vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 28. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the leahy amendment as amended is agreed to.

the motion to reconsider is the motion -- is considered made. and laid on the table. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i thank my colleagues for accepting the -- the amendment. one more time, i also thank the distinguished senator from michigan, the chairman of the committee, the distinguished majority leader for their work on this, as well as my staff, bruce cohen, christine lucius and others on the staff who have worked -- noah bookbinder, i'm sorry, noah bookbinder, who worked so hard on this. it is -- we've made it very clear, the senate has made it very clear our -- how we hold in abhorrence hate crimes. i have a longer speech in the record that will cover this, but i thank my colleagues for

standing up and being so strongly -- voice so strong until a bipartisan way their opposition to hate crimes. and i yield the floor, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: franken:.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i have an amendment that i send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes amendment numbered 1618. mr. thune: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the rest of the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, the amendment that i bring to the senate this evening is very simple, and it ties into the debate that was just held about hate crimes legislation. one of the ways that you can obviously prevent crimes from happening is to make sure that people are able to defend themselves against violent crimes. and my amendment would do just that. it's very simple. it allows individuals the right to carry a lawfully concealed firearm across state lines while at the same time respecting the laws of the whole state. this amendment is very similar, mr. president, to bipartisan legislation that i've introduced, senate bill 845, which currently has 22

cosponsors. the second amendment provides and the supreme court held in the heller decision last summer that law-abiding americans have a fundamental right to possess firearms in order to defend themselves and their families. mr. president, studies have shown that there is more defensive gun use by victims than there are crimes that are committed with firearms. as such, i believe that a state's border should not be a limit on this fundamental right and that law-abide be individuals -- law-abiding individuals should be guaranteed their second amendment right as they travel throughout the 48 states that permit some form of conceal and carry. my amendment would eliminate the confusing patchwork of laws that currently exist. this amendment would allow an individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they either have a valid permit or if, under their state of

residence, they are legally entitled to do so. after entering another state, an individual must respect the laws of the whole state as they apply to conceal and carry permit holders, including the specific type of locations in which firearms may not be carried. reliable empirical research shows that states with concealed carry laws enjoy significantly lower violent crime rates than those states that do not. for example, for every year a state has a concealed carry law, the murder rate declines by 3% and robberies by over 2%. additionally, research shows that minorities and women tend to be the ones with the most to gain from being allowed to protect themselves. the benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals that actually carry the firearms. since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit crimes when they fear that they may come into direct contact

with an individual who is armed. this deterrent is so strong that the department of justice study found that 40% of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victim was armed. additionally, research shows that when unrestrictive conceal and carry laws are passed, not only -- it not only benefits those who are armed, but also others like children. my amendment in comparison to others being debated in the senate would actually empower individuals to protect themselves before they become victims of a crime instead of just punishing the perpetrators afterwards. a great example of this occurred earlier this month. steven fleischman, is a stkwraoulry salesman from mobile, alabama who travels for business. on his recent trip, a group of four men, two armed, confronted him and tried to take his merchandise. instead of becoming a victim, he was legally concealing his

firearm and was able to pull his weapon and protect himself and his merchandise from the four attackers. who knows what would have happened to him or his jewelry if he was traveling in south carolina or any other 27 states that alabama does not have reciprocity agreements with. my amendment would alleviate this problem, mr. president, and i hope that when we return next week we have an opportunity to debate this amendment, to vote upon it, and my colleagues will support it because i believe it is an important tool for safety, for self-defense and is consistent with our tradition in this country of respect for second amendment rights for allowing american citizens the opportunity and the right to defend and protect themselves. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask to rescind the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3114, which was received

from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3114, an act to authorize the director of the united states patent and trademark office to use funds made available under the trademark act of 1946 for patent operations in order to avoid furloughs and reductions in force and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 1:00 p.m., monday, july 20. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings journal of proceedings will be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate resume consideration of s. 1390, the department of defense authorization bill. the clerk: without objection.

mr. kaufman: mr. president, senators should expect a series of up to four roll call votes to begin around 3:00 p.m. on monday. those votes would be in relation to four amendments relating to the hate crime. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the clerk:

the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor continue today with more questions from the senate judiciary committee and testimony from interest groups. over the next two and half hours we will show you portions of the hearing including questions on judicial philosophy, the second amendment and the role of precedent. our coverage begins with republican senators lindsay gramm. democratic senator arlen specter in 20 minutes and republican senator john cornyn as questions about 40 minutes. >> thank-you and something out like to say directly and publicly with admiration for your life story is that a lot of the ronson that have been mentioned some have been writing and some have yet to come. judge, i hope you understand the difference between petitioning once government and having a say in electoral process and voting for people that if you don't like you can get rid of and the

difference of society being changed by nine unelected people who have a lifetime appointment. do understand the difference and how those two systems work? >> absolutely sarah i understand the constitution. >> and the one thing i can tell you and is probably be the last time i get to talk in this fashion. i hope to have a chance to get to know you better and we will see what your future holds but i think it's going to be pretty bright. at the bottom line is one of the problems of the court has now is mr. ricci has a story to tell. there are all kinds of stories to tell in this country and the court has in the opinion of many of us gone into the business of societal change not based on the plain language of the constitution, but based on motivations that can never be checked at the ballot box. in brown vs. board of education

it is instructive in the sense that the court pushed the country to do something politicians were not brave enough to do, certainly were not brave enough in my state. a and and i had been elected as a senator from south carolina in 1955, the year i was born, i would be amazed if i would have the courage of a judge johnson in the political arena, but the court to went through an analysis that separate was not equal. it had a basis in the constitution after fact finding to reach a reason to conclusion in the law and the courage to implement that decision. and society had the wisdom to accept the court's opinion, even though it was contentious and literally people died. we're going to talk about some

very difficult societal changes that are percolating in america today, like to should get married, and what boundaries are on the definition of marriage and who is best able were the most capable of making those fundamental decisions? the full faith and credit clause in essence says that when a valid enactment of one state is entered into, the sister states have to accept it. but there's a public policy exception in the full faith and credit clause, are you aware of that? >> i'm, applied in different situations. >> some states have different age limits for marriage. some states trade marriage to really than others in the courts to defer based on public policy. the reason it these speeches matter and the reasons elections matter is because people now understand of the role of the court in modern society becomes a social change.

that is why we fight so hard to put on the court to people who see the world wide fess. that's true from the left, and that is true from the right to. and then give you an example of why that is important to. we have talked a lot about the second amendment, whether or not it is a fundamental right. we all know agree it is an individual right. is that correct? >> correct. >> well, that is a ground breaking precedent in the sense that just until a few months ago or last year i guess that was not the case but it is today. is a lot of the land by the supreme court that the second amendment is an individual right. in view of knowledge of that, that's correct? >> that was -- >> the heller case. >> the decision and it is with the court has held so it is unquestionably an individual,

right. >> but here is the next up for the court. you'll have to if you get on the court with your fellow justices sit down and discuss whether or not it is a fundamental right to the point that it is incorporated into the due process clause of the 14th amendment and apply to every state. isn't it fair to say, judge, that when you do that not only will you listen to your colleagues, you will read whenever case law is available, your going to come down a based on what to think america is all about? >> noaa server. >> so what binds you when it comes to the fundamental right? >> several of the long. >> is an to the rule of law when it comes to which you consider to be a fundamental right, your opinion as to what is fundamental among all of us? >> no, in fact to the question

that you raise is in fundamental in the sense of the law. >> right. >> that is a legal term. is very different and it is important to remember that the supreme court precedent on the second amendment predated it's -- >> i need to interrupt but we have -- is there sort of a viggo cookbook that you can go to and say this is a fundamental right, hey, and be is not? >> well, there's not a cookbook but there is precedent that was established after the older president that has talked and described that doctrine of incorporation. that is a set of precedent. >> are you talking about the 1890 case? >> the 1890's was the supreme court's holding on this issue but since that time there has been a number of the decisions,

discussing the incorporation doctrine applying it to different provisions of the constitution. >> is there any personal judgment to be relied upon by a supreme court justice in deciding whether or not the second amendment is a fundamental right? >> well, you hire judges for their judgment, not their personal views or what their sense of what the outcome should be. you hire you're point judges for the purpose of understanding whether they respect law, whether they respect precedent and apply at. >> i don't doubt that to respect the law, but you are going to be asked along with eight other colleagues if you get on the court to render a decision as to whether or not the second amendment is a fundamental right shared by the people. there is no subjective judgment in their?

>> the issue will be controlled by the court's analysis of that question in the case, fundamental as defined by incorporation -- likely will be looked at by the court in a case that challenges a state regulation. >> i have it -- go ahead it. >> i'm sorry, at that point i would presume that the court will look at its older precedent in the way it did in heller, consider whether it controls the issue or not. and will decide even if the controls it whether they shouldn't be revisited the under the doctrine of stare decisis. in revisiting it will look at a variety of different factors.

among them have there been changes in related areas of law that would cancel questioning this. as i have indicated, there was a lot of law after the older cases on a corporation and i suspect but i don't know because i can't prejudge the issue that the court will consider that with all of the other arguments that the parties -- >> maybe i got it wrong and maybe i'm off base here. maybe you've got the seventh circuit talking about the heller case did not decide the issue of whether it should be incorporated to the states because only dealt with the district of columbia. you've got the ninth circuit and i never thought i'd live to hear myself say this -- look at the ninth circuit. [laughter] they have a pretty good rationale as to why the second amendment should be considered a fundamental right. and i talk about the longstanding relationship of the

english man and i should have put woman. in this in south carolina that would have applied, to gun ownership. they talked about it was this right to bear arms that led to our independence. it was this right to bear arms and that put down a rebellion in this country and they talked about who we are as a people and our history of the people. and judge, that is why the supreme court matters. i do believe at the end of the day you are not going to find a law book that tells you whether or not a fundamental right exists in visavie the second amendment, then you're going to have to rely upon your view of america, who we are, how far we have, and where we are going to go in our relationship to gun ownership. that's why these choices are so important. and here's what i will say about

you. and you may not agree with that, but i believe that's what you're going to do and i believe that's what every other justice is going to do and here's what i will say about you. i don't know how you're going to come out on that case because i think fundamentally, judge, you are able after all these years of being a judge to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you, but for the group they are necessary. that is my hope for you. that is what makes you to me more acceptable as a judge and not an activist because an activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change america to the supreme court by taking their view of life and imposing it on the rest of us.

i think and i believe based on what i know about to so far that you are broad minded enough to understand that america's bigger than in the bronx, it's bigger than south carolina. now, during your time as an advocate, do you understand identity politics? what is i did in a politics? >> politics based simply on a person's characteristics, generally referred to by their race or ethnicity or gender, religion. it is politics based on -- >> to you embrace identity politics personally? >> personally i don't as a judge in any way embrace it with respect to judging. as a person, i do believe that certain groups have and should express their views on whatever

social issues may be out there, but as i've understand a word identity politics, is usually denigrated because it suggests that individuals are not considering what's best for america. >> t you think -- >> and that i don't believe in. i think that whenever a group of advocates obviously in advocates on behalf of its interests and what the group thinks it needs, but i would never endorse a group advocating something that was contrary to some basic constitutional right as it was known at the time, although people advocate changes in the wall the time. >> do you believe that your speeches properly read in press -- embrace of identity politics? >> i think my speeches embraced the concept that i just described whiches groups you

have an interest that you should seek to promote what you're doing is important in helping the community develop, participate in the process of your community, participate in the process of helping to change the conditions 11. the conditions you lived in a. i don't describe it as identity policies because -- politics -- because it's not that i'm advocating the groups to something illegal. >> well, judge, to be honest with you your record as a judge has not been radical by any means. it is to be left of center but your speeches are disturbing, particularly to conservatives, quite frankly, because they don't talk about get involved come and go to the ballot box, make sure you understand that america can be whatever you like to be, there's a place for all of us. it really didn't to suggest -- those speeches to me suggested

gender and racial affiliations in a way that a lot of us wonder, will you take that line of thinking to the supreme court in these cases of first precedent? you have been very reassuring here today and throughout this hearing that you're going to try to understand the difference between judging and whatever political feelings you have about groups or gender. now, when you were a lawyer, what was the mission statement of the porter rican legal defense fund? >> to promote the sole rights and equal opportunity of hispanics in the united states. >> during your time on the board and you had about every job a board member could have them is in a fair statement to say that all of the cases embraced by this group on abortion advocated the woman's right to choose and

argued against restrictions by state and federal government on abortion rights? >> i didn't -- i can't answer that question because i didn't review the braves. i did know that the fund had a health care docket that included challenges to certain limitations on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under certain circumstances. >> judge, i may be wrong but every case i've seen by the porter rican legal defense fund advocated against restrictions on abortion, advocated a federal taxpayer funding of abortions for low-income women. across the board when it came to the death penalty it advocated

against the death penalty. when it came to an employment law and advocated against testing and for cordis. i mean, that's just the record of this organization. and the point i'm trying to make is that whether or not you advocate those positions and how you will judge can be two different things. i haven't seen in your judging this advocate and then i saw or this part number, but when it came to the death penalty you filed a memorandum with the puerto rico legal defense fund in 1981 and i would like to submit this to the record where you sign this memorandum and you basically said that the death penalty should not be allowed in america because it created a racial bias and it was under the burden on the perpetrator and their family. what led you to that conclusion in 1981? >> the question in 1991.

>> 81. >> i misspoke about the year -- was an advocacy by the fun it taking a position on whether legislation by the state of new york outlawing are permitting the death penalty should be adopted by the state. i thank you for recognizing that my decisions have not shown me to be an advocate on behalf of any group. that's a different, a dramatically different question then whether i follow the law and in what the one case i had as district court judge upheld the law completely. >> the only reason that i mentioned this is when justice alito and robert caperton this panel were asked about minutes in the reagan administration, clients they represented, a lot to try to suggest that if you wrote a memo about this area of the law to your boss, ronald reagan, you must not be fit to

judge. and they were able to explain the difference between being a lawyer in the reagan administration and being a judge and to the credit of many of my democratic colleagues in the interest of that. i'm just trying to make the point that when you were an advocate when you're on this board the board to positions that i think are left of center and you have every right to do it. have you ever known in low income latina woman who was the valley pro-life? >> yes. >> have you ever known a low income latina family who supported the death penalty? >> yes. >> so the point is there are many points of view within groups based on income. you have a i think consistently as an advocate to the point of view that was left of center. you have as a judge been generally in the mainstream.

the ricci case you missed one of the biggest issues in the country or you took a pass. i don't know what it is but i'm going to say this, that as senator feinstein said, you have come a long way. you have worked very hard, you have earned the respect i can start now like to put his statement in the record and you have said some things that just bugged the hell out of me. the last question on the wise latina woman comment. two those who may be bothered by that, what do you say? >> i regret that i have offended some people. i believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent to leave the

impression that some have taken from my words. >> you know what, judge? i agree with you. good luck. >> more questions from the supreme court confirmation hearing ford judge sotomayor our next. our coverage continues with a democratic senator arlen specter, followed by republican senator john cornyn and 20 minutes and then sit democrat al franken in about 40 minutes. >> judge, when we met the first time as i believe that i countered earlier amid a pledge to you that i would do my best to make sure you were treated respectfully and this would be a process. i just want to ask you up front do you feel like you've been given a chance? to explain your record in your judicial philosophy to the american people? i have certain every senator on both sides of the aisle that have made that promise to me

have kept it fully. >> in judge genome that test is not whether judge judge sotomayor is intelligent, you are huang, the tests is not whether we like you. i think in speaking personally we all do line, the tests is not even whether we admire you or respect to although we do and meyer in respect which you have accomplished, the tests is really what kind of justice will you be if confirmed to the supreme court of the united states will you be one that appears to reconstitution and written laws and respect by the right of the people of to make their laws to the elected representatives or will you pursue some other agenda personal political ideological that is something other than in force in the law? i think that is the question

and, of course, the purpose of these hearings as you have gone through these tedious rounds of questioning is to allow us to clear up any confusion about your record in your judicial philosophy. yet so far with i find there is still some confusion. for example, 01996 he said the idea of a stable capital l. long was a public meth. in this wiki said the fidelity to the law is your only concern. in 1996 you argued that indefinite is and what is a good thing because it allowed judges to change the law. today you characterize that argument as being only the ambiguity can exist and that it is congress's job to change the law. in 2001 you said that innate physiological differences of judges good and bad decisions

and yesterday characterized the argument has been wrongly that in a physiological difference of litigants could change decisions. in 2001 you disagreed explicitly with justice o'connor's view of whether a wise man or wise woman would reach the same decision. yet during these hearings you characterize your argument as being that you agreed with her. a few weeks ago when your speech on form law to the american civil liberties union in rejected the approach of justices justice alito and thomas with regard to foreign law and yet it seems to me during these hearings you have agreed with them. so judge, what should i tell my constituents who are watching these hearings and say to themselves in berkeley, and other places around the country when she says one thing but at these hearings you are saying

something which sounds contradictory if not diametrically opposed to some of the things you said in speeches around the country? >> i would tell them to look at my decisions for 17 years and is that in every one of them i have done when i say that i so firmly believe in. approve my fidelity to the law, the fact that i do not permit personal views and the symphonies or prejudices to influence the outcome of cases, rejected and the challenges of numerous plaintiffs with an indisputably sympathetic claims, but ruling the way i have on the basis of what rejected those claims. i would ask them to look at this speech is completely, to read

what their context was and to understand the background of a those issues that are being discussed. and didn't disagree with one eye and stood was the basic premise that justice o'connor was making which was that being a man or woman doesn't affect the capacity of some one to judge fairly or wisely, but i disagree with the literal meaning of her words because neither of us meant the liberal meetings of our words. my use of her words was pretty bad in terms of leaving a bad impression, but both of us were talking about the value of experience and the fact that it gives you equal capacity. in the and i would tell your constituents look at my record

and understand that my record talks about who i am as a person, what i believed in, in my judgment in my opinion the following their rule of law is the foundation of our system of justice. >> thank you for that, for your answer. you know, i actually agree that you're judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision making by court of appeals judges on the federal bench. and while i think, what is reading this cognitive dissidence for many of us and for many of my constituents who live been hearing from is that you appear to be a different person almost in your speeches and in some of the comments that you have made so i guess part of what we need to do is try to reconcile those as i said earlier. you said that, i want to give it

to a slightly different subject and go back to your statement that the courts should not make law. what he also said that the supreme court decisions that a lot of us believe it made law actually were in interpretation of the law. so i would like for you to clarify that. if the supreme court and the next few years holds that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, would that be making the law? whether that be interpreting the law? i am not asking you to classified -- not asking to prejudge that case, or the merits, but just to characterize whether that would be interpreting the law or whether that would be making the law? >> senator, that question is so embedded, this is your meeting if the court rules one way and i

say that's making law and then it forecasts i have been titular view of whatever arguments may be made on this issue suggesting that is interpreting the constitution. eid anger san the question, and understand the seriousness of same-sex marriage. but i also know as i think all american those that this issue is being hotly debated on every level. of a r3 branches of government, it is being debated in congress and congress has passed an act relating to same-sex marriage. it is being debated in various courts on the state level, higher courts have made rulings. this is of the type of situation where even the characterizing of what ever the court may do as one way or another suggests that i have both prejudged an issue and that i come to that issue with my own personal views

suggesting an outcome. but neither is true. i would look at that issue in the context of the case that came before me with a completely open mind. >> we get the same-sex marriage hypothetical. is there a difference in your mind between making the law in interpreting the law or is that a distinction without a difference? >> no, it's a very important distinction. the laws are written by congress. it has factual findings, it is determines in his judgment what the fed is between the law passing and the remedy. that is giving as a right, the courts when there are interpreting oss to start with what is the constitution saying what is the words of the constitution, how has precedent interpreted those, what are the

principles that it has discussed and govern in particular situation. >> how you reconcile that answer with your statement that courts of appeals make policy? >> in both cases in which i have used that word into different speeches, one was a speech and one was a remark to students, this is almost like a discussion about fundamental what is it came to a nonlawyer and what it means in the context of supreme court in legal theory. >> are you saying it is only a discussion of lawyers could love? >> not love but in the context in both context, it is very clear that i'm talking about completely difference between the two judging in that circuit courts when they issue a holding it becomes precedent on all similar cases. in both commons that statement

was made absolutely expressly that that was the context of the kind of policy i was talking about which is the ramifications of a precedent on all similar cases. when congress talks about policies, it is talking of something totally different, talking about making law, what are the choices i'm going to make in law. in making the law. those are two different things. i wasn't talking about courts making law. in fact, in the duke speech i said in a use making policy in terms of its ramifications on existing cases and i never said in either speech make a lot in the sense that congress would. >> let me turn to another topic. in 1996 after you have been on the federal bench for four years erode a law review article and suffolk university that pertains to campaign financing.

you said our system of election financing purvis extensive private including corporate financing of candidates campaigns. raising again the question of whether the difference between contributions and bribes and how legislatures or other officials can operate and objectively on behalf of the electorate. you said an elected official say with credibility they're carrying out the mandate of a democratic society? representing only the general public good when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns? judge sotomayor, what is the difference to my between a political contribution and a bribe? >> the context of that statement was a question about what was through the legal system. at that time it has been as you know before the supreme court

since broccoli. >> i agree but my question is one in your mind is the difference between a political contribution in a bribe? >> the question is contributor seeking to influence or to buy someone's vote in and there are situations in which elected officials have been convicted of taking a bribe because they have agreed in exchange for a sum of money to vote on a particular legislation in a particular way. that violates a federal law, the question that was discussed was a much broader question as to where you draw that line is a society, what choices you think about in terms of the what congress will do, but politicians will do. i've often spoken about the difference between what the law permits and what individuals

should use to guide and their conduct. but the fact that the losses you can do this doesn't always mean you is a person should choose to do this. and, in fact, we operate within law. you should not be a lawbreaker, but you should act in situations according to that sense of what is right or wrong. we have the recent case of the supreme court considered the of what the judge who was given an extraordinary amount of money by a campaign contributor dwarfing everything else in his campaign in terms of contributions in a very expensive campaign. >> in fact, that is not a direct contribution to the judge, was it? >> but it was a question there with supreme court said, the appearance of impropriety in this case would have council and the judge to get off.

>> let's get back to my question and i can and let me ask you this. last year president obama said a record in fund-raising for private sources reason an unprecedented amount of campaign contributions. do you think given your law review article of the present obama can say with credibility he is carrying out the mandate of a democratic society? >> that wasn't what i was talking about in that speech, i don't -- >> he was elected in 1996 but what i'm getting at is are you basically in with such a broad brush when it comes to people's rights under the first amendment to participate in the political process either to volunteer their time, make any kind of contributions? do you consider that a formal bribery or any way improper? >> no search. >> thank you. thank you for your answer.

a short time we have remaining let me return to the new haven firefighter case briefly. as you know, two witnesses i believe will testify after you are through and i'm sure you will welcome being finished with this question in. a lot of attention span given to the lead plaintiff, frank ricci who is dyslexic and the hardship he has endured in order to prepare for this competitive examination only to see the competitive examination results thrown out, but i was struck on the july 3rd york times when they featured another firefighter who will testify here today and that was benjamin vargas. in the son of porter rican parents as you probably know and he found himself in it in the on position to say the least of being discriminated against based on his race, based on the

decision by the circuit court panel that you sat on. the closing of the arctic kola because we tend argus who hope to be capt. vargas as results of the supreme court decision because he scored sixth on the competitive examination, and the very last paragraph in this article it says gesturing toward his three sons lt. argus explained why he had no regrets. he said i want to give them a fair shake. to get a job on the merits, not because they are hispanic or to fill a quota. teeseven what a lousy way to live. that's his testimony so i want to ask you in conclusion, do you agree with chief justice john roberts when he says the best way to stop discriminating based

on race is two stop discriminating based on race? >> the best way to live in our society is to follow the command of the constitution, provide equal opportunity for all, and i follow what the constitution says, that is how the law should be structured and and how they should be applied to every individual circumstances come before the court. >> with respect my question was, do you agree with chief justice robert statement or do you disagree? >> the question of agreeing or disagreeing suggests an opinion on what the ruling was in the case he used it in, and i accept the court's ruling in that case and that was a very recent case. there is no quarrels that i have a that i don't except in that

situation that a statement the court found applied. i just said the issue is the constitutional one comical opportunity for all under the law. >> eid understand that you might want to comment on what the chief justice wrote the opinion even though i don't think he was speaking of a specific case rather an approach to the law which would treat us all as individuals. with a pull dignity and equal rights, but let me ask you whether you agree with martin luther king when he said he dreamed of a day when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? do you agree with pat? >> i think every american agrees with that. >> amen. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, a senator cornyn. we are going to go to senator specter who is a longtime member of this committee and one of the most senior members here and i

would want senator specter's questions are finished we will take a very shorebreak. does that work for you, judge? >> gitmo certainly does. >> senator specter is recognized for up to 20 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge sotomayor, you have been characterized as running a hot courtroom, asking tough questions. we see popping out of the supreme court to opinions from time to time statements about it pretty tough ideological battle in the conference room. justice scalia it was quoted as an accord must be living in another world day-by-day case by case busy designing a constitution for a country i did not recognize.

referring to a woman's right to choose, and it roe vs. wade he said this quote, justice o'connor's said that opponents of the rule of judicial restraint requires us to avoid reconsidering it to not to be taken seriously. do you think it possible that if confirmed you will be eight litigator in that conference room? to take on the ideological battles which pop out from time to time, what we read in their opinions? >> i don't judge on the basis of ideology. i judge on the basis of the law and my reasoning, that's how i have comport myself in circuit court. when my colleagues and i in many cases have initially come to

disagreeing positions we discussed them and either persuaded each other, change each other's mind, and it worked from the starting point of arguing, discuss saint, exchanging perspectives on what the law demands. >> perhaps you will be tempted to be a tough litigator of the courts. time will tell if you are confirmed if you have some of those iraq of statements. let me move on to a case which you have decided you have been reluctant to make comments about. but other people have said, but i want to ask you about attribute this to what you have said. in the case of a river keeper of which involved the question which is very important matters being considered by congress on climate control and global warming, you rolled into the second circuit that the best technology should be employed

and not the cost benefit. supreme course reversed 524 saying it was cost-benefit. can we expect you to stand by your interpretation of a clean water act when if confirmed to get to the supreme court and can make that kind of a judgment because you're not bound by precedent? >> well, i am bound by precedent to the extent that all presidents is entitled to the respect under the doctrine of a stare decisis and to the extent of the supreme court has addressed this issue cost-benefit and is purvis ability to under the clean water act, that is the holding out applied to any new case that came and a free market establishes the framework i would employ two new cases. >> let me turn to a subject i

raised yesterday but from a different perspective and that is the issue of the supreme court taking on more cases. in 1886 there were 451 cases decided by the supreme court, in 1985 and there were 161 assigned opinions coming in 2007 only 67 signed opinions. the court has not undertaken cases in all laying circuits splits. in a letter i wrote to you which will be made a part of the record, at the urging a great many circuits was and the problems that and brings with one circuit decided one way or another, the other circuits are undecided and the supreme court declines to take cases, do you agree with what justice scalia said dissenting were the court

refers to take a key circuit split and when the court decides not to load is seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current payoffs' prevail with other courts not knowing what to do or stated differently, do not think that the supreme court has time to and should take up more circuits splits? >> it does appear that the supreme court's docket has lessened overtime it. its decisions that it is interesting because of that is certainly does appear that it has the capacity to accept more cases of. and the issue of circuits blitz is one of the factors that the courts and local rules set out as a consideration for justices to think about in that process

so in answer to your question direct answer is, yes, it does appear that it has the capacity. >> the current ruling and the supreme court is petitions and there is a so-called pool where seven of the nine justices excluding are only justice stephen and alito two not participate in a circle. so that people applying two not have the independent judgments when chief justice roberts was before he became chief justice he said that the pools of powers , would you join the pool

or would you maintain an independent status as justice stevens and alito do in having their own clerks and their own individual review as to what it ought to be granted? >> i would probably do what justice alito did although i haven't decided given the honor of becoming a member of the supreme court, i haven't decided anything, i'm not even sure where i would live in new york if this were to happen, but putting that aside might approach would probably be similar to justice alito which is experience the process, it take for a time coming consider its cost benefit and then decide whether to try the alternative or not and figure and what i think works best in terms of the functioning of my chambers and the court.

i can give a definitive answer because i generally try to keep an open mind until i experience something and can then speak from knowledge about whether to change and are not. >> judge sotomayor, you have had some experience on the pilot program conducted by the judicial federal conference in the use the word that conclusion reached, became favorable after the pilot program judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage of the program generally report of serving a small or no effect of the camera presence and participants in the proceedings

courtroom to cormack with the administration of justice. which you agree with that based on your own personal experience having television in your courtroom? >> my experience was limited so i can't speak to the more broad conclusion of that report. i can say that as we discussed when i met with you and mine was positive in the two cases i believe i know i had two cases where the media as to record a proceeding. i do remember to and on the circuit court we do provide an tapes upon requests and some media has asked to record our oral arguments but my experience has been positive and mellon certainly be able to recount

that. >> c-span has conducted a survey which shows that 61 percent of the american people would like to see the supreme court televised one end in the survey disclosed how little the american public knows about the supreme court and i ask consent this be included in the record. >> without objection will be included in the record. >> the interest that has been generated by this confirmation proceeding encouraged by the television shows the enormous interest people have in what the court thus and there has been a fair amount of coverage by the justices on television. i cited yesterday many have been on television, justice kennedy says he believes the television is inevitable. everybody has said his testified

there is a great concern about the collegiality and people do not want to make a judgment before talking to their colleagues. and the sense has been derived that if anybody has a strong objection ended justice souter has expressed that view as noted on his widespread comment that if cameras were to come to the court there would have to come in over his dead body, and confirmed justice souter, his body won't be there at all. would you tell your colleagues the favorable impression experience that you have had with television in your court room and perhaps take a role in encouraging your colleagues to follow that experience with the supreme court? >> i was certainly relay my experiences to the extent of some of them may not know about

the pilot study and i would share that with them. although i suspect they do now. then it will participate in discussions with them on this issue and those things i would do, senator. >> summoning of a my colleagues have questioned whether as you stated in your panel in the maloney case was really bound by supreme court precedent the seventh circuit reached the same decision in your panel and in that opinion or of britain by a highly respected republican judge easterbrook of the second circuit court that heller specifically declined to reconsider older supreme court cases which have held the second amendment applies only to the federal government. judge easterbrook wrote that does not license and the inferior courts to go their own

way, it just notes the older president is only open to a re-examination of the justices themselves on the time comes that was your court's conclusion also, wasn't it? >> it was and i understand having reviewed just as mr. brooks opinion that he agreed with the reasoning of maloney on that point. >> i want to return to the issue of the basic authority responsibility of the supreme court to decide the major cases on separation of power. there is a page which the supreme court denied just a couple of weeks ago non-bank involving claims for damages by survivors of victims of september 11th against certain individuals in saudi arabia and

in this case post classical conflict between the executive and legislative responsibilities. congress legislated it under a sovereign immunity in 1976 that board claims like flying airplane at the world trade center were an exception to sovereign immunity. and the executive branch interposed objections to having that case decided because of the sensitivity of matters with saudi arabia and the case involved circuits blitz married aboard matters in that tragedy, which you have a combat and in have been very close to the incident. don't you think that that is the kind of a case the supreme court should have heard to decide that

kind of a very basic conflict between article one powers of the congress and are close to paris of the objective? >> senator, obviously issues related it to september 11th and national security are very important issues to the country as a whole for the reason that i mentioned earlier and lived through september 11th so i am understand is great tragedy and the fact of america. the question you asked me though is one in that asks me to make judgments about it and the supreme court has done and i didn't participate in their discussions, i did not review the positions, i did not talk about with them other reasons. noting would seem and is a appropriate to me to comment on

a question that i wasn't a party to in making the decision tim mcavoy hanshin lisa agree with the proposition that conflicts between the congress and the executive branch or of the highest duty for the supreme court to consider to assign? >> all complex under the constitution, all issues arising from the constitution are important. >> i know that but that is a pretty easy question to answer. i am not asking you, to agree with the justice roberts court ought to take more cases which seem to me to be pretty easy or the question about justice scalia is saying there is turmoil one circuit split to and you don't have the supreme court taking search, but isn't that of

the highest magnitude, our discussions here have been involving a great many issues, but i was suggest to you that on separation of powers and when you undertake the role of the congress contrasted with the role of the president, congress is article one. it was placed with privacy because we are closest to the people and when you have a question which you would not comment on yesterday like the terraced surveillance program, which flatly contradicts the congressional enactment foreign intelligence surveillance act and the only way you get a wiretap is with court approval. in the case is declared unconstitutional in the district court in the sixth circuit dodges the case on standing were very questionable grounds of the supreme court leaving here at and you have a case involving

september 11th and a very blatant conflict between congress' powers expressed under oracle one would be sovereign immunities act and the president staffing in other foreign powers, isn't that a category of the highest magnitude? >> it is so difficult to an answer that question in the abstract. for the reason i have just explained, the issue is much more complicated than absolute and says it a case presents this question i'm always going to take it, that is not how a judge looks at the issue of granting are not granting that, i assume because the quote corn is doing so many different factors at the time the decision is made. >> and i don't want to interrupt but i have a minute and a half left and i want to make a couple common-sense conclusion.

i would ask you to rethink that and out also ask you to rethink the issues you didn't want to answer yesterday about conflict between and the congress and the court. even though the constitution may congress on a one of the present articles to the supreme court has really reversed the order judiciary is not really an article one of the powers were to be redefined but i will ask you to take a look, you've said repeatedly that the job of the accord is to apply the law, not to make the law. in and take a look again at the standard of proportional and congruent and see if you don't agree with justice scalia and that's another way for the court to make law. take a look at what justice roberts said here at the

confirmation hearings that there be deference and respect for congressional fact-finding and how that is in a garrett case and in the voting rights case. and out of consideration for the people who are going to appear later i'm not prepared to to announce my own a vote, but it is my hope that the conventional wisdom is very strong for your confirmation. that you will use some of those characteristics of your litigation experience to battle account the ideas that you believe then because i have a strong conscience there are closer to the ones i would like to see adopted with the court to and don't let the issues of separation of powers to buy. .. on non entitled to

deference on these issues >> you are going to hate me, but can i tell you his story? >> i would love it. >> this will explain why smn why. when senator moynihan first told

me that he would consider sending my name to senator d'amato for consideration as the district court judge, he asked me to keep it quiet for a little bit of time and i ask permission to tell my mom, and omar. he said, sure. so, they were visiting and i told them, and mom was very, very excited and she then said, how much more money are you going to earn? [laughter] and i stopped and i said, i am going to take a big pay cut. then she stopped, and she stopped and she said, are you going to do as much foreign travel as you do now, because i was flying all over the u.s. and abroad as part of my private practice work. i said probably not because i'm going to live in a courthouse in lower manhattan near where i used to work as the manhattan d.a..

now the pause will kilometer, and she said okay. then she said now, all the fascinating clans that you work with, as you may have heard yesterday i had some fairly well-known clients, you are going to be able to go traveling with them and with the new people you meet, right? and i said, no, most of them are going to come before me as litigants to the cases i am hearing and i can't become friends with them. now the pause had gotten really long and she finally looked up and she said, why do you want this job? [laughter] and omar, who was sitting next to hers said, salina, you know your daughter. this is in spanish. you know your daughter and her stuff with public service. that really has always been the

answer. given who i am, my love of the law, my sense of importance about the rules of law, how central it is to the functioning of our society, kellett sets us apart, as many senators have noted, from the rest of the world has always created a passion in me. and that passion lead me to want to be a lawyer first, and now to be a judge because i can't think of any greater service that i can give to the country then to be permitted the privilege of being a justice of the supreme court. >> thank you. i for one have been very impressed with you, judge, and i certainly intend to support your confirmation for the court.

and, i guess there is another round. i thought i was going to be the only thing between you and the door. [laughter] so, i planned to just yield, all the rest of my time but since i am not, i would like to ask you-- know, i will yield the rest of my time if that is okay. >> next more from the supreme court confirmation hearings for judge sonia sotomayor's committee leaders centers patrick leahy and jeff sessions wrap up the nominees questioning. in about ten minutes our coverage continues with testimony from outside witnesses, including new york mayor michael bloomberg and several firefighters and bald in a recent discrimination case from new haven, connecticut. >> now i make sure it at this question because i afton of chief justice roberts and justice alito when they were before this committee.

as you know, in death penalty cases it takes five justices to stay in execution but only four to grant certiorari to hear a case. you can grant certiorari the ury case but the execution is not state becomes a moot point in the person can be executed him between. so usually if there are four justices when we hear a case, somebody agrees to the fifth vote to stay in execution just as a matter of courtesy, so the cert does not become moot and the person is not executed in the few weeks that might be in granting the cert in the hearing of the case. both chief justice roberts and justice alito agreed that this was, this rule was sensible, the rule of five and a courtesy fifth. it appears, according to a study

done by "the new york times" that very reasonable rule and the rule that both chief justice roberts and justice alito said was very reasonable and the majority of us on the committee thought reasonable. they said that, they suggested the rule has not been adhered to other been a number of cases were four justices voted to force cert and wanted to stay the execution but not if the first was executed before the case was heard. if you were on the supreme court, and this is basically the same thing i asked the justice roberts and justice alito, if you are on the supreme court in four of your fellow justices said they would like to consider the death in the case and asd to

be a fifth vote to stay the execution, even though you didn't necessarily plan to vote for cert, how would you approach that issue? >> i answered those two justices did, which is i would consider the rule of the fifth vote in the way it has been practiced by the court. it has a sensible basis, which is that, if you don't grant the stay and an execution can happen before you reach the question of whether to grant certiorari for not. >> well, i thank you and i applauded both chief justice roberts and justice alito for their answers and it appears perhaps somewhere between here and the hearing room and the supreme court, their minds

changed. now, in 2007, christopher scott emmit was executed even though four justices have voted for a stay of execution. justice stevens called for routine practice of staying executions scheduling and advance of our review the denial on the defendant's first application. the first application for a federal writ of habeas corpus. i am not asking for a commitment but justices stevens and ginsburg said, but is that something debt at least ought to be considered? >> unquestionably osi said there is an underlying reason for that practice. >> there is an understanding that, when the case is reviewed that it may very well end up this sentence below and it may well be upheld and the execution would go forward but this is on the various steps for that

hearing. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. senator sessions? >> just briefly, thank you again for your testimony and i knowed judges come before these committees and they make promises and they mean those things, and then they'd, if they are lucky they get a lifetime appointment and i think most likely the judicial philosophy will take over as the years go by in ten, 20, 30 years on the bench so this is an important decision for us to reach and to consider, and we will all do our best. i hope you felt that it has been a fairly conducted hearing. that has been michael. >> thank you to all senators. i have received all the graciousness and fair hearing that i could have vas or and i thank you senator for your participation in this process

and in insuring that. >> thank you. i think for the record, a number of significant articles should be in the record. one from "the washington post" on july 9th, on common detail, "wall street journal" the finding-- defining activism, "new york times," the new scrutiny of judges most controversial case by adam look back. "new york times" nominate rulings are exhausted but often-- how ricci almost disappeared. the ninth justice, justices reject sotomayor position 9-0 and "wall street journal," the wise latina article of june 15th, which is an important analysis. mr. chairman for the record i would also offer him a letter from sandra froman, former president of the national rifle association and a series of

other people who have cosign that letter, making this point. i think it is important, senator from herself a lawyer, surprisingly heller was a 5-4 decision with some justices are doing that the second amendment does not apply to private citizens or if it does even in total gun ban could be upheld if a legitimate government interest could be found. the dissenting justices also found pc's absolute ban one handguns within the home to be a reasonable restriction. if this had been the majority view, than any gun ban could be upheld and the 2nd amendment would be meaningless. it goes on to say the 2nd amendment survives today by a single vote in the supreme court both its application to the states and whether there will be meaningful, strict standard of review remains to be decided. justice sotomayor has repealed their views on these issues and

we believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the second amendment in the bill of rights as the 2nd amendment leaders were deeply concerned about preserving all fundamental rights for current and future generations. we strongly oppose this nominee. they offer that in a letter from the americas united for life, the 60 plus association north carolina property association. >> we will hold the record opened the until 5:00 tonight for any other material people wish to submit to the record. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your courtesy drop. >> will also hold the record open until 5:00 tomorrow for additional questions that senators which duest. judge sotomayor this hearing has extended over four days. the first day you listen to our opening statements, rather extensively. you shared with us a very concise statement about your own fidelity to the law and i

suspect it will be in law school texts in years to come over the last three days you have answered their questions from senators on both sides of the aisle and i hope that i speak for all of the senators, both republican and democratic on this committee when i thank you for entering with such intelligence, grace and patience. i also think of the members of your family for sitting here, also with such intelligence, grace and especially patience. during the course of this week almost 2,000 people attended this hearing in person, 2,000. millions more have seen it, heard or read about it thanks to newspapers, blogs, television, cable, webcasting and i think through these proceedings the american people have gotten to know you. even though i sat on two different confirmation hearings

for you over the past 17 years, i feel i have gotten to know you even better. the president told the american people in his internet address back in may, as the justice of the supreme court you would "bring not only experience required over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey." a cherney defined by hard work, there's intelligence and enduring faith in america. all things are possible. we have witnessed that this week. the experience and wisdom will benefit all americans. when you walk under that piece of vermont marble over the door of the supreme court, speaking of equal justice under the law, i know that will guide you. judge sotomayor, thank you, godspeed. >> thank you all. >> we stand in recess for ten

minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and a few moments testimony from outside witnesses that the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor including new york mayor michael bloomberg and firefighters involved in the recent discrimination case from new haven, connecticut. and, in a little more than an hour we will re-air the sotomayor confirmation hearing from thursday. >> please stand to be sworn.

dewolfe from the testimony you are about to get before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? please be seated. i will recognize senator schumer two mo-- welcome his constituents in the mayor of new york city. michael blomberg. >> it is my honor to welcome to a very distinguished constituents here. i want to thank everyone is for coming, but particularly extend it will come to, two of new york's greatest public servants, mayor bloomberg and district attorney morgenthau osc no, this nomination is a source of enormous pride to all new new yorkers and your support for judge sotomayor has been extremely helpful to this committee, to the senate as a whole into the nation in understanding what kind of justice you will be and very much appreciate your being here. >> thank you mr. chairman.

welcome. >> mayor bloomberg is the mayor of new york city currently serving in his third term as mayor. he founded a new york city company that has employs more than 100 cities. mayor bloomberg is a graduate of johns hopkins university located in baltimore, maryland and harvard business school. we look forward to your testimony. >> mr. chairman, thank you, ranking member sessions, thank you very much, senator, senator, senator. senator sessions i must say as a former gun owner and a former member of the and are a and a staunch defender of the second amendment we probably don't disagree very much. in any case i want to thank everyone for the opportunity to testify before you today. i am mike limbrick and i'm here not only is the mayor of new york city, the city where judge sonia sotomayor has spent her entire career but also as someone who has appointed or reappointed more than 140 judges

the new york city criminal and family courts so i do appreciate the job before you. about three months ago, when president obama invited governor schwarzenegger and rendell into the white house to discuss infrastructure policy i did find an opportunity to tell him what many of the best legal minds in new york were telling me, judge sonia sotomayor would be a superb supreme court justice. i strongly believe that she should be supported by republicans, democrats and independents and i should know because i had been all three. [laughter] judge sotomayor has all of the key qualities that i look for when i appoint a judge. she is someone with a sharp and agile mind, as a distinguished and testimony make clear and as a former prosecutor of commercial litigator, district court judge in appellate judge she certainly brings a wealth of unique experience. second, she's an independent

jurist who does not look squarely into an ideological box. we review lauper rollings by new york university's grinin center found judges on the second circuit court who were appointed by republicans agreed with her more than 90% of the time when overruling a lower court decision and when ruling a governmental action on the constitution so this is clearly someone whose decisions have cut across party lines which is something i think supreme court could use more of. and third, whether you agree or disagree with her on particular cases she has a record of sound reasoning. in interviewing judicial candidates i like to ask questions that have no easy answers and then listen to how they develop their responses. i want to know that they are open-minded enough to change their views of the here compelling evidence and to see if they can provide a strong rationale for their legal conclusions, even if i disagree with them. the fact is you are never going to agree with a judicial

candidate on every issue. i have appointed plenty of judges whose answers i don't agree with at all and i should point out that concludes-- includes times when judge sotomayor has ruled against new york city as she is done in a number of cases. i here is someone who agrees with the outcome of for decisions 100% of the time and i don't think that should be the standard. i am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar but it think the standard should be, that she applied the law based on rational legal reasoning and issue within the bounds of mainstream thinking on issues of basic civil rights? in both questions i think the answer is unequivocally yes. does impossible to know how she will rule on cases in the future or even with those cases might be. given a supreme court judge is likely to serve for decades, focusing on the issues of du jour rather than intellectual capacity, analytical ability and plain common sense would mess with this country clearly needs.

someone who has the ability to provide as with the legal reasoning and guidance that would be necessary to navigate the and chartered waters of tomorrows great debates and i am very confident that judge sotomayor has that ability. fine become is the mayor of fur hometown i would just like to make two brief points. first on the issue of diversity. the supreme court currently includes one member, who grew up in brooklyn in one hicks rabin queen said there's no doubt adding someone who comes from the bronx will improve the diversity of this court. if you disagree with me you haven't been to brooklyn, queens or the bronx, but seriously tsongas sotomayor is the quintessential new york success story. she is beat nolle the odds and rose to the top and if that is not the american dream i don't know what is. however i don't believe she could-- should be confirmed on the strength of her biography but i do think alike story tells a lot about your character and

ability. i want to lead decoct diggins those who would suggest judge sotomayor's service to the defense and education fund is somehow negative. that is an organization that is well respected for its civil rights work in new york city and although i certainly have not always seen eye to eye on every issue with them there is no question that they have made countless contributions to our city and judge sotomayor should be based solely on her record and not on the record of others in the group so thank you very much for the opportunity to testify and i urge you to confirm sonia sotomayor as a justice of the united states supreme court. >> mayor bloomberg, thank you very much for your testimony. we will now hear from market-- robert morgenthau. mr. morgenthau has been the district attorney of new york county since 1975 and is the longest serving incumbent of that position during his nine terms in office. this that has conducted 3.5 million criminal prosecutions and homicides in

manhattan and has been-- and hess rated in 90% success, morgenthau sir the borgen naval the stories gruwell 42. in is a real pleasure to have you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity of testifying today and i'm pleased to join those who endorse the nomination of judge sotomayor, to the united states supreme court. i first came to know judge sotomayor while i was on a recruiting trip with the yale law school. it that time grannis was the general counsel. i asked to speak with them and he said yes, the remarkable students sonia sotomayor and while he did not know if she had given any thought to being a prosecutor it would be well

worth my time to meet her. he was decidedly tarek. i'm happy to be able to say that the judge joined my offer and will remain with us for five years. in my conversations with her i learned about the compelling story of her life in which you are now familiar and in a nutshell she was raised by a mother in a working-class home in the south bronx and is a teenager work the evening shift in a garment factory to help make ends meet. she went on through law work, force of will to overcome her initial difficulties, to win princeton university's highest undergraduate honor, the prime prize and a graduate went on to yale law school. the district attorney office was recognized by supervisors as someone a step ahead of her colleagues. one of the brightest and most mature, hard-working standouts

it was marked for rabbited lanzmann. ultimately she took on every kind of criminal case that came into an urban courthouse from turnstile jumping to homicide. one of those cases involved a victim by the name of richard mannix who terrorized the neighborhood and left three dead, shooting anyone in his way. he is now serving 137 years to a life sentence. another case prosecuted by assistant d.a. sotomayor in 1983 involved a times square child pornography operation. that was the first child prosecution in new york after a landmark 1982 supreme court decision, people versus thurman upholding the york's new child pornography laws. assistant d.a. sotomayor left the jurors in fear-- tears over

what the defendants had done to child victims. these cases krebs the public attention, budge judge sotomayor understood that every case has supported the victim and appropriately gave undivided attention to the proper disposition of all of them. district attorney sotomayor soon developed a reputation. unlike many prosecutors, she simply would not be pushed around by judges or by attorneys. some judges were eager to dispose to clear their calendars. she is step forward for the right conclusion in each case. maybe that experience on the criminal court in new york city shelter prepare for these hearings. after leaving my office, judge sotomayor joined a prominent law

firm and accepted a part-time appointment as a member of the new york city campaign finance. there she continued to earn a reputation for being tough, fair, non-political and an arena where those were strongly needed. she has taken those characteristics with her to the federal bench, where they are equally important. judge sotomayor's career spanned three decades and she is worked in almost every level of our judicial system, prosecutor, private litigator, the trial court judge and an appellate court judge which i think is the most important court in the world. she is bin enable champion of the law and her experience will be invaluable on our highest court. judge sotomayor is highly qualified for any position in which a first-rate intellect,

common sense, collegiality and good character would be assets. i might add that the judge will be the only member of the supreme court with experience in criminal cases in state courts. the overwhelming majority of american prosecution occur in state courts. judge sotomayor will bring to the court a formal understanding the problems faced by prosecutors in those cases as well as a first-hand knowledge of the trauma faced by victims and of the legitimate needs of police officials who work in state law enforcement system. she will also understand the impact of federal judicial decisions on state prosecutions. in short, the judge is uniquely qualified for gober intellect, experience, her commitment to the rule of law will be an act

standing and i repeat outstanding member of the court. president obama and united states should be proud to see the realization of the central american credo that in this country a hard-working person with talent can rise from humble beginnings to one of our highest positions in the land. thank you mr. chairman for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much for your testimony. we will now hear from wade henderson, a familiar to this committee. wade henderson is the ceo of the civil-rights and counselor to the leadership conference, education fund. we is a professor of public interest law at the university of the district of columbia. prior 'tis row conference mr. hennison was the washington bureau director of the naacp. mr. hennison is a graduate from rutgers university's school of law. mr. henderson. ..

and her past membership on the board of, of the leadership converses the porter rican legal defense and education fund. first, let me rejoice in what is self-evident, the nomination of a judge sotomayor to be an

associate justice on our nation's highest court is a milestone by many standards. at the nation's first african-american president has nominated a the first hispanic american only the third woman and only the third person of color to serve on the supreme court. while great challenges remain on our nation's quest for equal opportunity we have to the reached an historic marker on the journey toward our goal of equal justice for all. the phrase inscribed not far from here on the front of the supreme court building. but hopeful and historic western nomination has been, judge sotomayor showed herself be judged not by who she is by what she has done. that may be as clear as i can. there is no question that she is qualified. judge sotomayor's eloquent and awful testimony before this committee speaks for itself.

her distinguished career at princeton and yale law school have been much stated. she then spent five years as a prosecutor as we have heard in manhattan working for the legendary district attorney robert morgenthau, please to have been here today, and eight years as a corporate litigator. 17 years as a federal district court judge and appellate court judge that up to an individual who is one of the most qualified to have ever come before this committee. second, as with other nominees across the philosophical spectrum including justices thomas and the justice alito judge sotomayor has spoken of her family history and personal struggles. these experiences helper to understand of others and to do justice. they further qualify her for the highest court and she has sent a and done nothing that could reasonably be understood otherwise.

third, judge sotomayor has participated in thousands of cases and often hundreds of opinions, but much of the debate about her nomination has concentrated on a difficult case of a ricci vs. distefano. what ever one may feel about the facts of this case, we all agree that the supreme court in its ricci decisions set a new standard for interpreting title seven of the system for civil rights act. using this one decision to negate judge sotomayor's 17 years on the bench does a disservice to her record and to this country. fourth, i must speak to the attacks on judge sotomayor because of her service on the board of one of our nation's leading solarize organizations. these attacks do an injustice not only to judge sotomayor and to the porter ricans legal defense and education fund, but also to the entire civil rights committee. and to all those who look to us

for a measure of justice. make no mistake, legal defense funds play an indispensable role in american life. there are private attorneys general that this is individuals, often those with few resources and no other representation to become full shareholders in the american train. when justice thurgood marshall was nominated there are those who questioned his role with the naacp legal defense fund, but history does not remember their quibbles kindly. judge sotomayor has lived the american dream and she understands all who aspire to it. her qualifications are unquestioned end of the lessons she has learned in her life as well as in libraries will serve her and our country well in the years ahead. all those who want to the entrance to the supreme court seeking one is inscribed above its door coming equal justice

under law, can be confident that a justice judge sotomayor will continue to do her part to keep the promise of our courts and our country. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your testimony. we will now hear from frank ricci, and a mention second only to judge sotomayor during this hearing. frank ricci has over a decade in spears as i heard it with a new haven for our department and with the plaintiff in the case of ricci vs. distefano chemical to reading author of two books on firefighting. it's a pleasure to have the before the committee. >> thank you, senator. thank you for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee. i accepted it with honor the invitation to tell my story. many others have a similar story and i feel i'm speaking for them as well. the new haven firefighter is not alone in their struggle, firefighters across the country have had to resort to the federal courts to vindicate their civil rights. technology and modern threats

have challenge our profession, we have become more effective and efficient but not safer. the structures we respond to today are more dangerous, a conservative with a lightweight components plant early collapse and reface fires that can double in size every 30 to 60 seconds. too many things that virus writers just fight fires, officers are also responsible for medicating vehicle accidents, hazardous material incidents in handling complicated rescues. rescue work in a very technical. all of these things require a great deal of knowledge and skill. the tennis and captains must understand the dynamic by our environment and the cabinet -- pounders we operate in, they are forcing stress will decisions based on an imperfect information and coordinate tactics as a partner operational objectives. in almost all our tasks are time sensitive.

when you're house is on fire or your life is in jeopardy, there are no time for two hours. the lieutenant's test that i took was without a doubt job-related exams that was based on skill, knowledge and abilities committed to ensure public and that the firefighter safety. we all have an equal opportunity to succeed at individuals and we're all provided a road map to prepare for the exam. achievement is neither limited more determined by one's race, but by one skills, dedication, commitment and character. ours is not a job that can be handed out without regard to merit and qualifications. for this reason, i and many others prepare for this positions in throughout our careers, i studied harder than i ever had before breeding, making flashcards, highlighting, reading again, all my listening to prepared tapes.

i went before numerous panels to prepare for the oral assessment. i was eight virtual absentee father and husband from us because of it. in 2004 the city of new haven felt not enough minorities would be promoted and that the political price for complying with title seven the city's civil -- civil service rules and the charter would be too high. therefore they chose not to fill the vacancies. such action deprived all of us the process set forth by the rule of law, firefighters who earn promotions or deny them. despite the importance of both rights and constitutional claims we raise, the court of appeals panel dispose of our case in an unsigned and publish summary order that consistent of a single paragraph that may mention of my dyslexia and thus led many to think that this was a case about me and a disability. this case had nothing to do

that. it had everything to do with ensuring our command officers were competent to answer the call and our right to advance of our profession based on merit regardless of race. americans have the right to go into our federal courts and have their cases judged based on the constitution and our laws, not on politics or personal feelings. the lower courts believed that citizens should be reduced to racial statistics is flawed and only divides people who don't wish to be divided along racial lines. the very reason we have civil service rules is to rid of politics, discrimination and nepotism. our case demonstrates that these ills will exist of the rules of marriage and a lot are not followed. our records of the last resorts for americans whose rights are violated in making decisions on who should have commanding

positions solely based on statistics and politics with the outcome of the decision can result in injury or death is contrary to sound public policy. the more attention our case got, the more some people tried to distort it. it bothered us greatly that some perceive to this case as involving the testing process that resulted in minorities being completely excluded from promotion. that was entirely false as minority firefighters were victimized by the city's decision as well. as a result of our case, they should now enjoy the career advancement and that they have learned and deserve. in during over five years of court proceedings took its toll on us and our families. the case was longer, was no longer just about us but about some of the americans who have lost faith in the courts system. when we finally won our case and

saw the messages we received from every corner of the country we understood that we did something important. together. we saw a basic fairness and evenhanded enforcement of the laws, something all americans believe in. again, thank you for the honor and privilege of speaking to you today. >> thank you very much for your testimony. we will now hear from the lieutenant ben vargas, a lieutenant in the new haven fire department and was planted in the case of ricci vs. distefano. he also worked part-time as a consultant for a company that sells equipment to firefighters. >> thank you. members of this committee, it is truly an honor to be invited here today. notably says our case was merely dismissed by both the district court and the court of appeals panel this is the first time i've been given the opportunity

to sit and testify before a body into my story. i thank you for in the committee for the opportunity. senators of both parties have noted the importance of this proceeding because decisions of the u.s. supreme court can bring the impact the everyday lives of ordinary americans. i suppose that i and my fellow plaintiffs have shown how to that is. i never in addition to being a plaintiff in a supreme court case, much less one that generated so much media and public interest. i am hispanic and proud of the heritage and background that judge sotomayor and i share and i congratulate judge sotomayor on her nomination. but the focus should not of men on me being hispanic, the focus should have been what i did to earn a promotion to captain and have my own government and some courts responded to that. in short, they did not care. i think it important for you to

know what i did and that a plea by the rules and then endured a long process of asking the court to enforce those rules. i am the proud father of three young sons. for them i sought to better my life and so i spent three months into his and preparing for an exam that was questionably job-related. my wife and special education teacher took time off from work to see me and our children to this process i knew we would see little of my sons during these months when i studied everyday, in our basement, so i placed photographs of my boys in front of me when i would get tired and want to stop. i was look at the pictures and realize that their own futures depended on mine and i would keep going. at 1. i packed up and went to a hotel for days to avoid any distractions and those pictures came with me. i was shocked when i was not

rewarded for this hard-working sacrifice, but i actually was penalized for it. i became a not lt. vargas, who proved himself qualified to be captain but a racial statistic. i had to make decisions whether to join those who won a promotion to be based on race and ethnicity are shown to those who would insist on being judged solely on the qualification and in constant other character. i am proud of the decision i made them proud of the principal that our group vindicated together. in our profession we do not have the luxury of being wrong. we're having long debates. we must be correct the first time and make quick decisions under the pressure of time and rapidly unfolding events. those who make these decisions must have knowledge necessary to get it right the first time. online the judicial system, there are no contingence this

commotions or appeals. errors and delays can cause people their lives. in our profession the racial and ethnic makeup of my crew is it the least important thing to us and to the public we serve. abu the countless americans who have something to say about our case understand that now appear in firefighters and their leaders stand between their souls of dissidents and catastrophe. americans love to those who are the most knowledgeable and qualified to do the task. i am willing to risk in the down by my fellow citizens but i was not willing to go along with those who place racial identity over this more critical considerations. i am not a lawyer but i quickly learned about the law as it applied to this case. steading as much as i said it for my exam, i thought it clear that we were denied our fundamental civil rights. i expect that lady justice with a blindfold on in a reasoned

opinion of the federal court of appeals telling me, my fellow plaintiffs in the public that the board's view on the long and do in an open and transparent way. instead we are devastated to see a one paragraph unpublished order summarily dismissing our case and even the notion that we have presented the poor and legal issues to that court of appeals. don't i expected that the judges heard my case along the way to make the right decision, the ones required by the rule of law. of all that has been written about our case, it was justice alito who best captured our own feelings who did not ask for sympathy or empathy, we ask only for evenhanded enforcement of the law and prior to the majority justice opinion in our case we were denied justin that. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. we will now hear from a peter kirsanow. he serves on the u.s. commission on civil rights and is a member

of the national labor relations board received a recess employment from george bush and previously a burner with the cleveland law firm of it spanish cree linda copeland and hot off. he received his law degree from cleveland state university him and thank you mr. chairman, members of the committee. i am currently back at the practice group. i'm. my personal capacity. the use commission was established -- >> is that microphone on? >> among other things and to the national clearing house for information related to a denial of equal protection and discrimination and furtherance of the process my system revealed differences over its cases in which judge sotomayor participated on the second circuit's in the context of prevailing jurisprudence and particular attention to the case of ricci vs. distefano.

we reveal them least three concerns with respect to the three judge panel with an open case. the first concern was as you have occurred with this particular case the ricci case contained constitutional issues of external importance and impact. for example of the issues of that are very controversial and volatile racial quotas and racial discrimination. this was a case of first impression. nanosecond's circuit or supreme court precedent on point. in the to the extent there were any cases that could provide guidance suggests private sector cases such as johnson transportation, frank purses' xerox, weatherperson steelworkers, when it dictate or suggest a result opposite of that rich by the panel. the case contained a host of critical issues for a view that the three judge panel summarily

dispose of the cases you've heard in an unpublished one paragraph per curium opinion that's usually reserved for cases that are relatively simple, straightforward and inconsequential. the second concern is that a panel order would inevitably result and the proliferation of de facto racial and ethnic quotas. the standard endorsed by the judge sotomayor panel was lower than that adopted by the supreme court's test a strong basis in evidence were. essentially any race-based employment decision and vote to avoid a disparate impact lawsuits would improve and immunity from title seven review. under this standard employers who fear the prospect or expense of litigation regardless of the merits of the case with having green light to resort to racial quotas. but even more invidious is the use of quotas to racial politics

and as justice alito concurrence showed and there was glaringly abundant evidence of racial politics in the ricci case. had the judge sotomayor panel decision prevailed employers would have license to use racial preferences and quotas on the expense of scale. evidence adduced to the serreze committee shows when the course opened the door to preferences and just a crack preferences expand exponentially. for example evidence adduced before hearings of the civil rights commission in 2005 and 2006 show that despite the fact that at rand was passed more than or decided mother 10 years ago, federal agencies persisted in using race conscious programs and federal contracting, a government contract and as opposed to race neutral alternatives and moreover it even though the supreme court had struck down the use of raw numerical weighting in college admissions thereby requiring

that race be only an year plus factor, a thumb on the scale in the admissions process, powerful preferences shown no signs of abating. is said by the center for equal opportunity showed that a major university preferences were so great that the odds that a minority applicant would be admitted over a similarly situated by comparative or to her 50 -- one. and another major university 1,115 -- one. that is and a handle on the scale. and the reasoning of the ricci case in the lower court prevailed, what happened to firefighter ricci end at lt. vargas what happened to innumerable late more americans of every race throughout the country. a third concern is that the lower court's decision that would permit racial engineering by employers would actually harm minorities who were in the purported beneficiaries of that particular decision. evidence adduced at it 2006 of rights commission hearing shows

that there's increasing did that preferences create mismatches a fax that i should increase the probability is that minorities will fail if they receive beneficial treatment or preferential treatment. for example, black law students who were admitted and preferences are two and half times more likely not to graduate the other similarly situated white or asian comparative four times as likely not to pass the bar exam on the first time in six times as likely never to pass the bar exam and despite multiple attempts. mr. chairman, is a specially submitted that if a nominees interpret a factoring permits an employer to treat one group preferentially today there's nothing that prevents them from trading and other group are shifting their preferences to another group. and it's contrary to the color blind ideal contemplated by the 60 for solarize hat, title seven, which was the issue decided in the ricci case.

thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, we'll hear from linda chavez, chairman of the center for equal opportunity and political and an analyst for fox news channel. she held a number of positions including staff director of u.s. commission on civil rights. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee. i testified today that is a wise latino woman but as an american who believes that skin color and national origin should not determine who gets a job, a promotion or a public contract or who gets in college or receives a fellowship. my message today is straight for the. mr. chairman, do not vote to confirm this nominee. i say this with some regret because i believe judge sotomayor's personal and sorry is an inspiring one, which proves that this is true the land of opportunity or circumstances of a birthing class in not determine whether you can succeed. unfortunately based on her

staymans both on and on the event, i do not believe it judge sotomayor shares this view. it is clear from her record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics. i know a lot about that well and i can tell you that is dark and poisonous. is in my view impossible to be a fair judge and also believe that one's race and of ethnicity and sex should determine how someone will rule as a judge. despite her assurances to this committee over the last two days that her was latino woman statement was simply a rhetorical flourish fell flat, nothing could be further from the truth. all of us in public life have at one time or another misspoken. but judge sotomayor's words weren't uttered off the cuff. they were carefully crafted, repeated, not just once or twice

but at least seven times over several years. as others have pointed out, if judge sotomayor were a white man who suggested that are males may better judges again to use judge sotomayor's words were, whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, we would not be having this discussion. because the nominee would have been forced to withdraw once a those words became public. but, of course, judge sotomayor's of the stores are just a reflection of her much greater body of work as an ethnic activists and judge. identity politics is at the core of this woman is. and let me be clear here. i'm not talking about the understandable bryce -- pride in one's ancestry or ethnic roots which is both common and natural in a country as diverse and

pluralistic as ours. identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates american society and its institutions and the belief that members of one's own group are victims in a particular -- perpetual power struggle with a majority. from her earliest days at princeton university and later yale law school to her 12 year involvement with the puerto rico legal defense and education fund, to her speeches and writings including her jurisprudence,. >> -- judge sotomayor has consistently displayed in affinity for such use rebel i have outlined a much greater length in my prepared testimony which i ask permission be included in the record and fall. the way in which i believe identity politics has permeated it judge sotomayor's it might work for let me briefly outline a few examples. as an undergraduate she actively

push to raise basic goals and timetables for faculty hiring. in her much praised senior thesis she refused to identify the u.s. congress by it's a proper name instead referred to as the north american congress or the mainland congress. during her tenure in the fund director litigation committee she urged seen losses in challenging civil service exams, seeking race conscious decision making someone to use of the city of new haven and ricci. she opposed the death penalty as a racist. she supported race-based government contract in. to a dubious arguments in support of bilingual education and more broadly in trying to equate english language requirements as the form of national origin and discrimination. as a judge she dissented from an opinion that the voting rights act is not a prison inmates the right to vote and she has said that as a witness, an evocation of an assailant may be as a

constitutional as rachel's profiling in violation of a co-production klaus. if race is an part of that. finally when she had shown a willingness to let her policy preferences kinder in the ricci case. although she has attempted this week. >> away from some of her own in tempered words and his accuser critics of taking them out of context, the record is clear. attended a politics is an than deter implement long and much of riss speeches and influence for interpretation of law. there is no reason to believe that her elevation to the supreme court will cause the era and zero flight and a poor role in how she approaches the case. that will come before her and shoes confirmed. i therefore respectfully urge you for it judge sotomayor as an associate justice of the supreme

court. thank you kim and thank you for your testimony. let me first recognize chairman leahy why understands wants to reserve a space. >> thank you, senator cardin here and i was here throughout all of the testimony will buy judge sotomayor and the questions asked by both republicans and democrats. and i will reserve my time. i do welcome the witnesses who are both for and against the nominee. senator sessions and i joined it together to make sure everybody was invited and given a chance to testify. ming and if you wish to add to that of the record will be open with for 24 hours you to do that. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. the year bloomberg, let me start with you if i might and my questioning, there has been a lot of discussion about the

quarter rico legal defense fund including your this panel discussion. end if judge sotomayor is served on the board and have nothing to do the selection of individual cases from the point of view of its contact but served in a voluntary capacity with that ford and for some going to quote from you and give you a chance perhaps to expand upon a. or you have been quoted to saying only in washington could somebody many years of volunteer service to a highly regarded nonprofit organization that has done so much been for some money twisted into a -- and that that group has made countless number of countries since in your city. i does want to give a chance to respond to the judge sotomayor's service on the bregon legal defense and education fund. >> this is of organization that has done a people who don't have the wherewithal to get private counsel or who don't have the traditions of understanding

along and it happens to focus on people with many who come from puerto rico, have language problems in addition to lack of understanding of how our courts system works. it provides the kind of representation in that we all i think believe that everybody that appears before a judge and before the law deserves all. they raise money privately you want to pay lawyers to defend one and i don't agree with some of their positions and i agree with other ones, but having more of these organizations is a lot better than having less. these people to have the option of getting the representation. >> thank you. mr. henderson, during the hearing of judge sotomayor we had a chance to talk about the voting rights in the recent case of the court of supreme court.

the type that one justice questioned the constitutionality. in fact, pretty well discussed the voting rights to saying it was no longer relevant. judge sotomayor during her testimony talked about with deference to congress. that fact that it was passed by 93 to zero vote in the u.s. senate and lopsided vote in the house of representatives the 25 year extension. i just want to get your comments as to whether the voting rights act as relevant today in and your confidence level as relates to advancing so rights with the people of our nation. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me back up for a minute and say that these hearings have been a testament to the witnesses and the founding fathers in setting up a three-point price system of government but the president making in nomination for an associate justice and the senate judiciary committee providing

advice and consent. under our senate and house have a particular responsibility to delve deeply into the constitutional rights of americans particularly around the right to vote. boating really isn't the language of democracy. if you can't go to you don't count and the truth is that notwithstanding the 15th amendment to the constitution, 13th and 14th amendments, african-americans, latinos, women and other people who, are often denied the right to vote well into the 20th century. it took not just those amendments but actually expanding a statute by this congress to ensure the rights of americans to of could be preserved and was only in the aftermath of the 65 voting rights act that we have seen the expansion of the franchise and democratization a way of serving the founders. having said that congress reached a decision and we of the

rise in the voting rights act in 2006 that this law was necessary. 16,000 pages of the congressional record speak eloquently to that of foreign interest. the fact that this issue was held with both our congressional review and also an national commission set up by the lawyers committee of civil-rights and others were holding hearings around the country voir and into the record that was created. the fact that this bill passed by the end of the reauthorization of the wording rights act three 1/8 233 in the house and 98 to nothing in the senate. it speak eloquently about the import needed a continuing with so the fact that some on the supreme court found otherwise this and distribute all. there is a need that continues in notwithstanding evidence in mack thank you for correcting my numbers. i appreciate that. i just want to ask dustin

mcdaniel and during the confirmation hearings, with democratic and republican senators urging from our nominee that you need to look at what the law is and you can't judge based upon a motion. if you have to follow the presidents of the court to. i have a simple question in the ricci case. t believe that the judge sotomayor decision with the three judge panel was with them in the mainstream of judicial decision a gala that decision was reached? >> senator, i do believe that and to hear the stories of these firefighters in person will i don't have any reason not to use the word but the. i have a great deal of empathy for the circumstances they have described and i don't know that i have a great deal for how the city fathers handled the matter. but by the time it needed to the second circuit i believe the panel did what the law required and i don't think there is worth a justling of criticism for the

with the panel camel the matter and the fact the supreme court chose to change a law in a bare majority also was their prerogative which. >> said intercessions. >> thank you. it is a very important panel and and to lay much of new was a moving and i appreciated and i thank you are calling us to a higher level of discussion on these issues because they go to the core of who we are as americans and i just want to share that. no we are worried about the senate amendment. i will just asked the mayor that you sign in favor of the dc-10 man. which would bar even a hint then so i assume you would be agreeable with the opinion would thus be 10.

with that different views about this. i tell you of appreciate your mission. as a tough job to be mayor of new york and you are showing strength and integrity. mr. marron thought, you are the team of prosecutors and i hear many people over the years and have worked for you and are very complementary and i know you are proud of this protegee who has moved forward. >> didn't tell you that my grandmother was born in montgomery, alabama? >> i am impressed you hear that and i feel better already. [laughter] let the attorney general thank you for your comments and mr. henderson in is good to work with you. senator leahy and are talking during this series we will do that crack cocaine it thing the two of talked about before. [laughter] >> and a want to restate that.

>> please rephrase it, senator. please rephrase. [laughter] >> we are going to reduce the first penalty and some of the crack cocaine cases and make them bear. so mr. ricci thank you for your work. i would say bobwhite in that i said when legal defense fund is a good organization and my opening statement and i think it has every right to advocate those positions that it does, but the nominee was on the board for a long time and it takes some position and she rarely was asked whether or not she agreed to a especially during some of what the chairman and a little asian committee dead but i value want them groups can come together and file lawsuits and

take the matter to the court. briefly and a slightly different subject a thank you probably know this answer but can you tell us with a purpose of this hearing would what the concern is in the voting rights act. is not that we are against the rights. but there are some constitutional concerns and could you share that is. >> specifically to the court's decision that was articulated is pre clearance provisions of the voting rights act came to the legacy of discrimination that occurred in many states where poll taxes and written tests are being imposed on mike of citizens. however in this particular case the boston political subdivision came to existence after all of these discriminations and the

one in red type have been passed. the question is how could be that you have got a pre-existing long that is almost for lack of a term like so facto applied to an organization that came in and ask of the law was in effect. there was no discrimination in which denial's on the right side in this particular subdivision so it is peculiar in that regard and i think there were several justices who convinced some concern about to approach in that case can i thank you. there are two sides to that story and we passed a bill and i said i wanted to vote for it and we did it for longer than we should have and not that it would never again. he used portions of it but it may never end but on some portions of it would may not be needed to continue.

lt. vargas, it was a moving story you gave us. let me ask you this, do think other mayors of the car and apartment had a steady as harm is due and master their subject matter as well as you did could have passed the test if they said it as hard as you? >> absolutely. >> you think he meant as ended with a group of them and then all supported may on one of his doing because into the effort that i put anwr and they were right there. we really weren't involved that far behind. minorities would have been promoted and that is something that continues to get left out. it would have been two senators as allow and when you take these exams sometimes we have winners and sometimes but to go into that situation nine now will be

the case. >> mr. kirsanow coming you indicated that there were all the supreme court. project in the standard every two that the panel judge sotomayor's panel sets for the firefighter example, is that right? >> even the dissent at a different standard. a good clause stannic which give a little more definitive tests in approaching that sentence. as you know there is the safe harbor of job-related consistent business. if you can staten not the firefighter still a job-related and a business necessity and only under those circumstances is of those orange maine.

even the sense that it should have been put back. >> thank you. ms. chavez, i noticed according to the aba statistics only 3.5% of lawyers in america in 2004 hispanic, yet hispanic make up 5% of the federal district court judges and 6% of circuit court judges. would you comment on that? >> first of all, i think it is important is in a lot of attention focused on the the phrase ays latina woman. i use it myself testing today but it is important to read her entire speech because and i would make a better judge, which she was saying was that the race, ethnicity and gender of judges would ensure -- and said there judging. and she says in the speech itself, she says she doesn't own

is how that's going to happen but she even sign some geological studies that take a look at the way in which women judges have handed down decisions and makes the case that women judges decide to see things differently and she's basis approvingly. and she talks about statistics and that is how few latinos are on the bench. it comes from an article i wrote in reports to the statistics that she used. i bring that up because it is inherent in that analysis of her. it is the notion there ought to be proportional representation on judicial some, that we ought to be selecting judges based on race, ethnicity and gender and ought to have more or less representation. i have to say that that i think

comes close to arguing for a position that she had to take when she was with the poor rican legal the offense education fund. by the way to is not just on the board. she actually cents a memorandum somoza and the record. i cited some instances without american testimony. on the point is that if there is so-called and reminiscent nation of some groups in means it is over representation of others. what i said in my testimony that we are concerned about the number of latino judges. the person you need to do to see a judge is a have a law degree and, in fact, just using the judge sotomayor's of statistics that anything if you look at the number of attorneys that she was riding hispanic or someone are representing from the judicial branch. i reject all of that, that

doesn't bother me in the list that there are represented and i think we should not be making ethnicity and race or gender with a qualification for sitting on the bench or being a firefighter who are being a captain or a lieutenant. i think we ought to take race and gender out of the equation with. >> senator durbin. >> you think that judge sotomayor's being awarded the award in princeton for high academic achievement and good character is being summa cum laude and phi beta kappa was because it was a quota that they want to make sure there was if the tina who receive that? >> no i don't know what is interesting about judge sotomayor's tenure at princeton university is in that she has said that she was admitted as

affirmative action because of the test boards were not comparable to that, with but she also has talked about what happened to her when she got there and that she recognized. in fact, she was not particularly welcome there and she did not write well. and that one of her professors told her that she had to work on her writing skills the. >> that would make it a pretty amazing story then he might that's right and i wish that story that she was telling latinos. >> i think it is the story of her life in act i wish that what she was telling latinos is that if you do what lt. vargas done and what frank ricci has done and take home the book and he studied them and you never is what you need to know so that you can pass the test like i did when i took our grammar books and learn how to write standard english, that that should be the story, not that she should be on racial quotas were. >> and think the story for life is one of achievement,

overcoming on some people never faced in family life and personal life. mr. morgan though. when you're talking about her skills and law school did they tell you that the had an opportunity for you to hire a wise latino lawyer, is now which you're in the market for? >> definitely not what. >> i took one look at her resume summa cum laude at prisons and launch journal on and i talked to her and i thought she was common sense and common judgment and willingness to work. the fact that she was latina had absolutely nothing to do with it and they can just use this opportunity to say that i was one of the running directors of porter rican legal defense fund. and the reason i did that i thought it was important way and

a representative minority who and that was 35 and four years and to have an organization which was dedicated to help with housing costs, and discrimination cases, so i urged her to join the puerto rico legal defense fund. i had become a lifetime of the n.a.a.c.p. and the national commission of the anti-defamation league and i think one of the great strengths of the u.s.'s diversity. but will not to help people in various minority groups make their way and i must say i'm very critical to all my friends and relatives who want to figure out where they came from so she remembers when she came from. >> mayor bloomberg i believe have a quote i read about washington being maybe the only

place, could you recall that quote on the perino legal defense fund? >> yes, i think that public-service the something that you know the value of up and the satisfaction when you do it and in new york city we've got to those were willing to give their time and help others. they walk away in many cases from careers to serve as public defenders one outside of the legal profession and myriad other way is one and the fact that the organizations that they work for sometimes do things that you are i disagree with doesn't take away from the value that they provide and other things that they do. >> i just mention of the other day my turn nomination service committee considered three nominees in two previous nominees chief justice roberts

and justice alito, both white males and the questioning really came to the central point coming to you as a white male and sensitivity to those of like your songs? minorities, disadvantaged people and those questions are asked and in this case where we have a minority woman seeking position on the supreme court that seemed the question is are you going to go too far on the side of minorities and not really is the law? >> isn't the reason that the founding fathers of these i assume the reason they said nine justices is that they wanted a diverse group of people with different experiences with who could work collaborative lee and collectively to understand what the founding fathers meant generations later on and so from the fact that i said before my testimony and not think that the

matter how compelling justice judge sotomayor's life experience is not the reason to employ her, certainly the benefits from having a diverse, to put people on the court in the same way as my city benefits from a diverse group of citizens. >> vicodin ask one more time and getting dangerously close to a empathy but i have to agree with you. when it judge sotomayor work in your office, did you notice whether or not she treated minorities and a different plane. >> she was right down the middle. she didn't treat minorities and me differently. right down the middle. tough but fair. >> thank you very much, thank you mr. chairman. >> senator sessions indicated senator gramm is next. >> i think my colleagues for the courtesy and i'm going to run

back and do some things. this is been a very good panel and we're grappling with issues right. the senate, the country is grappling with and i will try to put an in perspective the best i can. ms. chavez, i attended a politics, i think what you're knowing about and asked the judge as a practice of politics i don't agree with over all and not the right the way to go. but having said that i have tried to look at the judge in totality. a well qualified for the ada was given to justice alito and rights and we all embraced it. i use it a couple of times to say that he thought the person had a richer in view of life of the long and been very hard for the ada to give them a well qualified writing. the son of press un all that the aba and a very different view in terms of how she might use attended the politics on the bench with. >> on osher the dow that question.

i think they did we lapeyre record as a judge and the decision that she had made as a judge. the aba and i often disagree. >> i totally understand, but the point i am making i want to sit here and try to go both ways. the aba says one thing one day and something in the experian have you ever known in republican political leader to actively try to seek putting in minority in a position of responsibility to help the party? >> i think that the idea of a of giving to their friends and making sure politics is politics

and the sense that i know that republicans set out and think we have got the power now, let's make sure that we let the whole country know the republican party is just not a party a short white guys. >> i think that is different those senator then as she suggested in her speech that there ought to be some sort of -- >> that's, right. >> i think that is part and i also think it matters that we are not just doing that because we want to see members opinions, but it seems to me that when she was saying in her speech was that we do that because blacks, latinos and women are different, speak differently and will behave differently. she said that explicitly document id may be a result of physiological differences. i think any one man who said such a thing about minorities or women would be laughed out of his group in mack since i am the wife and said that i agree with

you. [laughter] but the point is that i am trying to be in a country in the spot or you're not judged by one thing. that we just can look at her and say that as it. , when i look at her icy speeches that on the hell out of me as i said before but something that very much impresses me. in the apac something and the way free sees something in tennis stars do something. while want to tell the country is that republicans very much to sit down and think about political pecs and appointments and political sense to try to show that we are a party that lives of all americans and wants to give opportunity and that is just live and not a bad thing. now, mr. ricci, i would want you to come to my house if it was on fire. [laughter] and i appreciate how difficult this must have been for you to bust you're as and steady so

hard and you have an all stripped of the yen. but i just wanted to know as a country that we're probably one generation removed where no matter how hard do stunning based on you're last name in the color of your skin you have no shot and we're trying to find the balance. in your case i thank you are poorly treated any did not get the same for you deserve but all turn out well with a five -- four decision and many weak and there's something to your experience but, please, don't lose sight of the fact not so very long and now the test was ringed a different way. in lt. vargas, you are one generation removed from where you're last name would have been in it. the you understand that? >> i do. >> what did you go to personally to stand with mr. ricci? what came away? did any way criticizing? >> i received a lot of criticism. i have a fix can.

>> what did people call you? they thought that if you were disloyal to the hispanic men in a. >> absolutely. >> my friend, i thank you have done a lot for america and the hispanic community and my hat is off to you. >> thank you. >> finally, marian, having to never in a city as diverse of the new work must be very difficult. is also a pleasure? >> it is a pleasure and as i said before you came in and that some of the judges the use i don't happen to agree with some of her decisions. i think that, for example, i disagreed with what the city of new haven then appear to know and new york city you should know that our city is a defendant in a case class-action suit for the justice department with the challenge is two entry-level t