague for her remarks and for reminiscence of meeting with judge and her month -- showing how she perseveres in the face of diversity. i also want to talk a little bit more. i was sending my last commons

talking about how, in fact, this money would bring more federal judicial experience to the supreme court that any justice in 100 years and i had earlier noted my exchange with someone in the airport where he wondered if she was worthy of this in she was able to apply the tax, applied ala. clearly when you look at this experience that she brings and you compare her two any of these other nominees on the supreme court she stands out. and she stands out not only because of our unique background and she overcame obstacles to get here but she stands up because of her experience. all those years as a prosecutor, all those years as a federal judge. that makes a difference here and i want to address one other point that has been made about judge sotomayor is in her capacity as a judge and was something actually senator sheen noted analyst government issues. other have been some stories and comments mostly anonymous i would note that question judge

sotomayor's judicial temperament. according to one new stories about this topic judge sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions like that oral arguments and for being sometimes want me brusque and court with lawyers who are not prepared to answer them. because she was a little courage when anonymous source says. well, where i come from asking tough questions and having very little patience for and repair of lawyers is the very definition of being a judge here and i can tell you how many times i have seen judges him very impatient with lawyers who weren't prepared it and did not know the answer lies to a question. as a lawyer you go to the bench in your client to be well prepared as you possibly can in. one as was said on npr as judge sotomayor sometimes dominick's oral argument and her court, and she is feisty and even pushy then she would not write in in

the united states supreme court. and i would add this to that comment, surely we have come to a time in this country where we can confirm as many drug to the appointing of judges as we have confirmed what and to the appointment of judges. with just think how far we have come with this nominee mr. president when sandra day o'connor graduated from law school 50 plus years ago. in the only offer, the only offer that she got the law firm was for a position as a legal secretary. and she had this great background, very impressive background and yet the only offer that she not what was as the legal secretary. judge ginsburg who now sits on the court is similar obstacles. when she entered harvard in the 1950's she was in the only one of nine women in a class of one of 500, one of nine women in a class of more than 500 and one

professor at chile will asked her to justify taking a place that would have gone to a man in that class of harvard. nine women, 500 spots and someone actually esther to justify the line that she was there. and suppose you could justify now by saying she is now on the supreme court. later justice ginsberg was passed over for prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. looking at judge sotomayor's on record as a lawyer, prosecutor and judge the you can see we have come a long way. she was confirmed by the senate for the district court would, she was nominated and that plan by the first president bush and confirmed one the senate for the second circuit and she now faces confirmation hearing before air judiciary committee and the confirmation again for position with the united states be one. which, after learning about with

judge sotomayor's, her background, her legal career, her judicial long record like summoning of my colleagues i am very impressed here and she is president of, words, of the issue will bring to her nomination hearing and to the supreme court and she is confirmed not only the knowledge want an experienced acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career with the wisdom long accumulated, an inspiring westering. and tune with today justice o'connor was on the today show and she was asked about where work on the court and what it was like we will issue is actually asked about one would one judge sotomayor and what she said was she said and i am just looking over here at this, she actually said who, when you retire you that it be known that

she would like a woman to replace you and you were sort of disappointed when a woman did not replace you so what is your reaction to help judge sotomayor's nomination? and justice o'connor's and, of course, i am pleased we will have another woman on the court here and i do think it is important what not to have just one who. will our nearest neighbor canada also has a court of nine members were and in canada where there is a woman chief justice and there are more women who, and pulled on the canadian court. and then she was asked what do think there is a right number of women who should be on the court will and justice o'connor said huang, no, of course, not but then she pointed out about half of all law graduates today are women and we have a tremendous number one of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers want so they ought to be represented court.

she was also asked later in the interview with le about upon some of a long sonia sotomayor he brought up this term activist judge and she was asked thing that i know that as attorney have railed against in the past. what is it about the term you object to. and she answered i don't think the public understands what is meant to buy a ticket. it is thrown around by many in the political wheel the help and i think that probably for most users of the terms of their distinguishing between the role of a legislator and a judge with the mesa that a judge should not legislate you're the problem, of course, justice o'connor said at the appellate level in the supreme court is the top of the appellate level release of the core to become binding long been so it's a little hard to talk in terms of who is an activist. i again ask people to look at what judge sotomayor's opinions. when i talk to her about this to talk about how she really is is

a set formula, laying out the facts, laying out the law, showing how would the law applies to the facts and then reaching a decision in. and you also look at her record here where, in fact, when she was on a three judge panel long with two other judges when you look at her record of when she agreed with judges who had been appointed by a republican president, a 95% of the time they reached the same decision paris on us to believe those republican appointed judges are somehow i activist judges will will then i guess you'd say that she is an activist judge but i think when you look at her home record you see someone who is a moderate to, sometimes coming down on one side and sometimes another. i tell you as a former prosecutor i didn't always just look at whether i agreed with a judge or not when i was trying

to figure out of someone would be a good chance -- i would look at whether they applied the law to the facts. whether they were fair and sometimes there are prosecutor's office would not agree with the judge's decision. we argued vehemently for a different decision, but in the and when we evaluated these judges and decided whether we thought the repair and the chairperson to have on the case we really that that whole experience. we looked at the whole experience to make a decision about whether or not this was a gent who could be fair and that is what i think when you look at her record and i am looking very much to this hearing where we will explore a number of these cases again, some of the colleagues on one side of the aisle will agree or disagree and the other side would have made a decision the other but you have to look at her record as a home appearance you look at that record and you will see some of experience, someone who is thought fall, someone who makes

a decision based on the fax and based bamela. so i am very much looking for today's hearings, mr. president. i know that some of my colleagues are coming down here as we speak here and i am looking bird to their arrival as we become as i have said ambassadors of truth to get these facts out there somewhere things have been bantered about and names and really get into people's heads and i think it is important that for all of those watching c-span the right now and follow those that are in the galleries today that people take these whacks away from them, the facts of her experience over 100 years of judicial experience more than anyone 100 years when you look back, 100 years she has more experience on the bench then it any of the justices that renominated. ..