quorum call: the presiding officer: the

senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: on behalf of the leader, mr. president, before my time begins, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and the requests be prescriptived in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i further ask consent that the hour of democratic speaking time be divided 30 minutes under my control, 15 minutes for senator lautenberg, and 15 minutes for senator dodd. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: mr. president, i have sought recogniz recognitioo comment about the confirmation of judge sotomayor forssociate justice to the supreme court and to comment on other subjects directly related to the

confirmation process. a comment about the reality of judicial legislation, about the emerging standard on rejecting the tradition of deference to the president with senators' ideology being the determinant, the court's reduced workload and the failure to decide major cases, and the lack of public understanding of what the court does and the need for accountability and transparency, and the strong case to be made for televising the supreme court. for me, the confirmation of judge sotomayor is an easy one. during the 11 confirmation proceedings that i have participated in and others that i have studied, i know of no one who brings a stronger record

than judge sotomayor. ssume cum laude at princeton, yale law school, yale "law journal," prestigious new york firm, assistant district attorney with d.a. morganthau, who sings her prays praises, 17s on the federal bench. for the criticisms which were made against her, my judgment is that they were vacuous. a great deal of time in committee was spent on her comment about "a wise latina woman." my view is that she should have been commended for that statement, not criticized. and why do i say "commended?" why shouldn't a woman stand up for women's capabilities? in a society which did not grant

women the right to vote until 1920 in a society which still harbors a tough glass ceiling limiting women in a society where only two women have served on the supreme court, in a senate where only 17 of the 100 senators are women, i would expect a woman to proudly speak up for women's competency. to talk about being a latina, well, what's wrong with a little ethnic pride? and isn't it about time that we had some greater diversity on the supreme court? isn't it really surprising, if not scale da scandalous that itk until 1997 to have an african-american on the court and it took a while to have the first woman on the court, sandra

day o'connor. judge sotomayor is a role model, will be a broader role model, if confirmed. and the conventional wisdom is that she will be confirmed. and isn't there greater assurance in a society as diverse as ours to have someone on the court to represent that kind of diversity, all within the rule of law? the criticism which was made of her with respect to the new haven firefighters' case, very complex, very subtle, very nuanced on affirmative action. the supreme court divided 5-4. so what is there to criticize on judge sotomayor's standing as she wrote the case? the new haven firefighters who appeared, i asked the question, do you have any reason to believe that judge sotomayor

operated in anything but good faith? and both of the young firefighters said candidly that they had no opinion on that subject. and then there's the criticism about her conclusion, her judgment that second-amendment rights are not incorporated within the 14th amendment due process clause to be applied to the states. well, that's the precedent of the supreme court of the united states. it's not up to a circuit court to rule differently when they are bound by the supreme court. even if it is an old case. the distinguished seventh circuit agreed with judge sotomayor. the argument was made, well, the ninth circuit has said second-amendment rights are

applicable to the states. since the hearing, the court in fact in the ninth circuit has granted review of the decision by the three-judge panel with every indication that the three-judge panel in the ninth circuit will be reversed. so when you add up all of the comments and all of the criticism, nothing in my judgment is left standing. the issue of judicial legislation is one which occupied the thinking and consideration of a number of those who were opposed to judge sotomayor, but there is nothing in her record to suggest that she will engage in judicial legislation. and when you take a look at the supreme court of the united states, that has become the rule of the era, as opposed to the

rule of law where the court is supposed to interpret the constitution and statutes and leave to the congress and the state legislatures the job of establishing public policy. during the era of the warren court, there was a vast expansion of constitutional rights. i was in the philadelphia district attorney's office at the time and literally saw the constitution change day by day. in 1961, map v. ohio came down applying the fourth-amendment protection of applying search and seizure to the states. another case, right to counsel, 1964, escovito v. illinois. 1966, miranda -- and those were constitutional rights, when changing values is articulated

by justice cardozo. but in more recent times there's been a vast expansion of the supreme court in effect legislating. and i refer specifically to the case united states v. morrison, which involved the issue of the legislation protecting women against violence. chief justice rehnquist handed out an opinion saying that the -- quote -- "method of reasoning" -- close quote -- of the congress was deficient. the dissents on that 35-4 opinion laid out the -- on that 5-4 opinion laid out the vast record which supported the legislation. the supreme court has adopted the standard of judging constitutionality as to whether the statute is proportionate and congruent. the standard which has emerged

very recently. it defies understanding to really gaun quantify or figure t what "pr "portion national" and- what "proportionate" and "congruent" means. two cases interpreting the americans with disabilities act went 5-4 in opposite directions. one case holding that article 1 was -- between article 1 and 2, one case holding one of them was constitutional and the other was unconstitutional. justice scalia, i in that litigation characterized "proportionate and congruent" to be a flabby standard which in effect allowed the court to

legislate. when chief justice roberts appeared before the judiciary committee in response to questions from senator dewine and myself, he said that it was up to the congress to make findings of fact, that that was a peculiarly legislative function, because its eight congress which has the -- because it's the congress which has the hearings, the ability to develop facts, and it is the congressional responsibility. and yet when the voting rights act case was heard earlier this year, although decided on narrower grounds, every indication is being given that chief justice roberts' assurances to the judiciary committee are being reversed and that the court from all indicators is on the verge of declaring the voting rights act

case unconstitutional, notwithstanding the voluminous record which was created and the great care that the senate operated to come down with the voting rights cases. so that when you have a criticism of the problem of judicial legislation, it is my view that you ought to look at what judge sotomayor has done in 17 years on the bench, and there was no indication at all of her substituting her values. but when you come to the supreme court of the united states, there is good reason to question what they're doing. and there is simply stated a lack of understanding as to what goes on in the court. the one comment that i do have

other than full support for what judge sotomayor did was her reluctance to answer questions. one question which i asked her is illustrative: chief justice roberts in his confirmation hearing when confronted with the light workload of the court said he thought the court could take on more responsibility. and i asked judge sotomayor if she didn't agree with that conclusion. and judge sotomayor didn't -- wouldn't answer the question, said she'd have to be more fully familiarized, even though the statistics which i quoted to her about the court's workload contrasted with 1886 when the supreme court decided 451 cases, in 1985 there were only 161

written opinions, in 2007 only 67 written opinions. it seemed to me plain that the court could undertake more work, as chief justice roberts had agreed during his confirmation. but there has developed an attitude among nominees who appear before the judiciary committee that it is unsafe to answer questions because of what happened to judge bork. and, as i have pointed out in committee -- and it is worth repeating -- that it is a myth that judge bork was defeated because he answered too many questions. in the context of his writings and in the context of his reco record, where he advocated original intent, it was necessary for judge bork to

speak up. and judge bork was rejected because he had a view of the constitution which was totally outside of the constitutional continuum or outside of the constitutional midextreme. -- midstream. for example, in his testimony, he said that the equal protection clause applied only to race and ethnicity. but would not be extended to women, aliens, indy gents, i will legitimates or others in line with the decisions of the supreme court and the solid precedents on the application of the equal protection clause. judge bork disagreed with the clear and present danger standard established as far back as justice oliver wendell holmes. when it came to his opinion on original intent, he was at a

loss to explain how you could desegregate the district of columbia schools. on the same day that brown v. board of education was decided, there was a companion case captioned "bouling v. shark, applicable to the district of columbia. judge bork was of the view that there was no application of the due process clause, that you couldn't incorporate any of the 10 amendments. and that you couldn't incorporate the equal protection clause. but the supreme court desegregated the d.c. schools on the basis of holding that the equal protection clause was part of due process and due process did apply to the district of columbia. judge bork was at a loss to answer that. i ask consent, mr. president,

that a copy of an op-ed that i fowrote for "the new york times" be included in the record which set forth in some greater detail, which i do not have the time to go into now, the reasons why i voted against judge bork, and i think the reasons why judge bork's nomination was defeated by the margin of 58-42 bh it came before the senate for a vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: 0 moving on to another subject which perhaps is of the greatest importance, what we see emerging from these hearings and the confirmation proceedings, is an emerging standard on rejecting the tradition of deference to the president with senators substituting their own ideology

in order to make the decision. in the article that i just referred to on bork on the op-ed piece, i noted that in voting as to chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia that i decided that the judicial philosophy of the nominee not agree with mining. when the hearings came up as to justice clarence thomas, i made the observation that there might be an occasion one day when there would be a partnership between the senate and the president with respect to looking at ideology. and it has become accepted that elections do matter when the

president moves to the nominating process. there are active parts in the presidential campaigns. and the tradition has been to make the difference to the president's ideology. i suggest that we are seeing in the confirmation process of the judge sotomayor in conjunction with the nomination process of justice alito that there is a shift in that standard and that judgment. the issue was framed by the comments of senator barack obama, now president barack obama, when he was commenting about his vote on the alito

nomination. and senator obama had this to say. "there are some who believe that the president, having won an election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the senate should only examine whether the justice is intellectually capable." and he goes on to say, "i disagree with this view. i believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy and ideology." in the alito hearings, there is no doubt that in terms of academic, professional, and judicial competence, justice alito was well qualified. a yale law grad, a distinguished career in private practice, serving as a united states attorney for new jersey, 15 years on the circuit court.

some concerns were expressed as to his ideology on his view of a woman's right to choose, his disseptemberring opinion in casey v. -- dissenting opinion in casey v. planned parenthood in the second circuit. only four democrats across the e aisle to vote for justice alito. and today, according to the announcements that have been made, about that many republicans are going to cross the aisle to vote for judge sotomayor. and some of those who are voting or have announced their intention to vote for judge sotomayor have long records for not having opposed any judicial nominee. it is a complex issue. there is question about pressure prosecute the far right to those

who might be looking at primary opposition. there is a question of partisanship, which has gripped this body with such intensity. but there is an overwhelming view that the approach of judge sotomayor and what she is likely to do on the supreme court is something which is contrary to their views as to when the matters ought to be decided. now, it has long been accepted that you can't ask a judicial -- a supreme court nominee how he or she will decide a specific case, but there is an opportunity to glean from many factors the disposition or inclination of the nominees. and although many in this body, and for a long time, as i view it, made decisions based upon

their own ideology contrasted with what they expected the nominee to do on the court, i think that view has become crystallized. and as articulated by then-senator obama, a view which has perhaps added weight now that it is president obama. and certainly there are nominees whom i have voted for. if i were to have been president and made the selection, it would have been different. if i would have applied my own philosophy or ideology on the vote to confirm or not, it would have been different. when judge bork was so far out of the mainstream and had views which were totally antithetical to the continuum of constitutional law, being out of the mainstream, it was different. but i think it is worth noting

what is happening to the confirmation process. as senators are moving to utilize their own ideology in deciding how to vote, illustrated, as i say, by alito and the confirmation which we currently have, not giving the traditional and customary deference to the president. moving on to the subject of the court's reduced workload and the failure to decide major cases. in the context of the statistics which i cited, 451 cases decided in 19 -- in 1886, 161 written opinions in 1985, the year 2007, only 67 signed opinions. the supreme court, having decided not to hear the case involving the terrorist surveillance program which posed

a dramatic -- a dramatic conflict between congressional authority under article 1 to enact the foreign intelligence surveillance act with the president's asserted authority under article 2 as commander in chief to have warrantless wiretaps. the district court in detroit declared the act -- the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional. the sixth circuit reversed 2-1 on the grounds of standing, with the dissent being much better reasoned, really a doctrine to avoid deciding a case i case ane supreme court deciding cert. similarly, on the conflict which was posed by litigation brought by the survivors of victims against 9/11 against saudia arabian princes, where the congress had legislated in the foreign -- in the sovereign immunities act to exclude torts as when you fly an airplane into

the world trade center, the executive branch intervened. the department of state objected through the solicitor general to the court hearing the case and that case was not decided. many circuit splits which are detailed in a series of letters which i'm going to ask be admitted into the record, letters which i wrote to judge sotomayor dated july 7, june 15, and june 25 detailing a great many circuit splits which the court has not decided. when "the federalist papers" were written, the authors said that the supreme court was the

least dangerous branch. i think the framers, had they seen the status of events in the year 2009, might have written that the court, supreme court especially, was the least accountable branch, the least transparent branch. for many years, i have urged that the supreme court be televised. twice legislation which i introduced has been voted out of committee and it is pending again. i think this is an especially good time to take up the issue. the congress has the authority to establish when the supreme court sits -- first monday in october -- what it takes to have a quorum, how many members there will object the court, contrasting what president roosevelt tried to do to expand the number to 15.

we have authority on the timetable of the speedy trial lat., set time limits on habeas corpus, and it is my legal judgment that we have the authority to call on the supreme court to be televised. the supreme court has the final word on that subject, as they do on all others, and could invalidate legislation on grounds of separation of power. but in light of what is happening and the demand for greater transparency, the television of the house, the television of the senate, the fact that recently the highest court in great britain has admitted the television cameras, it is time that that should occur. and with the departure of judge souter, assuming the confirmation of judge sotomayor, the major opponent to televising the court will no longer be there. judge souter made the statement

that the television cameras were rule in over his dead body. when the nominees have been questioned repeatedly, they've been concerned almost to the person about being solicited of views. and i can see that judge souter's strong views might have been an obstacle. judge stevens said it's worth a try. justice ginsburg said that if it was gavel to gavel. other justices have been televised. it is worth noting that the federal judicial conference authorized a three-year pilot program for six federal district courts and two federal circuit cofortcourts of appeals, and the jucial center concluded -- quote -- "overall, attributes of judges toward electri electronia coverage of civil proceedings were initially neutral and became more favorable after experience under the pilot program. judges and attorneys who had

experience with electronic media coverage under the program generally reported observing small or no effects of current camera presence or participants in the proceedings, courtroom decorum or the administration of justice." it is my suggestion it would be very healthy for our country to have a little sunshine come into the supreme court. the presiding officer: the accept's time is expired. mr. specter: i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. specter: it would be beneficial to have sunlight come into the supreme court so this could be a public understanding as to how far the supreme court is going now on judicial legislation. that they are going beyond constitutional rights; that they're reaching into statutes like the statute protecting women against violence to declare unconstitutional

notwithstanding a method but based on the method of raising of congress, as if our method of reasoning was deficient to theirs or on the standard of proportion and congruent which is not understandable. or in the context of a workload which defies explanation with so many circuit splits going undecided. it may surprise people to know it was not until 1981 that the judiciary committee proceedings on nominations were televised. and see what a great appearance it is today and of how value. this is our only opportunity to speak to the court toks spea, au going back on the commitment that it is up to the congress to decide facts on "congressional record." why are you doing congruence when no one

understands you? while the judgment on sonia sotomayor was easy for me to vote aye there are many more perplexing issues which have emerged especially when i perceive to be an institutional change with senators substituting their own judgment and ideology to what is allotted presently. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. mr. specter: i ask to read an addendum statement if i may. the committee, an introduction for members of the supreme court bar in favor of judge sonia sotomayor. the committee recently received a letter of support for judge sotomayor's nomination from over 45 regular practitioners at the

supreme court including a number of former solicitor generals and assist ans to the solicitor general. among those who join are a number of highly respected republican appointees such as charles freeh nominated by proceeding to be solicitor general, john beginens, former s nominated by george h.w. bush and confirmed as a judge of the third circumstance. i ask unanimoucircumstance -- td circuit and i ask unanimous consent this be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, before i make my remarks, i ask unanimous consent jennifer mach, a member of the staff of the senator from oregon,

mr. merkley, be admitted to the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, today's an auspicious day, in my view. i've had 25 years of service now to the united states senate. and this is one of those moments when what we do will be recorded in history forever. thopportunity to nominate a distinguished jurist to the highest point in this country. i rise to express my strong support for president obama's nomination of a distinguished jurist, sonia sotomayor, to

become a supreme court justice of the united states confirming the continuity of our duty to the constitution and to confirm fairness to all the people in our country that obedience to the law continues uninterrupted. in newark, new jersey, there exists a venerated courthouse that bears my name. on the entrance to this courthouse is an inscription that says "the true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice." that summarized my feeling about our beloved country. i authored that quote after considerable thought and i truly believe that it reflects a principle value upon which our nation was founded.

and we must scrupulously insist these values endure throughout our government and our legal system and particularly in our nation's highest court. now, based on her history, my meeting with justice sonia sotomayor and her testimony before the senate judiciary committee -- i use the word "justice" because she has been a distinguished judge in the appellate court -- i have no doubt that if confirmed judge sotomayor will pursue the fair, wise, and unbias dispensation of justice. that's why i believe that we must confirm judge sotomayor's appointment without delay. when i had a private meeting with her she confirmed her unwavering commitment to the equity of our american justice

system, her knowledge of the law, and her recognition of the enormous responsibility that she has to fulfill to our country. i conveyed to her the excitement that we are hearing in my state of new jersey, that president obama's nominee grew up in a poor, urban environment, in the bronx and close neighbor geographically with new jersey, with a similar tradition of a people starting at the bottom and succeeding through determination, education, and hard work. we also discussed a shared admiration for justice cardoza renowned for his intelligence let and his diligence to applying precedent. now, i seived for severa severar sell years at a law school bearing his name where i saw the achievements of renowned legal scholars and i feel so deeply

that sonia sotomayor will be remembered one day as an outstanding member of the most revered and respected court in the world. during our meeting, justice sotomayor and i came to realize that we had a common thread through our personal histories. the phrase "only in america" truly applied to judge sotomayor and i can say that with a special understanding. humble beginnings were the touch stones that enabled each of us to achieve beyond any parents' dream. i grew up in patterson, new jersey, hard scrabble mill town and our family lacked resources but left inheritance of valuabls with no valuables. my parents sought an opportunity in this country to be free and make a living. we were obligated, if we had the

opportunity, to make sure we gave something back to the community in which we lived. judge sotomayor's family moved here if puerto rico and she grew up in a housing project where she saw upfront and close the struggles of people living in poor areas. like my father, judge sotomayor's dad died at a very young age and her mother, like mind, became a widow at a very young age. and she became a single mother, like mind. judge sotomayor's mother had to raise her and her brother in the face of available, social, and financial adversity. in fact, her mother worked two jobs to supports her children and despite the many difficulties, judge sotomayor has reached the highest rungs of

our society. at britain stop anat britain sth academic honors she prosecuted murder and robbery and assault cases and from the d.a.'s office she became a corporate litigator and rose to partner at a prestigious new york law firm. and while there, she threw herself into her job and became an expert on trademark and intellectual property law. her career then led her to the bench where she has been a federal judge for the last 17 years -- that's pretty good time for testing. the truth is that judge sotomayor comes to this nomination process with more judicial experience than any supreme court nominee in a century. think about it. think about it when the

detractors try to sully her reputation. before she became a judge and long before she appeared before the judiciary committee where she demonstrated a remarkable command of the law and comfort with her knowledge, judge sotomayor carved out a reputation as a brilliant legal mind. and yet in one of the most scour lousscurilous campaigns, there e half truths out there about judge sotomayor after the president picked her to be his nominee with their sights settled on whoever it might be you with in this instance we have one of the more distinguished scholars of the law to be able to honor and to honor us at the same time. they tried to paint her as a radical and they try to paint

her as a bully and try to paint her as lacking in intelligence but there was absolutely no place in her judicial record to use anything serious against her. they want down the path of personal destruction that is a habit around here. they picked through her speeches. they zeroed in on one sentence here and another there to try to discredit her as nothing more than an affirmative action choice. i want to get one thing straight: judge sotomayor represents the best that this country has to offer. she's a role model for all americans and she is deservedly so, a source of great pride for the latino community. by any standard judge sotomayor is exceptionally well qualified to serve as an associate justice of the supreme court. with 17 years of judicial experience and 12 of those on

the second circuit court of appeals, she is well equipped for the task of supreme court justice. and if confirmed, she'll, shell be the only member of the supreme court who has previously sworn a trial judge robe. the experience should not be overlooked. right now, justice souter, whom judge sotomayor who relays on threplace onthe court is the one with a trial court background. earlier this year before justice souter announced his retirement chief justice roberts said the court's derth of trial court knowledge was a flaw. they handle civil and criminal cases and see first hand the

impact of the law on ordinary americans. while on the trial bench, judge sotomayor handled 450 cases. put directly, her experience is varied, multifaceted. what's more she was appointed to the bench by both democrat and republican presidents. did they have bad judgment if i think not. think not. her record proved that. on any fair examination of her judicial record including more than 400 published opinions as a federal appellate court judge it shows she is balanced in her approach, takes in all the facts and follows precedent. her legal reasoning has been consistently admired for applying the law fairly and her opinions reveal nothing more than a strict adherence to the

rule of law. the american before association has given her its highest rating calling her -- and i quote -- "well qualified." that's a distinction of significant importance. mr. president, this nomination is an incredibly important moment for our country. the supreme court makes decisions that determine the very contours of our country's future. it has a direct say on the rights or lack of rights that our children and grandchildren will have. the court decides whether big corporations have a stronger claim to justice than the little guy, and the court sets the table for government power, whether it goes unchecked or is responsible to the people. that's the domain. critical. the ruling of the court affects everyday people from new jersey

and every day across this country to all americans. the framers of the constitution created a system of checks and balances with three coequal branches. no one understands that better than judge sotomayor, who said during her confirmation hearing -- and i quote -- "the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law." and after consideration, careful consideration, i've concluded that i must vote "yes" on the confirmation of judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor has consistently shown judicial restraint, and she will prove to be a strong and independent voice on that court. like many americans, i'm sure i won't always agree with every decision that she makes, but i have the comfort of knowing, of believing that she will resolve

legal questions with an open mind, will put the rule of law above any personal beliefs, her judicial record is unparalleled, her professional and academic credentials are impeccable, and her story is inspiring. i've waifed and listened carefully -- i've watched and listened carefully to what she had to say during her confirmation hearings and when we met in person. her life has been one of breaking down barriers, and i look forward to seeing her break one more. and for those reasons, mr. president, i am honored to support judge sotomayor's breakthrough nomination, and i hope that my colleagues will step up and vote their conscience and vote their beliefs and not inject any of the insignificant things that we've seen discussed all over the place until this. i hope that they will confirm

her in an overwhelming majority, which is what she and the country deserve. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator connecticut. mr. dodd: i'd ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be rescinded. officer without objection. mr. dodd: and let me note nigh my good friend from kansas, it will be about five minutes to finish up my remarks on this. mr. president, i rise in strong support of the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the united states supreme court. i'd like to thank pat leahy, my seatmate here in the united states senate, chairman of the judiciary committee, for his leadership. let me also thank jeff sessions, who is the ranking republican on the committee, and all members of the committee. those are pretty important jobs they have. obviously, considering nominees for the district court, the appellate court, but moments when you consider nominations to the supreme court don't happen every day. i commend the committee for the speed with which they handled this. a lot of times these matters can get tied up for weeks on end, as

we've seen over the years. but i tuckly want to commend pat leahy, who does a great job of chairing this judiciary committee and all members, as i said a moment ago. the senate is given the awesome responsibility for providing advice and consent on judicial nominations. those we confirm are in a lifetime position as one of the nine men or women. otherwise than amending the united states constitution, this body has no more important power than the one we exercise when we choose to confirm a nominee to sit on the united states supreme court. clearly then the constitution demands that we subject nominees to very close scrutiny but it doesn't tell us how. each united states senator must determine for himself or herself the appropriate criteria. over the years that i've been here, i've had the privilege of listening in -- not as a member

of the judiciary committee but as a member of this body -- to debates and there have been some tremendous ones over the years on various nominees. most have been confirmed, some have not. but it is usually a robust debate, an important debate and the scrutiny is the highest that any office receives. i've always relied on three basic tests, a three-part test. the first test i apply and have done this across the board over the years, does the nominee have the telecommunication any cal competence and legal skills to do the job? second, does the nominee have the proper character and temperament to serve on the highest court of our land? and, third, does the nominee's record demonstrate respect for and adherence to the principle underlying our legal system -- and that is equal justice for all? i am convinced without any doubt or hesitation that judge sotomayor passes all three tests with ease. as to judge sotomayor's

competence, her resume is that of an experienced and accomplished jurist, one that will take her seat with more bench experience, i might point out, as i a i'm sure others hav, than any other justice serving on our current supreme court. graduated from yale law dismool my home state of connecticut and has been a prosecutor and attorney, spent 17 years on the federal bench ad as well as a district court judge and appellate court judge. as to judge sotomayor's character, her long list of enthusiastic recommendations and her very graceful performance before the judiciary committee, i think, reveal her to be a remarkable woman of deep integrity. her incredible life story, rising from a housing project in the bronx to the height of american jurisprudence, is truly an inspiration. as to judge sotomayor's legal philosophy, her writings and her thoughtful answers to difficult questions raised by our fellow colleagues on the judiciary committee make it clear, in my view, that judge sotomayor is committed to the principle of

equality that forms as the foundation of america's system of jurisprudence. for judge sotomayor, as for any nominee, mr. president, that is enough to earn my vote, regardless of what i think about any particular decision. i voted to confirm chief justice roberts, much to the consternation of people in my own party and others that felt we should object because we didn't agree with judge roberts' decisions in a number of cases. but i applied my three-test to justice roberts and he passed them with flying colors. and i have applied that test over the years. i haven't agreed all of the decisions the chief justice has taken on the bench, i will tell you it was a good choice. it is the kind of quality you want on the supreme court and i worry deeply in this body that if we start taking standards to apply to the nominees of the supreme court, such as we appear to be doing, i think we do

damage to the tradition we must uphold in this body of applying standards that go far beyond our particular decisions or to listen to constituency groups to such a degree that they dominate the vote patterns here. frankly, i don't think i'm telling any of my colleagues anything they don't know already. i don't think anyone in this chamber really believes that she's incompetent or temperamentally unsuited for the job or that she does not believe in equal justice under the law. if we took a secret ballot on her nomination, i think it would be close to unanimous. that would be my guess. the actual vote is focused not on the nominee les enormous body of exemplary judicial work but a few examples from her career, selected for their ability to create controversy. out of thousands of decisions -- she's been involved in thousands of decisions -- i found it, if it weren't amusing, it would be disturbing to me. there are eight cases that were the subject of debate.

eight cases out of thousands in which she rendered an opinion either as a joint participant in the opinion or as the sole decider in the cases. so out of thousands of cases, eight items were brought up, and i frankly -- you could do that with anybody, but somebody who's had 17 years on the bench, going through thousands of cases, if that's the basis of being against this nominee, i -- i don't know if anyone can ever pass a test here, if that were the case. if you're looking for people with experience and temperament and ability, you should judge so. she shouldn't be confirmed because of her ethnicity. as someone who is proud that he speaks the latin language and served in the peace corps and knows the area where judge sotomayor grew up in the bronx, her nomination shouldn't rest on ethnicitiment should would be offend fundamental she thought it were the case. but it also is a moment of

celebration. many have said this is a remarkable story, and i appreciate the point they're trying to maifnlg but it isn't terribly remarkable. it is america. and in america that story isn't remarkable. that's the great brilliance of our country. we have a president of the united states, raised by a single mother under difficult circumstances. bill clinton, who we're talking about today because of his heroic efforts to release the two women released in north contrary, had an equally compelling story. ronald reagan, a compelling story. there are many people who have risen to incredible heights in our country and success in the private and public sector who have come from similar circumstances as judge sotomayor. it is a great tribute to our country that people such as judge sotomayor can achieve the success she has because we celebrate it in our country. mr. president, it is more of a reflection i think in today's political climate than it is on this terrific nominee. we have the privilege of voting for her. the legal and political issues raised during her confirmation

hearings were complex and interesting. but the decision currently facing the senate is not a hard call, in my view. this is not a hard call. this ought to be an easy call for members here. she is brilliant jurist, a remarkable american and she's going to make a fantastic justice of the united states supreme court and i couldn't be prouder when the time arrives to cast my vote in favor of this nominee. i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. robermr. roberts: mr. presidenti ask consent that the republican time for the next hour be allocated as follows: myself for 10 minutes, senator barrasso for 10 minutes, senator crapo for 15 minutes, senator wicker for 10 minutes, and senator collins for 15 minutes. mr. dodd: would my colleague yield for 0 seconds? mr. roberts: i would be happy to yield to my distinguished friend. mr. dodd: i thank my friend. mr. president, i'd like to -- the judiciary committee has received letters of support from several state local bar

associations including new york, city -- the women's bar association, state of new york rksdz and the connecticut hispanic bar association, the connecticut hispanic bar association which honored judge sotomayor in 1998 for and wrote "since being apointed to the bench, judge sotomayor has compiled an exemplary and dwtd record and has earn add stellar reputation as a defender of the rule of law and praised for her thoughtful and thorough written opinions." i'd ask consent that these letters be included at the end of my remarks without interrupting the comments of my colleague and friend from kansas. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: i thanks my friend. mr. roberts: mr. president, i rise today to express my considered opposition to judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to the united states supreme court. as u.s. senators i think we all know we have an obligation to ensure that our courts are filled with qualified and impartial -- impartial -- judges. while judge sotomayor has an

impressive resume -- that's given -- i am concerned that her personal judgments and views will impact her judicial decisions. in addition, i find some of her rulings very troubling. during the senate's debate on the nomination of chief justice john roberts, then-senator obama stated -- and i quote -- that "while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before the court so that both a scalia or ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases, what matters on the supreme court," said then senator obama, "is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. in those cases," he said,

"adherence to precedent and the rules will only get you through the 25th of a legal mayor a on this. that last mile can only be determined," he said, "on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, once's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy," thus the entrance of the empathy issue to this debate. i i respectfully does agree with now president obama. our judges must decide all cases in adherence to legal precedent and rules or -- of statutory or constitutional construction. it doesn't mean if they do that, that they don't have empathy. i would agree -- and i think everybody would agree -- everybody on the supreme court has empathy. but the role of a judge is not to rule based on his or her own personal judgments but to adhere to the laws as they are written.

while judge sotomayor stated during her confirmation hearing that -- quote -- "it is not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it is the law," i still have concerns regarding her ability to remain impartial. she has made some statements in law review articles and speeches that are of serious concern. i am not convinced that judge sotomayor will set aside her personal judgments and views. while on the second circuit court of appeals, judge sotomayor joined a four-paragraph ruling, mr. president, on property rights. in didden v. village of port chester, the appellate's claim that a developer demanded $800,000 in order to avoid condemnation of the property by the city. when the appellates refused to pay the $800,000, they received a petition to initiate condemnation. although the second court --

although the second court -- excuse me, mr. president. although the second court of appeals dismissed the case, it was noted that relief could not be granted based on the u.s. supreme court's decision in kelo v. the city of new londo london. now, that four-paragraph ruling didn't even provide an in-depth analysis as to how the kelo ruling applied to the facts at hand. in fact, the kelo decision acknowledges that a city no doubt would be forbidden. while on the second circuit court of appeals, judge sotomayor joined a four-paragraph ruling on property rights and, as i've indicated in that story, the appellates claimed that a developer demanded $800,000 to avoid the condemnation. when they refused, they received a petition to initiate condemnation. and although the second court

basically ruled that way in regards from taking land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party, that was the decision the pour-paragraph ruling in didden is very troubling n. kansas, land is -- very troubling. in kansas, land is gold. farmland is platinum. we have a healthy respect for property rights in middle america. it also bothers me that a court could make a broad statement without analyzing and applying the facts to case law. turning to firearm rights, judge sotomayor joined an opinion ruling that the second amendment is not a fundamental right and, therefore, does not apply to state and local governments. it is likely that at some point, the second amendment's application to states could be argued before the supreme court. that could come very quickly. i would certainly hope that should this matter be argued before the supreme court, judge

sotomayor would recuse herself. however, in her testimony in regards to hearings, she indicated that she saw no reason to recuse herself in any decision. that was not, however, the statements that were made at their nomination hearings by judges alito and roberts. mr. president, i do not discount the fact that judge sotomayor is a very accomplished judge and has extensive -- an extensive judicial record. however, some of her statements, writings and rulings also really concern me. they indicate that her personal judgments and views may impact her judicial decisions. we have a constitutional obligation to ensure that our judges are impartial and faithful to the law. during chief justice john roberts' confirmation hearing, he noted that judges and justices are servants of the l law, not the other way around. judges are like umpires.

umpires don't make the rules. they apply them. the role of an umpire and judge is critical. they make sure everybody plays by the rules, not by empathy. but it is a limited role. nobody ever went to a ball game to see an umpire. i am not convinced that judge sotomayor will be an umpire and will consistently adhere to the rule of law as opposed to empathy. for these reasons, i oppose her nomination and for others that will be cried by my colleagues who are also opposed. -- that will be cited by my colleagues who are also opposed. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have three criteria in evaluating an individual to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. first, select the best candidate for the job.

second, the justice must be impartial and allow the facts and constitution to speak. third, a justice's responsibility is to apply the law, not to write it. i've reviewed judge sotomayor's record and i met with her to learn more about her. i want to take a moment to share my thoughts on judge sotomayor's nomination. judge sotomayor has a compelling life story. she was raised in public housing projects in the bronx. she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age eight. her father died when sheas nine. and she was subsequently raised by her mother. judge sotomayor graduated valedictorian of cardinal spellman high school in the bronx. she graduated summa cum laude from princeton. she earned her juris doctorate from yale law school and there she was an editor of the yale law review. after graduating from law

school, the judge worked as an assistant district attorney in new york city for five years. she then worked in private practice for seven years. in 1991, judge sotomayor was nominated to the federal bench by president george herbert walker bush. in 1998, president clinton nominated her to a second circuit court of appeals, where she currently sits. i believe that judge sotomayor has the legal experience and the skills to be considered for the united states supreme court. during the confirmation process, questions were raised about her ability to make decisions on the facts presented, not on events and facts that became ingrained during her life. judges must be impartial and allow the facts and the constitution to speak, not their personal experience. for america's judicial system to work, judges must always remain

impartial. at her confirmation hearing, judge sotomayor stated that her judicial philosophy is fidelity to the law. this is in contrast to her extensive commentary over the past 15 years, a commentary that emphasizes personal experience over impartiality in a judge's decision making. now, the contrast is especially troubling when a judge, as was the situation in the case of ricci v. destefano, fails to articulate the reasons for the decision. in the ricci case, the firefighters case, an exam was used as part of the promotion process. the exam consisted of a written test as well as an oral test. it was prepared by the industrial organizational solutions, a professional testing firm. the test measured individual knowledge, individual skills, and individual abilities related

to the specific position being filled. the highest scores on the written exam were achieved overwhelmingly by white firefighters. after the results were posted, the city of new haven, connecticut, did not like the results and decided at that point to not use the exa exam. several officers sued. they sued the city for take this action. so who were the officers that sued? well, one was frank ricci. he was the lead plaintiff. he was a career firefighter. he was dyslexic. and to study, he hired and he paid someone to read the recommended study books on to an audio tape so he could listen to the tapes. he studied up to 13 hours a day. he gave up his second job, gave up time with his family. another, lieutenant ben vargas, was an officer who sued and testified at judge sotomayor's confirmation hearing. he also has a career as a firefighter. he grew up in fair haven, which

is a neighborhood in new haven, connecticut. his father was a factory worker. his family spoke spanish at home, making school a challenge for him. he's the father of three boys. and one of the reasons he joined the lawsuit, and he said, "i want them" -- my three sons -- "to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits." well, the district court ruled against the firefighters. judge sotomayor's court upheld the lower court ruling, dismissing the case. judge sotomayor's court issued a one-paragraph opinion summarily dismissing the appeal. her court failed to cite any precedence for this decision. in june of 2009, the united states supreme court reversed judge sotomayor's opinion. the supreme court stated, "the city made its employment decision because of race. the city rejected the test results solely because the

higher scoring candidates were white." the supreme court went on to say, "the process was open and fair. the problem, of course, is that after the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the city's refusal to certify the results." the supreme court's 34-page majority opinion -- 34 pages -- 34-page majority opinion fully analyzing the facts and the legal issues stands in stark contrast to the one-paragraph ruling by judge sotomayor. the lack of a detailed explanation by the judge's court on an issue that the supreme court said was not settled law is one i find troubling. more importantly, it raises doubt, fairly or unfairly, as to why judge sotomayor's court ruled the way it did. through her own words, judge sotomayor's ability to completely disown personal beliefs and biases to reach a

decision is in question. mr. president, i have additional concerns about the principles that judge sotomayor will apply in deciding future cases involving important issues such as the second amendment. in a 2009 second amendment case decided by judge sotomayor's court, her court ruled that the second amendment did not apply to the states. the court cited supreme court cases from the 1800's as precedent. but judge sotomayor's court went further. they ruled that the second amendment right is not a fundamental right, thereby allowing states and local authorities broad powers to deny individuals the right to bear arms. the court's ruling that the second amendment right is not a fundamental right can't be reconciled with recent decisions on other courts. the united states supreme court, in a 2008 case, was asked to

decide whether or not the district of columbia could deny its citizens rights afforded to them under the second amendment. in its ruling, which was issued before judge sotomayor's 2009 decision, the supreme court sa said, "the second amendment confers an individual's right" -- an individual's right -- "to keep and bear arm arms." the court rightfully overturned the laws of the district of columbia that denied the citizens of the district the right to own a firearm. and in a 2009 ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, the court concluded that the series of 19th century supreme court cases cited by judge sotomayor were not controlling on the issue of whether or not the second amendment establishes a fundamental right. the ninth circuit court concluded the constitution did -- did -- confer that right. the court ruled that the second amendment right to bear arms is

a fundamental right of the people and it is to be protectedment judge sotomayor, if confirmed, will receive a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. her decisions may impact americans and america for generations to come. every american has the right to know what standard judge sotomayor will apply of in judgin -- applyin judging futur. fidelity to the law, as she has stated in the hearings? or, as she has stated in the past, my experience will affect the facts i choose to see. the senate should know with absolute certainty the standard that judge sotomayor will use before confirming her to the supreme court. without having that certainty, mr. president, i am unable to support her nomination to the united states supreme court. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise today to discuss president obama's nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to serve on the united states supreme court. first, i want to say that i appreciate the efforts of my colleagues on the judiciary committee to hold thorough hearings and to process this nomination as there is no doubt that judge sotomayor's resume is impressive with degrees from princeton and yale law school. she then worked as assistant district attorney and later in private practice before serving as a united states district court judge and currently as a united states circuit court judge. it's unfortunate that the senate confirmation process has reached a point where nominees with such extensive backgrounds are no

longer comfortable candidly discussing their judicial philosophy and views on key issues. to date i have received over 1,000 letters, e-mails and phone calls from idaho constituents who are overwhelmingly opposed to judge sotomayor's nomination. many of the concerns raised in this correspondence are similar to concerns that i personally have about the nomination. concerns relating to the second amendment, right to bear arms. concerns relating to judicial activism. concerns relating to whether foreign law should be utilized in interpreting united states statutes and our constitution. it was my hope that through the committee hearings and my personal meeting with judge sotomayor and other evaluation of her writings and her judicial decisions that these concerns and those of my constituents could be addressed. unfortunately, though, when it came to the key issues, judge

sotomayor's testimony often lacked the substance necessary and was even contradictory to her own previous statements, rulings, and writings. i'd like to discuss some of those areas of concern. before i do so, i want to make it very clear with this nomination many are very rightfully proud that for the first time in our country's history we have a latina nominated to our highest court. it must be noted that she is receiving and being afforded a clean, up-or-down vote on the floor of the senate this week. as i indicated at the outset it's unfortunate that the confirmation process in the united states senate has deteriorated so much over the last few years that others have not received similar opportunities. i am referring in this example to miguel estrada. like judge sotomayor, he was rated unanimously qualified,

well qualified, by the american bar so when president bush nominated him to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is often considered to be a steppingstone for supreme court nominations and at that time many thought he would be a strong nominee. that he might be the first latino nominated to the supreme court. judge estrada would have deserved such an opportunity as judge sotomayor does. unfortunately, some on the left feared that scenario wrote and, as a result, this was a filibuster and judge estrada was never even allowed to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the senate. mr. president, i make this point now just to remind us all that although there are many here who have concerns about some of the positions and philosophies that judge sotomayor has, there has been no effort to deprive her of an opportunity for an up-or-down

vote on the floor of the senate on her nomination. it's important that our country recognize this. now let me turn to some of the issues that i indicated earlier are of concern. i know that a number of my colleagues have spoken already about the issue of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. that is one of my most significant concerns. on july 27, 2008, the united states supreme court ruled in the district of columbia v. heller the second right amendment to bear arms protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in the malicious and to use those aways for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. this ruling affirmed what commonsense had told us all for a long time: that the second amendment was intended to ensure access to all law-abiding

citizens for self-defense and recreation. unfortunately, despite this ruling in heller, judge sotomayor ruled in the malone my case the second amendment does in the apply. even the 9th circuit court of appeals which has jurisdiction over my home state of idaho and considered the most liberal courts in the land has ruled the opposite way in a similar case making it clear that the second amendment rights are binding on the states. the ninth circuit court held that the right to bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." additionally the court found that the crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is, indeed, a fundamental right. furthermore, and again, even after the supreme court's ruling in heller, judge sotomayor held that the second amendment does not protect a fundamental right.

mr. president, with regard to whether the second amendment applies to states, i don't believe any reasonable person believes other freedoms contained in the bill of rights don't apply to the states such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. why is there a difference standard or effort to try to keep the second amendment right to bear arms? from being freely available to all individuals in the united states? the supreme court has held in a series of opinions that the 14th amendment incorporates most portions of the bill of rights as enforceable in the states. despite that heller addressed firearm laws in the district of columbia the supreme court there used state constitutional precedence for its analysis if heller. in fact, the court's ruling was based in part on the read of applicable language in and state

constitutions adopted soon after our bill of rights itself was adod and ratified. by doing; the supreme court recognized that the second amendment was, in fact, a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution. on the issue of whether or not the second amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right i'm extremely concerned that a nominee for the highest court in our land would make such an argument. i'm very concerned that a nominee for the highest court in our nation can so construe the second amendment right to bear arms. this disroad of history and legal precedent -- disregard of history and legal precedent is a sign of judicial activism. as i have said, to reach her decision in maloney, judge sotomayor had to and did make a judicial finding that the second amendment right to bear arms is not a fundamental right. in contrast, the ninth circuit court of appeals said it as well

as it can be said, saying "the county," which was the defendant which was seeking to implement some restrictions that were considered to be a right and infringement on the right to bear arms, "the county and its amica, other whose have filed briefs on the county's behalf, point out however universal its earlier support, the right to keep and bear arms has now become controversial." again, this is the ninth circuit court of appeals speaking "but we do not measure the protecti protection -- the constitution aforces a right by the values of our own time. if contemporary judges read rights from the constitution there is little benefit to a written statement of them. some may disagree with the decision of our founders to enshrine a given right in the

constitution. if so, then people can amend the document. but such amendments are not for courts to ordain." that's the kind of correct analysis that the supreme court has clearly guided us to with regard to the second amendment right to bear arms. mr. president, throughout idaho and across the united states many millions of americans believe the second amendment is a fundamental right and i am one of those. soon enough the supreme court will decide whether the second amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment to apply in the states. when that case is taken up, the court will decide just how fundamental the second amendment is and whether states and communities can take away americans' rights to bear arms any time they want to. i cannot support a nominee to the supreme court who does not recognize this fundamental right in our constitution.

and for this reason i must oppose the nomination of judge sotomayor. in addition, with regard to the role of a judge and judicial activism, when it comes to her views on the proper role of a judge, once again judge sotomayor's testimony before the senate judiciary committee appeared to directly contradict her publicly-stated words and philosophy expressed prior to her nomination. in 2003, when discussing her gender and heritage she said "my experiences will affect the facts that i choose to see as a judge." in other previous speech she said, "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." this is simply shorthand for judicial activism. and making policy regard than applying the law. exactly what the ninth circuit court said courts were not to

do. to defend against this very notion, however, justice is supposed to be blind. indeed, lady justice is depicted with a blindfold. to judge selectively by selectively choosing the facts to emphasize is akip to lowering the blind fold and taking a look rejecting equal justice under the law. those who are called a judge must adhere to the rule of law. no matter what they personally think the law should be. or what the outcome of a particular case should be. after she was nominated to the supreme court judge sotomayor told the judiciary committee "my personal and professional expenses help me listen and understand with the law always commanding the result in every case." so we are left to wonder, what has caused this contradiction? and whether she still believes that judges may choose to see the facts they want to see to

get the result they want to get. also i indicated i had a concern about foreign law. another very puzzling contra dilingsz in judge sotomayor's testimony -- contra dilingsz in judge sotomayor's testimony regarding judges looking to foreign law on cases. in her testimony before judiciary committee says said "i have actually agreed with justice scalia and thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even this using foreign law with respect to the things american law permit you to do." however, in march of this year, in a speech to the aclu of puerto rico, she did not seem to agree with justices scalia and thomas when she said "and that misunderstanding is unfortunately endorsed by some of our supreme court justices." both justice scalia and justice thomas have criticized the use

of foreign and international law in supreme court decisions. how can you ask a person to close their ears? ideas have no boundaries. requests are what set our creative juices flowing and they permit us to think and to suggest to anyone, to suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. what you would think you would asking american judges to do is to close their minds to good ideas unless american courts are more open to discussing ideas raised in foreign cases and by international cases we aring to los -- aregoing to lose influene world. i'm concerned a nominee to the highest court in our land would say that our constitution and our statutes in america may be

interpreted by reliance on foreign law, is alarming. the supreme court is charged with deciding the constitutionality of a law or incorporating it in the context of our american system of justice not in accordance with its selectively chosen foreign laws. which are numerous, contradictory and inconsistent with american jurisprudence. how else would a judge choose among these very foreign laws and precedents other than selecting those that align with that judge's personal opinion? i have raised three issues here today that have caused me very significant concern. judge sotomayor's interpretation of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms clearly written after the supreme court of the united states has given the guidance necessary for us to resolve the issue, her pen chants toward choosing facts enabling a judge or justice in

this case to reach the outcomes they want regardless of the way the law should be applied and the outcome the law otherwise would require, and her willingness to allow american jurisprudence to be determined at the highest levels in our land by reliance on foreign law, foreign cases and foreign precedent. for these reasons i cannot support president obama's nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court. and when we get to the vote on it this week, i will cast a "no" vote. i recognize that the likelihood is that her nomination will proceed and be confirmed. billets but it's my deep hope and conviction that the issues that i have raised and many others have raised today will be heard and that regardless of the outcome of the vote in the senate this week, that judge sotomayor, if she is confirmed -- and all

justices on the supreme court -- will continue to recognize the fundamental nature of our right to bear arms under the second amendment, that they will focus on the proper role of judges, not in creating law but in interpreting the law, and that they will decline to rely on foreign law to interpret -- and to create american jurisprudence. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. crapo: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection.

senator [inaudible] -- members of the judiciary committee for conduct a thorough, fair, and respectful confirmation hearing. judge sotomayor herself stated that the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have hoped. mr. wicker: i consider that statement to be a tribute to senators leahy, sessions, and the committee members and their staffs, and i commend them. article 2, section 2, of the constitution states "the president shall nominate by and with the advice and consent of the senate judges of the supreme court." the constitutional duty of advice and consent given to the senate is of profound importance, particularly when considering a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court. in reviewing judge sotomayor's nomination, i have taken this obligation very seriously. following judge sotomayor's nomination by the president, i, like nearly all of my colleagues in this chamber, had a private,

one-on-one meeting with her. we had a very cordial conversation, one in which i found judge sotomayor to be likeable and gracious. i appreciated learning more about her background. make no mistake, judge sotomayor has a great personal and professional story to tell. she's proud of it, and she certainly should be. but in the instance of a supreme court nominee, the constitutional duty of advice and consent, given to the senate, is not about personalities, likability, or life stories; it is about judicial philosophy and adherence to impartiality and fidelity to the law. after careful consideration of her record, i was left with a number of irreconcilable concerns. i'm deeply troubled by what i see as judge sotomayor's aversion to impartiality. the judicial oath requires judges to administer justice without respect to persons and

do equal right to the poor and the rich and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the constitution and laws of the united states. to be clear, the oath requires judges to be impartial with respect to their social, moral, and political views and to apply the law to the facts before them; in other words, equal justice under the law. yet judge sotomayor appears to believe in a legal system where decisions are based upon personal experiences and group preferences, not the letter of the law. judge sotomayor has said on repeated occasions that she willingly accepts that judges must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt continuously to judge when those

opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate. these are her own word. she has stated many times during more than a decade that her background and personal experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. in our brief meeting in june, judge sotomayor stated this notion a slightly different way by saying her latina heritage caused her to listen a different way. mr. president, i find these to be disconcerting statements which seem to conflict with the impartiality that i and an overwhelming majority of americans believe is essential to our judicial system. and even the very bedrock principles that our nation was founded upon. in looking at her rulings, i noted that the supreme court has disagreed with judge sotomayor in nine out of ten cases it has

reviewed and afirmed her in the remaining case by a narrow 5-4 margin. this record was demonstrated most recently in the ricci case where a majority of justices of the supreme court rejected judge sotomayor's panel decision. this is a case in which a group of firefighters, who had studied for months and passed a test, were denied promotion because not enough minority firefighters had done as well. in a one-paragraph, unsigned, and unpublished cursory opinion, judge sotomayor summarily, almost casually, dismissed the claims of these firefighters who had worked hard for a promotion. when discussing the qualifications he would look for in replacing justice souter, president obama said, "i view the quality of empathy, of

understanding and identifying with people's homes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." empathy is a great personal virtue, but there is a difference between empathy as a person and empathy as a judge. judges should use the law and the law only, not their personal experiences or personal view or empathy. personal biases and empathy have no place in reaching a just conclusion under the law. ricci is an example of where judge sotomayor clearly failed this important test. in addition, i'm deeply concerned about judge sotomayor's decision in maloney v. cuomo, a second-amendment case that could very easily be decided by the supreme court in the next year. in last year's heller decision, the supreme court ruled that the

second amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. yet in maloney, judge sotomayor relied on 19th century cases, arguably superseded after heller, to summarily hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states. if judge sotomayor's decision is allowed to stand, the states will be able to place strict prohibitions on the ownership of guns and other arms. in refusing to confirm that the second amendment, a right clearly enumerated in the bill of rights, is a fundamental right that applies to all 50 states and, thus, to all americans, judge sotomayor shows an alarming hostility to law-abiding gun owners across the country. that is a view that is certainly out of the mainstream in this nation. what is perhaps even more troubling is that maloney is another example where judge sotomayor joined an unsigned cursory panel decision.

if she is confirmed to the supreme court, judge sotomayor will routinely hear cases raising fundamental constitutional issues. issues such as maloney. those are the types of cases the supreme court hears. that's why issues of this nature make it to the supreme court. and yet judge sotomayor has a record of routinely dismissing such cases with difficult constitutional questions of exceptional importance to americans with little or no analysis. as an appeals court judge, judge sotomayor and her rulings are subject to a safety net. her cases can be reviewed by the supreme court. in ricci, the firefighters whose promotions were denied, could appeal the decision and receive impartial justice. there is no backstop to the supreme court. therefore, judge sotomayor's elevation to our nation's highest court takes on much more

significance than her previous selection to the appeals court. so let me be clear -- i have tremendous respect for judge sotomayor's life story and professional accomplishments. i commend her for her achievements and i wish her well in the future. however, i am not convinced that she understands the proper role of the courts in our legal system. her record and her pronouncements are those of someone who sees the court as a place to legislate and make policy. i'm not convinced that judge sotomayor truly believes in the bedrock of our judicial system, which is impartiality under the law. therefore, i must withhold my consent and vote "no" on her confirmation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in support of the nomination of sonia sotomayor to serve as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. mr. president, the constitution grants the president the power to nominate and appoint individuals to the federal judiciary. it also gives the senate the power of advice and consent to such appointments. it does not, however, provide any specific guidance to the senate on how we should exercise this important power. in a democracy, discourse and disagreement are inevitable. some, including myself, would say that these ingredients are not only expected, they are

necessary for the healthy continuation of our vibrant, dynamic democracy. given this backdrop, disputes regarding the scope of the senate's power of advise and consent are not uncommon, nor unexpected whenever the president puts forth a nominee for the supreme court. in fact, mr. president, the ink on our constitution was barely dry when the senate rejected john rutledge, one of president washington's 13 nominees to the supreme court.some senators suggested that they had voted for mr. rutledge out of concern that he was losing his sanity. but the main reason for opposition to mr. rutledge appears to have been the

nominee's opposition to the jade treaty with great britain, a treaty popular with "the the federalist controlled senate. since mr. rutledge's rejection by the senate in 1795, senators have continued to grapple with the criteria applicable to their evaluation of supreme court nominees and the degree of deference that should be accorded to the president. there is no easy answer to this difficult question. some argue that closer scrutiny by the senate and less deference to the president is required when confirming judicial nominees, not only because federal judges are in a separate branch of government but also because they have lifetime appointments. thus, constitutional law scholar john mcguiness concludes that

the text of the constitution gives the senate complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination. many other legal scholars, however, articulate a more constrained role for the senate. they argue that the senate's powers should be exercised narrowly, giving extraordinary deference to the president. under this standard, the senate would not reject judicial nominees unless they were clearly unqualified to serve. citing alexander hamilton's federalist 76, those who would constrain the senate's review of judicial nominees explained that advice and consent responsibility was only intended as a safeguard against incompetence, cronyism, or

corruption. as dr. john eastman testified before the judiciary committee in 2003, the senate's power to advice and consent does not -- quote -- "give the senate a coequal role in the appointment of federal judges." mr. president, the constitutional arguments on both sides of this question on how much deference to give the president are help lightning. but as is so often the case, my personal -- president are enlightening. but as is so often the case, my personal belief is that the truth lies between the two extremes. as a senator, i have afforded considerable deference to both democrat and republican presidents on their supreme court nominees. in considering judicial nominees, i carefully consider

the nominee's qualifications, competency, personal integrity, judicial temperament, and respect for precedence. those are the tests that i have applied to sony sonia sotomayor. having reviewed her record, questioned her personally, and listened to the judiciary committee's hearings, i have concluded that judge sotomayor should be confirmed to our nation's highest court. now, mr. president, my decision to support this nominee does not reflect agreement with her on all of her rulings as a judge serving on the second circuit court of appeals. i disagree, for example, with the perfunctory manner in which judge sotomayor has disposed of

one case of constitutional consequence. her panel's cursory analysis of the complex and novel questions about the 14th amendment's equal protection clause and title 7 in the ricci case, the case involving the new haven firefighters, the case that has been called a reverse discrimination case, was as unfortunate as the decision itself. indeed, in contrast to her panel's one-paragraph opinion, the supreme court in this case needed nearly 100 pages to debate and resolve just the statutory question presented, never mind the difficult

constitutional questions that were set aside for another day. but my concerns about a handful of judge sotomayor's rulings as well as some of her prior comments over the course of her 17 years on the federal bench do not warrant my opposing her confirmation. upon reading some of her other decisions, upon questioning her at length, and hearing her response to probing questions, i have concluded that she understands the proper role of a judge and that she is committed to applying the law impartially, without bias or favoritism. specifically, in her testimony before the judiciary committee,

judge sotomayor reaffirmed that her judicial philosophy is one of -- quote -- "fidelity to the law." she pledged to apply the law, not to make it. she testified that her personal and professional experiences will not influence her rulings. mr. president, there is no question in my mind that judge sotomayor is well qualified to be an associate justice of the supreme court. she has impressive legal experience. she has excelled throughout her life, and she is a tremendously accomplished person. indeed, the american bar association's standing committee

on the federal judiciary, after an exhaustive review of her professional qualifications, including more than 500 interviews and analyses of her opinions, speeches, and other writings, unanimously rated her as well qualified. and based on my personal review, a careful review of her record, my assessment of her character and my analysis of her adherence to precedent, judge sotomayor warrants confirmation to the high court. mr. president, i know that i will not agree with every decision that justice sotomayor reaches on the court. just as i have disagreed with

some of her previous decisions. i believe, however, that her legal analysis will be thoughtful and sound and that her decisions will be based on the particulars of the case before her. my expectation is that justice sotomayor will adhere to justice o'connor's admonition that -- quote -- "a wise old woman and a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case." based on her responses to the judiciary committee, judge sotomayor will avoid the temptation to usurp the legislative authority of the congress and the executive

authority of the president. as chief justice john marshall famously wrote in marbury v. madison, the court must say what the law is. that, after all, in a nutshell is the appropriate role for the federal judiciary. for a judge to do more would undermine the constitutional foundations of the separate branches. mr. president, i will cast my vote in favor of the confirmation of judge sotomayor as i believe that she will serve our country honorably and well on the supreme court. thank you, mr. president.

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

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in wholehearted support of the historic nomination of judge sotomayor to become an associate justice of the united states supreme court. i have two words to summarize my feelings about this nomination: it's time. it's time we have a nominee to the supreme court whose record has proven to be truly mainstream. it's time we have a nominee with practical experience in all levels of the justice system whose upbringing in the bronx housing project, whose

experience as a plr prosecutor d judge has enabled her to see as she said in her statement "the human consequences" of her decisions. and it's time we have a nominee who is hispanic, a member of the fastest growing population in america. finally, it's time we have a frank discussion about what is really preventing so many colleagues on the other side of the aisle if supporting judge sotomayor. so in short this is time -- in short, this is the time. and it's time. it's time we have a moderate nominee. it's time we have someone with a great family history. an american family history. it's time we confirm the first hispanic justice to the united states supreme court. so let's start with judge sotomayor's record which is most important. several of my republican

colleagues said as they cast their votes against her in the judiciary committee that they did not know what kind of supreme court justice they might be getting in judge sotomayor. i find this conclusion to be confounding. judge sotomayor is hardly a readily wradded in a mystery inside an enigma. no matter what cross section we take of her extensive record down to examining individual cases, we see someone who has never expresse expressed desireo overturn precedent nor have my colleagues beenable to point to any such case. instead, we see someone would lets the facts of each case guide her to correct application of the law. we see someone would does not put her thumb on the scales of justice for either side even if any human being would want to reach a difficult result for a

sympathetic plaintiff. mr. president, we know more about judge sotomayor than we have known about any nominee in 100 years. the 30,000-foot view of her record gleaned from numerous studies about the way she has ruled in cases for 17 years -- that's the best way to tell how a judge is going to be, to look at their previous cases -- and it sells when you look at those cases it tells plenty about her moderation. she has agreed with her republican colleagues 95% of the time and ruled for the government in 83% of immigration cases presumably against the immigrant. she has ruled for the government in newt gingrich% o newt 92% ofd denied race claims in 83% of cases. she has split evenly in a variety of employment cases.

so no matter how we slice and dies these cases we come up -- slice and dice these cases we come up with the same conclusion on her moderation. when she ruled 87% of the time in fourth amendment cases which is an important, a area where decisions are highly fact based and judges have discretion to decide within police hav when pe overstepped their bounds but they has no abused this discretion in the overwhelming majority of cases because she sides with the government, deciding each case carefully based on the facts before her. let's also look further at her immigration asylum cases. there she ruled for the government against the petitioner for asylum in 83% of the case. that's also telling of her modulated approach to judging.

asylum law as her colleague, judge new man has pointed out, gives judges a good deal of discretion who can be guaranteed asylum to stay in the united states. judge sotomayor has not abused this discretion a jot. given her upbringing in a hispanic neighborhood of the bronx we might expect her personal background would make her more, to borrow a term "empathetic" to an immigrant seeking asylum but the cases show that any perceived empathy did not affect her results. in fact, her 83% record puts her right in the middle of judges in her circuit. even in the realm of sports cases which are always contentious and closely watched judge sotomayor has shown her even handedness. she ruled for the professional football league in a case brought by a layer and against

major league baseball when she ruled for the players and ended the baseball strike. i can go on. judge sotomayor voted to deny the victims of twa flight 800 cash a more generous recovery because that was "clearly a legislative policy choice which should not be made by the courts." if you have empathy you are certainly going to decide with the victims. i've medicine some of their families. she didn't. the law didn't allow her. judge sotomayor ruled against an african-american couple would claimed they were bumped from a flight because of their race. again, against a couple case called king who said they were racially discriminated against. she didn't think the facts merited their suit. judge sotomayor rejected the claims of a disabled black woman that said she was unfairly provided accommodations provided to white employees.

my republican colleagues did not ask about these cases. instead they looked at her speeches -- not her cases, her speeches -- and decided that judge sotomayor believes that is the proper role of the court of appeals to "make policy," and they condemned her for this view. then they criticized her for not making policy in cases where they disagreed with the outcome. this occurred in three cases in ricci, which involves the new haven firefighters in her second amendment case and in a case involving property rights. i guess from the point of view of my republican colleagues judicial policy making is a bad thing except when it's not. in each of these they cases that they criticized were where they sized the short opinions which she did not write for hem self, they said the ruling showed she was unable to grapple with major constitutional issues but in each case, judge sotomayor agreed with the other two members of her court that the

second circuit or supreme court precedent squarely dictated the result. there was no need for a fuller explanation. second circuit rules forbid panels from revisiting squarely decided precedent. in other words, in these cases she was avoiding "making policy," the cases were governed by the precedent. she was bound. they were died by settled law. it was just the fact that my friends across the aisle don't like what the settled law was. so we are getting awfully close to a double standard here. in ricci they wanted her to overturn the second circuit discrimination and in the gun case they wanted her to anything nor a 100-year-old precedent and in property right cases they wanted her to ignore the law that governed the statute of limitations. my colleagues asked judge sotomayor about an e.p.a. case where she ruled the e.p.a. mistakenly considered a certain

factor deciding whether a company used "the best technology possibility to clean war," and she gave deference to the e.p.a. intention of the law judge sotomayor ruled against the government. yet my friend, senator sessions of alabama, stated that one of his reasons for opposing judges sotomayor is that she exhibits liberal pro-government ideology. it appears that being pro-government is a bad thing, except when it's not. let's talk about her answers to questions. some of my friends on both sides of the aisle have said supreme court nominees need to be more forthcoming during the confirmation process. they fear that the hearings have become a little more than a correspondent yow graphe-- acorw

choreographed kabuki dance. -- promises that they would keep an open mind, respect the law and give everyone an equal chance. of course they would. candidates with little to hide, not sprigsly, have answered more questions than stealth nominees who truly have been outside the mainstream. examples of candidates who had nothing up their sleeves and answered questions in a straightforward manner include judge steven breyer in 1994. he answered the question posed by senator hatch, "do you believe that washington b. davis set a law" and secondly, "do you agree it was correctly decided in" and then ruth bader ginsburg answered questions about casey and abortion precedence. justices alito and roberts declined to answer question after question after question. then judge rockets would not answer the -- then judge roberts would not answer the most basic

questions about commerce clause jurisprudence. then-judge alito would not say whether the thought the constitutional right to privacy including the holding in roe. i think i'll discuss this in more detail, but i think we have seen that this was part after strategy to play an ideological shell game and now ware preantsed with a candidate whose views are truly moderate, as proven through the most copious records in 14*u7b years and none the less, my friend senator grassley from iowa beliefs that her performance left him with more questions an answers. i have to respectfully disagree. but judge sotomayor again, in addition to her full and transparent record, proved that she is not a stealth candidate. on abortion in the holding of roe, when asked by senator franken, do you believe that this right to privacy includes the trite have ann bortion, judge sotomayor answered clearly and to the point, "the court has said in many cases, as i think

has been repeated in the court's jurisprudence in casey, that there is a right to privacy that women have with respect to the termination of their pregnancies in certain situations." clear, to the point. when then-judge roberts was asked this question, he replied, "well, i feel i need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases. i'm happy to disuts principles of stare decisisance the court has developed a series of precedents on precedent, if you will, they should have a number of cases talking about this principle that should be appli applied." so, who spoke clearly to the question? if you don't believe judge sotomayor did, how could you vote for judge roberts? on property rights, when asked by senator grassley about her understanding of the court's holding in kelo, sotomayor explained fully her understanding of the court's holding. and there is a quote. "when asked about his view of kelo, then-judge alito declined

to success is the case and there are many more examples of how judge sotomayoranceed questions about existing cases in much fuller detail than the past two nominees and certainly about the key cases -- property rights, abortion -- that we debate as we should in this body. mr. president, as i said at the outset, it's time. it's time for a searching examination of why some of my completion are still determined to vote against judge sotomayor. she has a remarkably moderate record. she's highly qualified. she answers questions. and she's an historic choice who will expand the diversity of the court. mr. president, what nominee of president obama's would my republican colleagues vote for? one who would have reached out and found that the right to bear arms should be incorporated to apply to the states, despite a 100-year-old statute to the

contrary? one who declined to answer questions about existing precedents? in other words, an activist who is intent on changing the law. and, of course, we now turn to the last refuge of objection to judge sotomayor: her statements outside the courtroom. i've always been a strong advocate of the principle that we consider carefully each nominee's entire record, including speeches and other judicial writings. but judge sotomayor is different than most because she has an enormous judicial record to review and consider. she's not a stealth candidate. there's a push and pull here in terms of what's important to evaluate with respect to each individual nominee. with 17 years of judicial opinions, 30 panel opinions and 3,000 cases in total, how much

emphasis should we put on the three words "wise latina woman," whether we disagreed with them or not? mr. president, i would submit the answer should be, compared to her copious record, not much. nonetheless, by my count, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle asked no fewer than 17 questions about her "wise latina woman" comment. in contrast, they asked questions about a total of six -- six -- of judge sotomayor's cases over the course of the three days. six days out of 3,000 in 17 years of judging. i don't think agree with this approach of her analyzing the record. nonetheless, i agree with my colleague, senator graham, who is voting for her after engaging inarguably the most searching examination of her speeches, that we are entitled to know who we are getting as a nation.

he is absolutely right. certainly it is afroapt look at her speefs -- certainly it is appropriate to look at her speeches but let's give them proper weight and context. let's be clear about another thing: judge sotomayor is no robert bork. she is no judge roberts or judge alito. shshe has not made comments outside the courtroom that indicate her strong views on abortion or the powers of congress must be severely curtailed or that a substantial body of first amendment jurisprudence should be overturned. so, again, if the standard is extra judicial statements, again, my colleagues seem to be using a different standard for judge sotomayor than the standard they used for judges like roberts, alito, thomas. so, let me give my friends some reassurance, the proof of the pudding, the proof is in the

pudding. judge sotomayor is and always has been a moderate judge. like many, many judges across the country, she has remained neutral in race cases, in spite of her race. in gender cases in spite of her gender. in first amendment cases in spite of racist and repugnant speakers. the scales of justice in her courtroom are not weighted. so let me now conclude by discussing the precedent set by past nominations. more broadly, where i think my colleagues are headed and where we ought to be going instead. in 2001 i wrote an op-ed arguing that we need to take ideology into account when evaluating judges. i wrote that op-ed because i was astounded by the nominees that president bush's administration was sending to the senate. the conservative movement had captured congress and the white house for the first time, but even though conservatives,

strong conservatives, hard-right conservatives, controlled thee two branches, the hard right was not able to move the country as far to the right as they had hoped. so they turned to the judiciary. they couldn't do it with the president, even though they had elected him. they couldn't do it with the house or the senate, even though, again, the hard right had precome to nat nateed, and so they -- predominated and so turned to the one unelected branch -- the judiciary -- to advance the agenda that they weren't able to move through the democratically elected branches of government. the bush administration complied with the hard right and nominated judges that were so far out of the mainstream it would have been irresponsible for us to confirm them blindly. so we asked them questions about their judicial philosophy and their ideology and our questions were not met with thorough answers or with a demonstrated record of mainstream judging but with banalities.

if we tried to rank them on a scale of one to 10 with one being all the way to the right, say like judge thomas, ten being all the way to the left, say like justice brennan, i think the bush nominees to the supreme court and court of appeals were almost exclusively ones and twos, way over. if you looked at president clington's nominees, they were somewhat left of center but not much, mainly sixes and sevens. prosecutors, partners in law firms, not lawyers had had spent their careers in activist causes. president obama has taken a different approach. he's -- he's trying to return the the court to the middle, to the pre-bush day, the days of having judges that may not be exactly what the right wants in a judge or even when the left, the far left wants in a judge. we are returning to the days where judges were fives and

sixes and sevens, fours. they were squarely in the mainstream. we are returning to the days when judges put the rule of law first. and somehow my republican colleagues are aghast. the only judges they seem to want to vote for are ones and twos, judges who are on the hard right. and the president is not going to nominate judges who have that view. after all, elections do matter. my colleagues say they don't want "activist "requests judges. what they really mean is they don't want judges who will put the rule of law first. they only want judges who will impose their own ultra conservative views. an activist now seems to be not someone who respects the rule of law but someone who is not hard right. if you are mainstream, even though you're interpreting the law, you are an activist because you'll not turn the clock back. we must and will continue to

fight for mainstream judges. i have heard some say that this fight isn't really about judge sotomayor, given her proven record of mainstream judging and fidelity to the law. these commentators argue that republicans are laying down their marker for president obama's next nominee. i don't know who that nominee will be, but i am confident it will be a qualified candidate who is significantly more in the mainstream, if you take the mainstream being the actual place where the middle of america is -- more in the mainstream than justices thomas or scalia or roberts or alito. or some of the nominations that we considered under the bush bush, like miguel ceas estrada r januarjanice pickering. i'm confident that the next nominee will be consistent with the nominees that president obama has been sending us -- moderate, mainstream and rule of law. at one point the republican party argued for precedent and for strict construction because

they wanted to push back on certain new precedents they thought were beyond the constitution, precedents such s roe and mir ran davment but things have changed. americans have accepted roe and americans have accepted miranda. now my colleagues want to change the law. so they've changed their methodology without changing the nomenclature. they still call the judges quks activists" even though they want to stick to established law, and i think it is a shame. it is a shame that some of my colleagues can't put aside their own personal ideology and vote for a judge whom they might not have chosen but who's u unquestionable mainstream. it is a shame that we won't have a unanimous vote in favor of this nominee that judges on both sides of the aisle, from justice ginsburg and scalia have received in the past. and i think it is a shame that debate about this historic nomination has been distilled to disputes over snippets of speeches. but we're not going to let

senate pride, we're not going to let that stop the national pride we take in this moment, mr. president. we're not going to let it stop us from confirming by a broad and bipartisan margin judge sonia sotomayor to be the first hispanic justice on the u.s. supreme court. in conclusion, as judge adams said, "we are a nation of laws, not of men. but if the law were just words on parchment it would never evolve to reflect our own changing society." veapt but equal would never have been understood to be inherently unequal. equality for women would have never been viewed as guaranteed under the constitution's protection of equal protection. in fact, the second amendment might never have been viewed to extend beyond the trite possess a front-loading musket to defend in a militia against an occupying force. with the nomination of justice sotomayor, we have a noble opportunity to restore faith in the notion that the court should

reflect the same mainstream ideals that are embraced by america. our independent judiciary has served as a beacon of justice for the rest of the world. our system of checks and balances is the envy of every freedom-seeking nation. and as i look at the arc of judge sotomayor's life, her record and these hearings, i am confident we are getting a justice who both reflects american values and who will serve them. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. every american should be proud an hispanic woman has been nominated to serve on the united states supreme court. senators must evaluate judge sotomayor on her merits, not on the basis of her ethnicity.

as i noted at the beginning of judge sotomayor's hearing, she has a background that creates a prima facie case for confirmation. she graduated from princeton university and yale law school and then was assistant district attorney, a corporate litigator, district court judge and circuit court judge. this background led the american bar association to rate her well qualified. my counterpart on the democratic side, senator durbin, has said -- and i quote -- "the burden of proof for a supreme court justice nominee is on the nominee. no one has a right to sit on the supreme court. it is not enough for a nominee to be found well qualified by the american bar association." it is obvious the senate cannot just rubber stamp the a.b.a. this is why we conduct our own evaluation of a nominee's background and record and then attempt to resolve outstanding questions at her hearing. in evaluating a nominee, it is of course important to look at all aspects of a person's career. the nominee's prior judicial opinions are obviously an important consideration in the

process. lower court judge who issues judicial opinions that are outside the mainstream will in all likelihood continue to issue opinions that are outside the mainstream if promoted to a higher court. but even judicial opinions do not tell us the whole story, especially when we're considering a nominee to the supreme court. district and appellate court judges operate under the restraining influence of judicial review. they have a strong incentive to avoid aberrant interpretations of the law. otherwise they risk embarrassment if cases are appealed to a higher authority. this check disappears when a judge becomes a justice on the supreme court. there is no higher authority to rein in a lifetime appointed justice who decides for whatever reason to adopt a strained interpretation of the law. nor will a nominee generally be very specific about he or she may rule on matters that will come before the court. so it is important to examine anything else in a nominee's background that can shed light

on how the nominee thinks about important issues. one source of information is a nominee's extra judicial statements in speeches and writings. in these contexts, the nominee is not constrained by facts of particular cases, by precedents or the fear of appellate reprimand. but can say what he or she really thinks. before judge sotomayor's hearing i had studied not only her cases but her extra judicial writings and a fraction of her speeches. and i say fraction because judge sotomayor was either unable or unwilling to provide a draft, video or sufficient topic description for more than 100 of the speeches that she identified to the judiciary committee. but even with less than a full complement of her relevant materials, i saw a number of tpheupbgz judge sotomayor's decisions and speeches that cause me to have great concern about her ability to put aside her biases and to impartially render a decision to the parties before her. as i will explain, judge

sotomayor's appearance before the judiciary committee did little to dispel my concerns. in many cases her testimony exacerbated them. i was and remain particularly troubled by judge sotomayor's speeches about gender and ethnicity. the speech that has garnered the most attention is, of course, her wise latina speech which was published in a berkeley la raza law review. as it turns out judge sotomayor delivered the same speech with minor variations on multiple occasions over the course of several years. in reading these speeches in their entirety, it is inescapable that her purpose was not simply to inspire young hispanic latino students and lawyers as she asserted at her hearing. in fact, as she said at the beginning of several of these speeches, her purpose was to talk about -- and i'm quoting -- "my latina identity, where it came from and the influence i perceive it has on my presence

on the bench." judge sotomayor refamily sized this theme later in these -- reemphasized this theme later in the speeches. and i'm quoting "the focus of my speech is not about to get us where we are and where we need to go, but instead to discuss what it will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench." she continued, "no one can or should ignore pondering what it will mean or not mean in the development of the law." mr. president, in these speeches she cited statements of some who had a different point of view than hers. then she came back to her overriding theme and said this: "i accept the proposition that as judge resnik describes it, the judge is an exercise of power. and because as professor martha minow of harvard law school states there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging." mr. president, i believe judges must seek objective truth as found in the law of the case.

i do not believe in judicial relativism. so i find her comment alarming. the essence of judging is neutrality. that's why lady justice is depicted with a blindfold and that's why federal judges are required to swear an oath to administer justice without respect to persons and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and to faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon her. that oath makes no allowance for a judge to choose the result based on his or her perspective. the oath requires exactly the opposite, a dispassionate adherence to impartiality and the rule of law. now back to judge sotomayor's speech. after agreeing with law professors who say that there is no objective stance, only a series of perspectives, no neutrality, judge sotomayor then said -- and i quote -- "i further accept that our experiences as women and people of color will in some way affect

our decisions. what professor minow's quote means to me is not all women or people of color in all circumstances, but enough women and people of color in enough cases will make a difference in the process of judging." judge sotomayor is talking here about different outcomes in cases based upon who the judge is. she goes on to substantiate her case by citing an outcome in a case -- excuse me -- in a state court's father's visitation case and two studies which tend to show differences between women and men in making decisions in cases. she said -- and i quote -- "as recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not with you one woman or person of color in any situation, but as a group we will have an effect on the development of law and on judging." she continued, "our gender and national origins make and will make a difference in our

judging. to recap, judge sotomayor, in these speeches, announced her topic. she developed a theme. she refuted the argument of those with a different view and substantiated her point of view with some evidence. to this point she had made the case that gender or ethnicity will have an impact on the way judges decide cases. she had not rendered a judgment about whether this influence would provide better outcomes from her peck speck alternative. -- perspective. this is the context of the wise latina content. judge sotomayor quoted justice o'connor who said a wise old woman and wise old man would reach the same decisions. but judge sotomayor also said i am not sure i agree with that statement. i would hope that a wise latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life. judge sotomayor concluded, in other words, that not only will gender and ethnicity make a difference but that they should make a difference. she then acknowledged that some white male judges made some good

decisions in the past, but seemed to complain that it took a lot of time and effort, something not all people are willing to give, and so on. judge sotomayor concluded by saying -- and i quote -- "in short, i accept the proposition that differences will be made by the presence of women and people of color on the bench -- excuse me -- different opinions will be made by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts that i chose to see as a judge." she added, "i simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging, but i accept that there will be some based on gender and my latino heritage." even if the point of her speech was just to inspire young people or even to explore the question of whether judges could be influenced by their background, she should not have simply accepted that result. to conclude that judges could not avoid being so influenced

and then not admonish that of course a judge must try his or her best to avoid that result to try to set aside any bias and prejudice was to abdicate her role as a judge in teaching her audiences. never, not once in her speech did she say that the biases she discussed were harmful to impartial judging and needed to be set aside. instead, judge sotomayor's speeches seem to be celebrating these differences, these biases. clear and unmistakable inference in her speeches is that she embraces the fact that minorities and women will reach a different outcome, indeed a better outcome. before the judiciary committee, judge sotomayor refused to recant the speeches or acknowledge this egregious omission. but she did try desperately to convince committee members that her words conveyed a message other than the obvious one. indeed, according to judge sotomayor, her words conveyed the exact opposite meaning. she said -- and i quote -- "i was talking about the very important goal of the justice

system to ensure that the personal biases and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case. but i was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what their feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome." end of quote. mr. president, i read the speeches in their entirety many times, and i have verified that that is most certainly not what she was talking about. judge sotomayor's recharacterization of her speeches before the judiciary committee sounds like the objective neutral approach that her speech explicitly dismissed. it's hard to understand how the same person could honestly make both statements. they are apathetic. further examples abound but for the sake of time i'll offer only one more. when judge sotomayor tried to explain her disagreement with justice o'connor's statement about how a wise old man and wise old woman would reach the

same conclusions, she said, "the words that i used, i used agreeing with the sentiment that justice sandra day o'connor was attempting to convey. " that's not true, mr. president. her explanations strains credulity both as to whether she really believes judges should try to set aside biases, including those based on race and gender, and the basic element of judicial temperament, i.e. forthrightness, i conclude that she did not carry the very low burden of proof. i'd also like to discuss another of judge sotomayor's speeches and address to the puerto rican aclu on foreign law. first i should explain why this is so critical. there is a growing school of thought among some academics and even judges that foreign law and practices should be used as an aid to understanding and interpreting our own laws and constitution. this is problematic for two

reasons. first, as chief justice john roberts pointed out during his confirmation hearing, the consideration of foreign law by american judges is contrary to principles of democracy. foreign judges and legislators are not accountable to the american electorate. so using foreign law i-as a thumb on the -- even as a thumb on the scale to help decide key constitution issues devalues americans' expressions through the democratic process. it is simply irrelevant accept in a very few specific instances. second, even if the use of foreign law were not inconsistent with our constitutional system, its use would free judges to enact their personal preferences under the cloak of legitimacy. against this backdrop, judge sotomayor delivered her april 28, 2009, speech entitled "how federal judges look to international and foreign law under article 6 of the u.s. constitution." from that speech, we begin to see how foreign law could shape judge sotomayor's jurisprudence

in the future. her comments were not casual observations by directed to this specific topic and presumably says what she means. after conceding judges don't use -- excuse me use foreign or international law as binding precedent in a case, she nonetheless maintained that foreign law could and should be considered. in judge sotomayor's view, foreign law is a source for good ideas that can set our creative juices flowing. putting aside for a moment the fact that deciding an antitrust case or commerce clause dispute or indian law issue or an establishment of religion case does not require creative juices, judge sotomayor's suggestion that judges consider foreign law would interfere with the specific rules of construction or application of precedent. judge sotomayor went on in this same aclu speech to distance herself from two sitting judges who are -- justices, rather, who are critical of judges considering foreign law and

align her views with those of justice ginsburg who recently endorsed the use of foreign law at a symposium at ohio state university. specifically, judge sotomayor stated -- and i quote -- "the nature of the criticism comes from the misunderstanding of the american use of that concept of using foreign law. that misunderstanding is endorsed by some of our own supreme court justices. both justice scalia and justice thomas have written on the use of foreign international law in supreme court decisions. she continues, i share more of the ideas of justice ginsburg in thinking that unless american courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases and by international cases, we're going to lose influence in the world. justice ginsburg explained that foreign opinions can add to the story of knowledge relevant to the solution of the question. and she's right. end of quotation. judge sotomayor's rationale for

judges looking to foreign law so the united states does not lose influence in the world is astonishing. not only is such an approach irrelevant to the role of judges, vis-a-vis the other branches of government, by the way, arguably irrelevant even for the president and congress as a yardstick to measure u.s. domestic and foreign policy, it is totally irrelevant to the considerations of deciding any particular dispute between two parties. in response to question from committee members concerned about these statements, judge sotomayor, again, tried to drastically recharacterize her prior statements. she testified that her speech was quite clear. and i'm quoting now, that foreign law cannot be used as a holding or precedent to bind or to influence the outcome of legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law that doesn't direct you to that law. end of quote. but in april of this year, judge sotomayor said and i quote -- "ideas are ideas. an whatever their source whether

they come from foreign law or international law or a trial judge in alabama or a circuit court in california or any other place, the idea has validity. it can -- if it persuades you, you are going to adopt its reasoning." end of quote. these two statements cannot be squared even though they occurred 2 1/2 months apart. later in the hearing judge sotomayor gave the following testimony -- i will not use foreign law to interpret the constitution or american statutes. i will use american law, constitutional law to interpret those laws except in the situations where american law directs the court. end of quotation. while this kind of declarative statement would normally provide some measure of comfort, it is belied by the words that judge sotomayor uttered less than three months ago that judges were commanded, her word, to look at persuasive sources,

including foreign law in interpreting our own law. and it is even inconsistent with an exchange that judge sotomayor had with senator schumer earlier in the hearing in which she agreed that foreign law could be used as the same as traditional interpretive tools such as dictionaries. it give gives me great pause tht judge sotomayor can say one thing and then say the opposite while under oath in the judiciary committee especially since she never repudiated her speech. when judge sotomayor had an opportunity to reflect on her system, review the transcript an correct the record, she spined the meaning of the wore use. specifically as i noted in her hearing before the senate judiciary committee, judge sotomayor testified under oath that foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law

that doesn't direct you to that law. in written answers submitted for the record, she wrote, in my view american courts should not use foreign law in the sense of relying on decisions of foreign courts as binding or controlling precedent. except when american law requires a court to do so. in limited circumstances decisions of foreign courts can be a a source of ideas just as law articles can be a treaties of ideas. this does not constitute using those decisions to decide cases. end of quote. so we're back to considering, but not using -- or is it using as ideas but not as binding precedent? and if so, of what use are ideas if not used in some way? and if used in some way, could they influence the decision? i'm totally baffled how she can consider foreign law as a source

of ideas consistent with her testimony that foreign law should not influence the outcome of cases. effectively immediately after the hearing she rescinded her own sworn testimony regarding foreign law. judge sotomayor's supporters argue we should not focus on her speeches, but on her mainstream judicial record. they cite all manner of statistics that purport to show that judge sotomayor agreed with her colleagues, including republican colleagues most of the time. as the hard cases are where differences in judicial philosophy become apparent. i've looked at judge sotomayor's record in these hard cases. and, again, have found cause for concern. the u.s. supreme court has reviewed directly 10 of her decisions. eight of those decisions have been reversed or vacated. another sharply criticized. and one upheld in a 5-4 decision. indeed just in the past four

months the supreme court has seriesed judge sotomayor's panel three times. that does not inspire confidence. the most recent reversal is a case in point in ricci v. destefano, a case where judge sotomayor dismissed before trial the discrimination claims of 20 new haven firefighters, the supreme court reversed 5-4, with all nine justices rejecting key reasoning of judge sotomayor's court. but in my view the most astounding thing about the case was not the incorrect outcome reached by judge sotomayor's court, it was that she rejected the firefighter's claim in a mere one paragraph opinion and that she continued to maintain in the hearings that she was bound by precedence that supreme court said didn't exist. as the supreme court noted, ricci presented a novel issue two provisions of title 7 to be interpreted and reconciled with few if any precedence in the

court of appeals discussing the issue. end of quote. one would think this would be precisely the kind of case that deserved a thorough and thoughtful analysis. but judge sotomayor's court disposed of the case in an unsigned and unpublished opinion that contained -- contained zero analysis. this is confounding given judge sotomayor's committee testimony in which she said and i quote -- "i believe my 17-year record on the two kowrts show that in every case that i render, i first decide what the law requires under the facts before me and this what i do is explained to litigants why the law requires a result. whether their position is sympathetic or not, i explain why the result is commanded by the law." end of quote. because her initial decision was unpublished the case in the firefighter's meritorious claims would have been swept under the law and lost forever if not for

jose cabranes who read about the case in a local newspaper. judge cabranes looked into the situation and requested that the entire second circuit, including judges not involved in the original decision rehear the case. by a vote of 7-6, the second circuit denied rehearing the case with judge sotomayor providing the seventh and decisive vote to avoid further consideration of her panel's decision. fortunately for the firefighters, judge cabranes wrote a blistering dissent that no doubt caught the attention of the supreme court. he charged that judge sotomayor and her panel failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal. some have speculated that judge sotomayor's panel intentionally disposed of the case in a short, unsigned and unpublished opinion in an effort to hide it from further scrutiny. was the case intentionally kept off her colleague's radar, did

she have racial views? was it merely coincidence that the standard deducted by judge sotomayor which in the supreme court's words would encourage race-based action at the slightest hint of disparate impact and lead to a de facto quota system, the supreme court's words, was consistent with policy and legal positions advocated by the puerto rican legal defense fund, an organization in which she was intimately involved for 10 years. in repeated throughout the years judge sotomayor said -- if i accepted our experience as women of people and color affect our decisions -- excuse me. i accept. was this the case? judge sotomayor was asked about the ricci decision at length. her defense was that she was following established supreme court and second circuit precedent. the problem with this answer is that ricci presented a novel question for which there were no supreme court precedence

squarely on point. indeed the supreme court noted, as i said before, that there were few, if any, circuit court opinions addressing the issue as well. during the hearing i pressed judge sotomayor to identify those controlling supreme court and second circuit precedence that she said dictated the outcome in ricci. rather than answer the question, she disassembled and ran out the clock. perhaps that was because, as judge cabranes' dissent stated -- dissent stated, the scope of the municipal employers to disregard examination results based solely on the race of the successful applicants is not address bid any precedent of the supreme court or our court. but even if we accept judge sotomayor's contention that there was some relevant second circuit precedent, it is quite clear that such cases would not bind her or the other judges considering a review. it is telling even the obama

justice department found her legal position impossible to defend. it filed a brief in the case asking the supreme court to vacate and remand the case for further proceedings. essentially what the dissent favorite as well. the truth is we will never know the reasons that guided the outcome of the case. but we know at the very least that judge sotomayor exercised poor judgment in dismissing serious claims in an unsettled area of the law without engaging in any analysis of the juries. as judge cabranes wrote in dissenting from the denial of the hearing, the use of procuring the hearing of this sort without further elaboration is normally reserved for cases that present straightforward questions that do not require explanation or elaboration by the court of apeaches the questions raised in this appeal cannot be classified as such. as they are indisputably complex and far from well settled. clearly judge sotomayor did not adequately explain to litigants

or to the judiciary committee why the law required the results she supported. and she cast the decisive vote to ensure that the full circuit court would not review the case. is this the kind of behavior we should expect of a jiang who is -- from a judge who is seeking promotion to the supreme court? finally, if i had been a litigant before her court an judge sotomayor had asked me the questions that i asked her about ricci, and i had answered them as she responded to me in the hearing, she would rightly have told me to either sit down or start answering her questions. her answers answered nothing. and in my opinion violated her obligation to be forthcoming with the judiciary committee. ricci is not the only judge sotomayor decisions that gives me reason to question her commitment to impartial justice. i'm concerned about her analysis or lack thereof in maloney v. cuomo, a second amendment case

that could find its way to the supreme court next year. maloney was decided after the supreme court's landmark ruling in the district of columbia v. heller, which held that right to bear arms was an individual right that could not be taken away by the federal government. in maloney, judge sotomayor had the opportunity to consider whether that individual right could also be enforced against the states. a question that was not before the heller court. and, yet, another unsigned opinion judge sotomayor and two other judges held that it was not a right enforceable against the states. what are the legal implications of this holding? state regulations limiting or prohibiting the ownership and use of firearms would be subject only to the rational basis review. as sandy froman, a respected lawyer and former president of the national rifle association said in her witness testimony, this is a very, very low threshold that can easily be met by a state or a city that wishs to prohibit all gun ownership even in a home.

thus, if judge sotomayor's decision were allowed to stand as precedent, states will ironically be able to do what the federal district of columbia cannot, place a de facto prohibition on the ownership of guns and other arms. someone suggested that judge sotomayor's decision is not cause for alarm. they say she was simply following precedent and that maloney case is not necessarily indicative of what she would do if confirmed to the supreme court. and they point to a recent decision by the seventh circuit which similarly refused to apply the second amendment to state regulations. apart from the fact that her ruling is now binding in state's covered by the second circuit there is a critical difference between judge sotomayor's decision and that of the seventh circuit. while the judges on the seventh circuit explicitly declined to decide what would be the key issue before the supreme court, whether the second amendment's right to bear arms is in legal parl ens fundamental and

therefore enforceable in states. judge sotomayor's prefunctory decision did not leave this open. her panel specifically concluded without an explanation that the right to bear arms is in fact not a fundamental right. a conclusion that to the best of my knowledge no other court has ever reached and this as sandy froman noted would trample on the individual rights of america's near÷ 9 on million gun owners. it stands in contrast to the supreme court's own opinion in heller which not once, but twice, refers to the right to bear arms as fundamental. it is hard, if not impossible, to square these facts with judge sotomayor's asserted -- assertions -- excuse me, repeated assertions in sworn testimony before the judiciary committee that she was just following precedent. judge sotomayor's opinion in malone see extraordinary both for its lack -- maloney is extraordinary both for its lack of analysis and bore for its

reaching of conclusion that was wholly unnecessary. she could have just as easily chosen the path taken by the 7th circuit and reserved for the supreme court the opportunity to decide in the first instance whether the trite bear arms is fundamental. or like the ninth circuit, she could have undertaken a thorough analysis of the issue and determined that the right is indeed fundamental. she did neither. as sandy froman stated, "when fates with the most important question remaining after heller, whether the trite keep and bear arms is fundamental and applies to the states, judge sotomayor dismissed the issue with no substantive analysis. by failing to conduct a proper 14th amendment analysis, the maloney court evaded its judicial responsibilities, offered no guidance and provided no assistance in framing the issue for resolution by the supreme court. whenever an appellate judge fails to provide supporting analysis for their conclusion or address serious constitutional issues presented by the case, it is legitimate to ask whether the judge reached the conclusion by

application of the constitution and statutes or base odd a political or -- based on a political or social agenda." i agree. i did not expect or even want judge sotomayor to precommit to a particular reading of the second amendment. the judiciary committee, did however, have a right to receive from her an explanation of the maloney decision. at the very least, she could have been more forthcoming in response to questions regarding recusal, but she would not even commit to recusing herself from the supreme court's consideration of her own maloney decision if it were taken up as part of a consolidated appeal. i think it's fair to say that judge sotomayor's tbevment the second amendment -- testimony about the second amendment raised more question than it answered. th issue of incorporation is bound to come before the supreme court. those of us who support the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be very concerned about the position she has already taken and the fact that she has clearly reserved the opposite of reviewing -- reserved the option of reviewing the case on the court that she

could be confirmed to. particularly on a matter that she has already decided. as we've seen, judge sotomayor's testimony about her previous speeches and some of her decisions is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with her record. similarly, her testimony about the extent of her role with the puerto rican legal defense fund is in tension with the evidence that we have. at her hearing, judge sotomayor tried to down play her role at prldef. she said, "i was not like justice ginsburg or justice marshall. i was not a lawyer on the fund, as they were, with respect to the organizations they belonged to. i was a board member." in emphasizing her role as a longtime board member, judge sotomayor deflected attention from her service in litigation focused positions, such as her eight years on the litigation committee and the four years she served as that committee's chairperson. as anyone who is familiar with

advocacy and public interest groups can attest, it is inconceivable that the chair of an organization's litigation committee would not have a significant role in shaping the organization's legal strategy. moreover, judge sotomayor's testimony that it was not my practice and not that i know of of any board member to review briefs, is undermined by prldef's own meeting minutes. for example, on october 8, 1987 -- quote -- "the litigation committee chairperson sotomayor summarized the activities of the committee over last several months, which included the review of the litigation efforts of the past and present." "new york times" has detailed her active involvement as recounted by former prldef colleagues who have described judge sotomayor as a top policy-maker who played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances. according to these reports, she frequently met with the legal staff to review the status of cases and was involved and in

ardent support of their various legal efforts during her time with the group. what were the litigation positions advanced by prldef during judge sotomayor's ten through? well, it argued in court imreefs that restrictions on abortions are annan gus to slavery, and approximate t repeatedly voted tests similar to the one at issue in ricci. mr. president, i want to return to a question i raised in my opening statement of judge sotomayor's hearing. what is the traditional basis for judging in america? for 220 years, presidents and the senate have focused on appointing and confirming judges and justices who are committed to putting aside their biases and prejudices and applying the law fairly and impartially to resolve disputes between parti parties. this principle is universal recognized and shared by judges across the wide ideological spectrum. for instance, judge richard paez

of the ninth circuit, with whom i disagree on a number of issues, explained this in the same venue where, less than 24 hours earlier, judge sotomayor made her remarks about a wise latina woman making better decisions than other judges. judge paez describes the instructions that he gives to jurors who are about to hear a case. as jurors, he said, "recognize that you might have some bias or prejudice, recognize that it exists and determine whether you can control it so that you can judge the case fairly, because if you cannot, if you cannot set aside those prejudices, biases and passions, then you should not sit on the case." and then judge paez said, "the same principle applies to judges. we take an oath of office. at the federal level, it is a very interesting oath. it says in part that you promise or swear to do justice to both the poor and the rich. the first time i heard this oath," he says, "i was startled

by its significance. i have my oath hanging on the wall in my office to remind me of my obligations. and so although i am a latino judge -- and there's no question about that -- i am viewed as a latino judge, as i judge cases, i try to judge them fairly. i try to remain faithful to my oath." what judge paez said has been the tarnd fo standard for 220 y. it correctly describes the fundamental and proper role both for jurors and judges. before the hearing, my biggest question about judge sotomayor was whether she could abide by that standard. we spent three days asking her questions trying to understand what she meant in some of her controversial speeches and what drove her to questionable conclusions in cases likery exphee maloney -- like ricci and maloney. judge sotomayor did not dispel my concerns. her sworn testimony was evasive, lacking in substance and in several instances, incredibly misleading.

her december bling was widening noticed. indeed, in an editorial, "the washington post" criticized judge sotomayor's testimony about her wise la teen la teen astatement. here's what the post said. "judge sotomayor's attempts to explain away and distance herself from that statement were unconvincing and, at times, uncomfortably close to disen disingenuous, especial when she argued that her reason for raising questions about gender or race was to warn against injecting personal biases into the judicial process. her repeated and lengthy speeches on the matter do not support that interpretation." until now, judge sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority, the supreme court. if confirmed, there would be no such restraint that would prevent judge sotomayor from, to paraphrase president obama, deciding cases based on her heartfelt views. if the burden is on the nominee to prove herself worthy of a

lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court, she must do more than avoid a meltdown in her testimony. she must be able to rationalize contradictory statements, assuming that she does not repudiate one or the other. like the differences between her speeches and her committee testimony. her failure to do that has left me unpersuaded that judge sotomayor is absolutely committed to setting aside her biases and impartially deciding cases based on the rule of law. judge sotomayor is obviously intelligent, experienced, and talented. she represents one of the greatest things about america: the opportunity to become whatever you want with your god-given abilities. she's a role model for young women as well as minorities specifically. she's personallable and apparently hard working. i respect the views of those who regard her well. moreover, i appreciate her many declarations during the hearing that judges must decide cases solely on the basis of the facts and the law. and especially her disagreement

with the president's erroneous, i believe, formulations that in the hard cases, a judge should rely on empathy and what's in his or her heart. and it may have been possible to vote to confirm her notwithstanding her decisions in ricci, maloney and some other questionable cases. what i cannot abide, however, is her unwillingness to forthrightly confront the contributions amopping her many statements -- among her many statements so as to give us confidence that her judiciary committee testimony represents what she really believes and what she will really do. instead, she would have us believe that there is no contradiction, that she can hold on to what she said before in speeches and decisions. for example, that she merely followed supreme court and circuit precedent in maloney and that the dissenters in ricci didn't really disagree with her reasoning. and also her testimony. and i cannot ignore her unwillingness to answer senators' questions straightforwardly.

for instance, her insistence that as chair of prldef's litigation committee, she had little to do with the organization's legal positions. she has not carried her burden of proof and, therefore, regrettably, i cannot vote to confirm her. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. kyl: mr. president, i would withhold the notation of the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess in 5:00 p.m. attacks.

host: ws. >> we are joined now by senator patrick leahy, a democrat from vermont. i want to start asking you about the nomination of sonia sotomayor in today's story talking about the white house meeting yesterday between president obama and democrats. there was so little suspense.

health care and climate change. this is not even an issue. this one is done. >>guest: it came up. i was sitting next to the president. we chatted a little bit about it, but i told him he has other things to worry about. i'll take care of this. he made a good nomination, and she is going to be confirmed. it will be a bipartisan vote. it will be a significant vote. >>host: are you surprised by the number of republicans who say they will not support her nomination. >>guest: i am surprised. some seem to have taken the attitude that no matter who the president nominated they were going to vote no. i jokingly say if he had nominated moses they would have voted no. others have been irresponsible and thought it through.

i guess it is about the way he or she wants, but her qualifications, she is, after all, more experienced on the federal bench than a nominee to the supreme court in decades. over three thousand cases. the highest possible rating from the apa. she was a prosecutor having tremendous reputation. she was rated as the mainstream judge by just about every organization. if she had been nominated by a republican president i suspect every one of them would be voting for her. but i appreciate those who back the party. they were told by their party leadership to vote against her. i appreciate those who did not. i will say this to compliment

the republican senators. when she was first nominated the leaders of the republican party the equivalent of the head of the ku kux klan. another senator use that terminology. they express different reasons for being against her, but they did not use that. i thought it was a very respectful hearing. i agreed to both sides having as much time as they wanted to ask questions. as you know, we went several days. she was in a great deal of discomfort from her broken ankle. i appreciate the fact that every republican found a way to compliment. i'm glad that at least one republican nominee is going to move forward. >>host: and that is. >>guest: very interesting comments. very similar to what i made

about john roberts when president bush nominated him for chief justice of united states. senator graham said that this is not a person he would have recommended to a republican president, but elections have consequences. it's a democratic president. she is qualified. so he is going to vote for her. i said the same thing about chief justice roberts. he's not the person i would have recommended to a democratic president, but when president bush nominated him he was qualified. and so i voted for him. it went against my party leadership in doing so. >>host: before we go to calls, lots of questions. one of the side debates is what it will do with hispanic voters. the "washington post" had this story talking about republican opposition. and then the comment, latino

see her as a symbol of hispanic a vice presidential candidates including john mccain. if they vote against sotomayor it's a vote against hispanic in america. >>guest: here is a person. if she had been nominated by a republican president they would all be supporting your because she is so extraordinarily well qualified, both as a prosecutor and a trial judge. then as the court of appeals judge. actually, the only person with trial judge experience to serve, currently serve on the u.s. supreme court. and she does have a compelling life story. her father died when she was very young. her mother worked very hard as a nurse to raise her children. she became a lawyer.

grew from the projects. all of these kind of things. it is the american dream, the sort of thing that most immigrants tell their children, if you do this, if you work hard, you can succeed in america. she did it. she worked hard. now i think many in the hispanic community say, why are people trying to close the door? she has done everything she is supposed to do. there's going to be a big rally here in washington today by a number of civil rights groups and hispanic groups. frankly, i understand why they feel that way. they have -- letters from them into the record. i speak about that again on the set for today. they have a great sense of pride about this woman, and they should. >>host: when is the final vote expected? >>guest: i'm not sure. i suspect it will be sometime tomorrow. >>host: okay. >>guest: it will be a bipartisan vote answer will be

confirmed. usually the supreme court comes in the first monday of october. this year it is coming in an extraordinary session in september. she will be on the court when they come in september. >>host: let's go to callers. bill on the republican line. >>caller: i am troubled by what i see as a double-standard. when clarence thomas was nominated you folks tried to fry him on the judiciary committee because he was nominated. he was not the type of black person you wanted, but in no way did the blacks ever rise up and say, oh, shame on you democrats for trying to ruin clarence thomas. however, when republicans say something about sotomayor's decision that she made in the firefighter case, when it is so clearly obvious that they passed that test and were not given the promotion because they were white. oh, no. that is not supposed to be

something that the whites talk about. but when someone votes against sonia sotomayor it is always talked about like you just did. >>guest: my vote against clarence thomas was because i felt he did not tell the truth. i said so at the time. i have said -- you may have missed the beginning of the program. i said that none of the republican senators have talked the way you describe. that was some of the republican leadership who did that. they have not. i appreciate that. you also misstated the results of the firefighter case. she followed precendent. she was bound by a supreme court decisions that mandated the

decision. republican appointees as well as democratic appointees, the decision they came out with was mandated by what the supreme court precedents were at that time. the supreme court in a 5-4 decision changed the precendent. >>host: john on the independent line. >>caller: senator leahy, i will make this very brief. first regarding judge sotomayor. i was not happy with her answers during the hearing i watched. >>guest: what was it you did not like?

>>host: i don't want to make that the purpose of my call. i want to speak to you as a senator. we have not heard much from you relating to the health care program. so i wanted to make a couple of comments and get your answers to it. one, i don't think that we need a major overhaul of the health care system. i think there are a few issues that could dramatically cut costs and still maintain the healthy system. i hear nothing about addressing the enormous amount of fraud in medicare and medicaid, which reaches into the billions of dollars. if that issue were focused on more aggressively i think that would save an enormous amount of money. >>guest: well, for one thing, one of the reasons you have not heard a great deal from me, not on any of the committees that handle health care. i have passed legislation on was the president is about to sign into law.

it will protect americans, consumers in mortgage areas. more than just saying let's go after fraud. we have to ask why it is that prescription medications cause so much more in the united states than virtually any other country. i think that is something worth looking at. why some hospitals can cut costs by having electronic records so that they don't have to have duplicates. they save money. why can't everybody do that? think one of the things that is very obvious is we cannot continue. we are spending far more than any other country on earth per capita for our health care, and our people way behind in every

single index there is in the health. >>host: with the sotomayor hearing wrapping up this week, what will the issues be? >>guest: we still have a lot of nominations. a lot of them have been blocked. i'm not sure why. i'm hoping that they will go through also this week. we both take up those other nominations. we are going to have to have what is going to be a very hot-button item. we have tried it before. immigration reform. i don't think anybody feels that the immigration system today is working the way it should. homeland security. most republicans and democrats feel it is not working. the big thing will be, how to you put together. i much prefer and agree strongly with president george w. bush on this to have a comprehensive immigration reform bill rather than a piecemeal one. i think the proposal of

president bush, members of his own party supported him. i think we would be better off if it had passed. there is no perfect answer when you have a country as large and diverse as ours, but we can do much better. that is going to be a major, major issue. we are going to go into some significant antitrust matters. i would like to see change ended the crack cocaine ratio which makes no sense. it was put in at another time before people understood. that is going to have to be changed. we're going to have a pretty full plate. >>host: let's go to john on the democratic line. washington, d.c. >>caller: hello. first i want to say i was watching the confirmation. i think you guys did a great job. and then the second statement i would like to say is that for your representatives and

senators out there, i think everyone should be able to go into townhall. i think it is unfair it that you can bus people from other areas to block information that we can hear. >>guest: well, i agree with that. in my state it is one congressional district. we are such a small state, we only have 600,000 people. it is a little bit different in my state because everybody knows me. my wife and i go to the grocery store. people come up and chat about any kind of issue. at the gas station putting gas in my car, walking down the street, going to the farmer's market. people have a chance to talk. i think it is discouraging when you have a small group of people who are bussed in to make a big scene at the town meeting. usually you have veterans and people who are concerned about

health care, people concerned about -- maybe they have family members in the military in afghanistan or iraq. they are concerned about the environment. and they would actually like to ask the member of congress a question. they have a small group that wants to shout and carry on. the president wasn't born here. even though everybody knows he was born in the united states. these things, i think it is unfortunate. fortunately in vermont we tend not to have -- fortunately in vermont people know there are only three members of our delegation, all three of us are easily approachable. members of congress, government, legislature, everybody is very approachable. >>host: okay. rebecca on the republican line. >>caller: good morning. do you remember? i am sure you do.

right? >>guest: yes. >>caller: that is sort of how i see your attitude with these republicans are playing politics. you don't like it, and you're shocked. come on. i'm sure that you can understand. i'm hoping that you can understand. this is my question. i am a child of the '60's raised to be colorblind as far as race goes. can you understand how when someone said, a latino person or any other race could make a better decision than a white man or a black man or whoever it is, that those kinds of words deeply troubled me. i was raised in a world without

race. colorblind society, that should be our goal. >>guest: were you upset when clarence thomas used similar words when president -- when a republican president nominated him? >>host: the line is gone. >>guest: well, that is her speech. i'm not going into that. she has said only to answer the question. ultimately and completely the law is what covers. just about every nominee has spoken about their background. his background. every good members of his family. that shapes his thinking. certainly i find nothing wrong

with that. his background, how that shaped his thinking. we are not all the same. even as members of the senate are not the same. her@@@@@@úã >> caller: when will you folks who call yourselves leaders start to step out of the way? you have repeatedly blown reasonable planning opportunities for our country, all in favor of your own selfish political gains. when are you going to get out of

the way of the average person? the majority of people living in this country are not political members, not members of any political party. >> guest: when will i start -- stop beating my wife? this is -- a question like that really doesn't bear answering. >> host: from michigan, sabrina on the democratic line. >> caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. thank you for working for the american people. that is rare these days. i am calling for a couple reasons. for the health care, nine years ago today i was involved in a high-speed rollover accident which has left me unable to live my life the way i want. my husband pays with his

employer, half of our medical insurance which is over 7 randy year and our copays run into a $500 a month in addition to paying almost 8 grand a year for our house. since we have these expenses due to having this accident and i can't buy my own insurance because his employer has healthcare, they won't let me by my own. i will have to file bankruptcy because of being unable to cover the high cost of health care, and it is a crime that people are calling in against this system when they probably don't even a nickel for their own health care as it is. >> guest: the caller raises one of the most troubling things in

this country. we find bankruptcies for the middle class, the highest percentage of bankruptcies in the middle class are caused because of health care bills. study after study has shown that. it is just one more example of why we need to have a better system than we do. no other industrialized nation faces these kind of problems. the most industrialized nations have healthier people. i was at the luncheon yesterday with the president, work together, try to figure out how to get a health care plan, the two major committees that handle that in the senate worked very hard, they accepted something like 10051160 republican amendments, that was done in a bipartisan way. but the worst thing would be to continue to talk about it and

not do it. >> host: the cash for clunkers extension that is expected, does financial times have an opinion editorial on it where they write the u.s. government should not try to subsidize the structure of the country, it should not attempt to demand automobiles rather than other products. they sustain the capacity that they are unable to pay for in full. most legislators subsidizing cars in perpetuity, foundation in job loss since the auto sector. the government should invest and prepare for it. are you going to vote for the extension? >> guest: i talked to the secretary of transportation last night. i want to know how well this worked, the hold on money going into bailouts of the banks, and others. i am not sure that worked very well. this one seems to be working but i don't know how and what it is

doing. it certainly isn't. my wife and i have a car that is almost 10-year-old. it gets pretty good gas mileage. i am not about to trade for 2 mpg more. i go back and forth. i am not trying to duck your question. the secretary last night, ray a laho lahood, i am not sure whether this is the world's best ideal or not. >> host: we have barber on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i would like to say the hearings went fairly well because when the republicans opposed someone for a judicial seat, they complained about her philosophies and issues and the way she started, democrats go

after personal character. you said you did not vote for clarence thomas because he lied. sonia sotomayor was not very consistent, she disagreed with statements she previously made. i have a problem with her because she had an issue, she wouldn't answer the question about americans have a right to self-defense, and she has also had multiple statements that have gone up that have been overturned. i have a problem with the way she comes down on the rules. >> guest: she has had 3,000 cases, 98% of them have not been overturned. i think most people in baseball would like a record like that. >> host: next call from georgia, richard on the independent line. >> caller: good morning.

my concern with the voting process, i think many people in the country are losing confidence in our voting system. we have -- right now being investigated or being decided in 13 states and being considered for other states, yet i see in the house of representatives, the chairman of the judiciary committee refused to investigate this problem. my question to you, sir, as chairman of the judiciary committee and the senate, will you put forth an initiative to protect our voting system? our ballot system which many people i've talked to, thinks that the whole system is basically rid? >> guest: after seeing the mistakes in the bush/gore

election, we saw how poorly the system was run. the thing that bothers me, i like having a paper trail, others do not. i do not like the idea of having just an electronic voting, i want a paper trail so fat when you do have a recount you can go back and find the actual ballots. that protect republicans and democrats. what bothers me the most is the low turnout in elections in this country. i was too busy that date to vote, i would have gone but it was raining, that is no excuse. we have one of the highest voter turnouts anywhere in the country

but we need a lot more. i have been in countries where they had dictatorships, they finally have a chance to go, you see people lining up at 2:00 in the morning to have a chance to vote. i would like to see us do the same thing. i think we should have a consistent type of floating around the country, we should be consistent in checking what was done, states are going to have to determine -- checking the record afterward if there's a recount. i would like to see more done to get people to come out and vote to begin with. >> host: our last call, stephanie on the democratic line. >> caller: good morning. i am very glad to get a chance to talk to you. i think you handle the judiciary committee chair just right. the other thing that i wanted to

say, they have done a good job with both of the senators. i am from south carolina and upstate. i really don't have the committee senators that represent my point of view so i watch you. also, i wanted to say on health care, the meetings where they are busing people in, i really thought they would put security up and make them show -- they have an opportunity to discuss this in a grown-up, intelligent manner. because we need to do something here. >> guest: i have heard it from a lot of people. people ought to be heard

actually care about this. so many people take time off of work or have to get babysitters to come to a town meeting so they can't actually have matters discussed. they don't need somebody to bust in from elsewhere who just want to disrupt the hearing, raise questions, those born in kenya are able to thing 40 years ago, have announcements placed in the honolulu papers for. these things, would if they want to demonstrate like that, have a big demonstration, they have a right to do that but the people who want to talk about health care, want to talk about social security, want to talk about their families in iraq or afghanistan or how they're going to get jobs, they need to have a chance to be heard. killed >> host: thank you for joining

us. >> guest: you have the nicest location on capitol hill. >> the u.s. senate is in recess so democratic members can attend a party caucus meeting. they have continued work on judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. even with a number of senate is yet to speak, majority leader harry reid is confident a final confirmation vote will take place this week. also possible, an infusion of funds for the cash for clunkers program and work on a bill promoting u.s. tourism. more live senate coverage at 5:00 p.m. eastern when the gavel comes down on c-span2. we have lots of information on the sonia sotomayor nomination available. the can watch videos of the senate debate. a confirmation hearing with the senate judiciary committee and various speeches she had some given and conference that she has participated in. you can read her written answers to questions from the judiciary committee. that is all available at

c-span.org. as the senate continues in their break. we will show you more from washington journal with a chat we had this morning with senator jim rich, republican from idaho. >> host: let's start with one of the big topics, you have said he will oppose her nomination. why is that? >> guest: for the exact same reason president obama opposed the two nominations he voted on. she was kind enough to spend a considerable amount of time to me, and to my questions, she was a charming person, well-educated, bright. like every senator, take their constitutional responsibility very seriously. the president is in charge of the first part. he didn't ask me for my advice but i am in charge of the second

part, consent. he made his decision on the two nominees that he voted on for philosophical reasons. he believe these people were too conservative from his point of view, whether you call that philosophical or ideological, in any event, he believed they were too conservative. i come at this, the exact same point of view, i represent a state which is probably one of the most conservative states in the united states and frankly i have difficulty because of her political philosophy. the second amendment is very important. she is at the very least soft on the second amendment. she has called it a right that is not fundamental. from a purely legal standpoint, i have difficulty when someone talks about a rate that is

guaranteed in the constitution that is not fundamental, it is not a fundamental right. that causes me considerable difficulty when most rights guaranteed by the constitution. >> host: the cash for clunkers program, an extension of an existing one billion dollars program. you oppose that. what is your position on the klunkers program? >> guest: i voted against it first time. this is giving out a billion dollars that we don't have. it is my grandkids's billion dollars, not mine and no one else's. the difficulty i have is the industry is having difficulties, every industry in america, our family ranches, my friends at home what -- said what about bucks for beef? every single industry is struggling. if we are going to stand on the

corner and hand out money, it is just not right. the question is, from a purely republican standpoint, what is the proper role of government, the proper role of government is handing out money to people from buying cars. i voted against it for that reason. now, having been in place for some time, what we see is a government which, as usual, is kidnapped and handling most anything. they can't tell us how much is spent, they can't tell us how much is going to be spent, they don't know how many applications are in the pipeline. as usual it is a government disaster. i don't see any need to further that. >> host: you are one of two republican senators who was elected for the first time in 2008 to the senate in a year that was not particularly good for the republican party. you need -- what are your thoughts on the republican party and how they are doing in the eyes of the american voter?

>> guest: that is an ongoing issue and probably much more credible. my statements about this -- last fall on a generic ballot, the republicans were down 12 points. obviously, i see the polls every week, look at the pole, the average. the average is even, one has a simpler point. it has changed dramatically in the last six months. as much as i would like to say that is us doing it, i suspect it is probably the other side that is doing it. in any event, that has changed dramatically in my last six months. i remember watergate. my friends in the republican party says this is a terrible, you should have been around and watch richard nixon did in the helicopter and leave the white house. our stock was a lot more than it

is today. >> host: if you have a question, 202-727-6271. before we go to view work also want to get your thoughts on another big issue, health care reform through congress. in a new york times story, the meaning of the senate democrats at the white house, president obama urged democratic senators to persevere in getting a bipartisan deal on health care and left open the possibility they might have to pass a bill. if republicans stood in the way everyone recognizes we are going to do, if there's any human way of doing it, a bipartisan bill, quote, we don't want to do a partisan bill but we hope our republican colleagues acknowledge that. we will continue to work with them as long as we have to. is there some bipartisanship? >> guest: how long is this

program? there is bipartisanship. it is in a position -- you don't have to take my word for it. any democrat governor in the united states, what would happen to their state budget and their state taxes if congress passed the proposals that democrats and president obama had, it would bankrupt the states. they have been very -- it is bipartisan, but the opposition was bipartisan. >> host: -- we have jeff, republican line. >> caller: our you doing today? i have a question. i want to know why, all week long, all i hear the democrats saying the republicans don't have a plan, they are just no, no, no, hopefully most of the democrats that recalling in --

the republicans do have a plan, it is toward reform, opening the borders, pre-existing condition clause, all the good things we need to do to bring down health costs. to meet that sounds like a reasonable plan and the right one for this country and i don't understand why the republicans are not pushing that agenda even harder than they are with their own commercials and homeward -- said they will understand when obama fails in his attempt. >> guest: that is a really good question. we get used to being -- opposing the health care reform. i don't think anyone is in favor of doing some type of health care reform. rainout the other side is headed 100 miles an hour in the wrong direction. a bipartisan effort will go 50

miles an hour in the wrong direction doesn't cut it. we do have ideas. there are different plans on the table. our goals are in the opposite direction of where the democrats are headed. anything that should be market-driven non-government plan. it should be patient -- so that the patient, we, americans, have full control of our health care, both insuring it, the delivery of it and the assessment of it. last of all, it should be quality focus. these are the objectives we want to meet. unfortunately, this issue is very complicated. there was a lot of promising that took place in the last campaign and they are attempting to deliver on that promise and the other side is finding that

it is virtually impossible. no one has yet broken it into component parts. health care reform means different things to different people. to the president it means everyone will be covered. to doctors and hospitals, they will finally be paid 100% of their costs delivering services. to the average american, in means having absolute, full control over their own health care conlan and a lower cost estimate to -- each group, in means something different. everyone is trying to resolve all aspects of this at once. it just doesn't work. >> host: jack, democratic line. >> caller: international union, trying to -- i serve for 6 years as a trustee on our health and

trust fund. a good amount of rage. i had to tell them to put more money into health care. i saw our health care drip. i have to go back and tell them that it needs to be lowered from 300,000 to 150,000 to 100,100,000 to 75,000. it pains me to do that because if anybody had a heart attack and needed open-heart surgery, they are going to get hit with $45,000 out of pocket. we had to increase our eco pays. they got mad at me.

i accessories --had access -- i across canada. they love their canadian national health care. people cry about that and it is not true. >> guest: we are just the opposite. we are both ways. we hear both stories, you are just the opposite of what you just reported. i also heard the president say our health care isn't any better than any other places in the world. believe me, if you or a loved one were diagnosed with breast cancer you want that to happen right here in america. if you looked at the difference in the success rate, the treatment and survival of breast cancer, the difference is

stunning and significant between the american system and virtually every other system in the world. that is true with a lot of other diseases. we hear it both ways but the statistics are pretty clear that we do have a good health system in america. i will be the first to say it is an expensive system and that everyone is finding out right now. there were a lot of promises of lowering the cost of health care. one of the difficulties is it is an expensive system because we americans demand the best. when you demand the best, obviously you're going to wind up having to pay for it, the sinister oame is true of innovah as different prescriptions. let the government pay for it, the government is us. if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until

is free. there's a lot of truth to that. when you are talking about a trillion dollars, that is the bottom, it could go much higher than that. that is a lot of money. that is what we're talking about, to bring the new lower-cost health-care online. >> host: president clinton has arrived with angeles to bring detained in north korea. what do you make of the trip. >> guest: certainly great congratulations have to go to this administration, to the president, to hillary clinton, secretary of state and bill clinton for what they have done.

people predicted this for a long time, the north koreans would use it as a photo op, to raise their standing in the world. they still have great difficulties in that country. there is a long way to go. suddenly, anything to try to open the gates is important. i think everyone here is going to breathe a sigh of relief. these two ladies are coming home, we are very glad for that. >> host: next caller from franklin, new hampshire on the independent line. >> host: and the independent line. >> caller: how long area and to be in the senate? >> guest: i was in the senate for 6 months, i have been 30 years in the state senate and the prosecuting attorney. i am new to the senate but not

public service. >> guest: -- >> caller: no one can do anything -- within the confines of the law. let's say my house is on fire, pick up the phone, call the fire department, they show up and take care of the problem. someone breaks into my house i call the police department, they come and take care of the problem. why can't we go to a single payer system and why can't we rely on it? as citizens of this country, we support our police and fire departments and any other socialized system to protect and serve us, yet we are allowing the insurance companies to make huge amounts of profit. i can't understand why. >> guest: fair question.

i trust the fire department to put out the fire in my house, they do a great job. i trust the police department, we have a lot of difficulty in issues to do that. i do not trust the united states government to take over the delivery of health care for myself, my children and my grandchildren. this is -- delivery of health care is complex. mort than that, it is very personal. i watched the government tried to succeed. i have no confidence. e. julie in minnesota. caller: i don't think people understand with the healthcare. some people have said they hope

no one takes it away from them. but there will be 7.5 million jobs lost if our health insurance industry is disturbing go we are a free country. i hope that someone records this. i do not believe that you can create this with government intervention. you cannot create private ownership with government if the government taxes and easements and eminent domain that they are doing. you can't create our free trade by taxing all means of production and selling the air. you can't create a voter base with this pay for play and the nonprofit illegal immigration, and you're not going to create national security with this crisis and fear and compromised borders. we are not going to have leaders if we don't have education. if we have education that lacks the competitive spirit and servitude and we are not going to create national pride in all

of these apologies for arrogance and shame and you're not going to create our defense, strong defense with this week offense we have. we don't believe you can create economic prosperity with government takeovers and leveraged buyouts. you're not going to create healthy people by taking over the industries. i hope he will tell people we don't want any more government expansion powers, the czars, you're not going to create a spirit of unity when you just ignore people and pretend we are not out there. i've got a congressman oberstar that doesn't listen to anybody in my district, the eighth district in minnesota. i am so i'm happy our stimulus money paid for bike paths and things like that when we have got blinders work not for the labor party and i just think that the staff years and insults to people that don't agree with this 20% of progressives that are running our country is just ridiculous. >> guest: well, let me go back to the very first sentence. she made a statement interesting

and that is that this is complicated. why now the senate committee passed on a party-line vote bill. we haven't seen the bill yet, it's not printed. there's three of them in the house and each is about 1100 pages. i invite anyone to randomly pick a page out of the 1100 pages and read it and then try to explain to me in plain english exactly what that says. this is going to be a disaster if they keep trying to push this as rapidly as they are because everybody talks in platitudes. everybody talks in generalities. nobody talks in specifics and there isn't anybody that knows what is in the 1100 bills except the staffers the road and only they are familiar with the particular or pages the brooch, and so we need -- it's much more important this be done right than in a hurry. president obama has for years in the term. he doesn't have to have this done in the first year. we need to do this right and the only we it is going to be done right is if we step back and

take a breath and known exactly where we are going so we don't get a bit by the law of unintended consequences. >> host: silver spring maryland we have data on the democratic line. >> caller: good morning, senator. thank you for the opportunity. negative watching c-span and before that i felt converse was filled with stupid people. [laughter] now that i've watched them i know that the congress is not filled with stupid people. they are smart. but what i don't understand is why is congress as an institution so ineffective and screwed up? >> guest: well, you know, that's a really good question, and the question is easily answered. and that is democracy is not efficient. it wasn't designed to be efficient. it is full of acrimony and fall of disagreement that the great thing about this country and it's the greatest country government ever devised by

people and is the people's government. we debate back and forth and then we vote and we accept the results of that vote even though we may grumble about it and even though we may disagree it is the way that we do things, and for all of the complaints that we all have about our country, if you just travel abroad for a little bit when you come home you kiss the ground when you get off the airplane because it is the best country in the world. >> host: pittsburgh pennsylvania, independently. >> caller: three points. first, thank you to c-span. it's a blessing. no commercials, especially commercials. i wish people would go more independent. the people in america that boat american independent we will lose this partisanship between the republicans who have their fault and democrats who have their weaknesses and faults.

to the senator, i would like to say you sound very partisan, that is really disagreeable for american values and americans when you say you border back and forth, and actually when you do is vote republican vote one way, democrats vote the other way. and the last thing i would like to say is about health care. you mentioned breast cancer. my mother died of breast cancer. my aunt had both of her breasts removed. i and 53 middle-aged, middle-income worked all my life. all of my retirement plan to pay for two years for my son to go to college. i don't know what i'm going to do the next two years. my point on health care is this colin quote i have no health insurance. we are a working family. i am unemployed now, thanks to all the republican shenanigans and nafta agreement clinton got

bulldog into signing all i were, like, ross perot said they all went overseas. my point, when i get a lump on my breast, which are likely well, what will i do? the craziest thing is i will go to a bank and hand them a note and say give me all of your money and wait on the ground and wheat so i can go to a federal prison and had my cancer treated. >> guest: let me respond to the republicans vote like republicans and democrats would like democrats. to that i would say thank goodness. when people go to the polls to vote for people who have the same philosophical bent that we do, but we -- we see issues all the time that are very much philosophical and republicans to think in a free market way and

democrats look to a government solution for all problems. and so there is no doubt the two parties have philosophical differences, and very frankly the strength of this country comes from the debate between the two. neither party wins 100% of the time and the pendulum swings back and forth in the country. sometimes the republicans are in charge. sometimes the democrats are in charge, and it is really given the strength to this country we live better than any people could ever have hoped to live, even the rulers and the richest of people in centuries past. so we should all be thankful for what we do have here today. >> host: winston salem north carolina on the republican line. >> caller: how are you doing today? >> host: good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: good morning. we are talking about the expense of health care. we don't need health care

reform. we have the best health care in the world. but we do need is other reforms, medicaid and medicare needs to be reformed because the doctors are now being paid the amount for their services they should be paid, therefore when the rest of us go to the doctors were directly supplementing to pay for that cost so that makes our costs go up. and also what needs to be reformed is lawsuits that go on because the doctors are having to pay money out for insurance to cover lawsuits. they look at us as individuals if we don't work for a company. it should be very large groups and i think across state lines is good, too, and do away with pre-existing conditions. >> guest: well, you know, those are points that are really well taken. i have said from day one that before we take on health care we should fix social security, fix medicare and fix medicaid. all three of those trying and

social programs are good programs here in america, but they are not destined for continuing if something isn't done. they are not sustainable currently in their present financial condition. not only that but the building are talking about makes it worse as an example one of the ways they talk about paying for this health care reform is to reduce medicare benefits. i'm not going to vote for that and i don't know if they are going to be about to find anybody over there to vote for that. i would hate to go home and told the elderly in my state i took benefits away from them so we could do this health care reform. medicaid is the same if you up the eligibility it would break the states. social security as we all know is going to run out of money so those are points that are well taken and that is we have to rejoin and social problem programs in america which worked really quite well that something has got to be done about them

instead of writing a brandt neubig social safety net that itself is going to be on sustainable the day it was on the books. >> host: we have to leave it there. senator, thanks for being with us. >> guest: thank you. enjoyed being here.

how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> maybe government grants. >> i would say donations. >> advertising for products. >> public money, sure. >> my taxes. >> call is c-span fonted? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. president obama today announced the government will

provide $2.4 billion to boost the manufacturing of electric vehicles. it was part of the speech on the economy that took place at a rv manufacturing plant in wakarusa indiana. this is half an hour. [applause] [cheering] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. [cheering] thank you so much. [applause] thank you. please, everybody have a seat. thank you so much. well, it is wonderful to be in wakarusa. thank you so much for the wonderful welcome. hermann, thanks for the great introduction. it is great to be back in indiana. [applause] [cheering] this is as close as i've gotten to home in a while. [laughter] and i flew out here with somebody who i think the people in indiana have known for a long

time and have trusted for a long time because he's fighting for working families and indian each and every day, and that is our great senator, evan bayh. please give him a big round of applause. [applause] and it's nice to get out of washington and spend some time with people who actually sent me to washington. [applause] too often -- too often there are those in washington who focus on the ups and downs of politics. but my concern is the ups and downs in the lives of the american people. the families feeling the pain of this recession, the folks i've met across this country who've lost jobs and savings and health insurance but haven't lost hope. the man and women who still believe in the capacity and ability of the nation to meet the challenges of our times.

these are challenges you know all too well here in wakarusa. this area has been hit with a perfect storm of economic trouble. over the last few decades you have won the brunt of a steadily weakening of american manufacturing in the face of global competition you felt the impact of the struggles of the american auto industry and the repercussions that have hit the midwest especially hard and if you are living every day with the consequences of this recession and the financial meltdown and you felt it in the form of lost jobs and lost savings. as a result the a la carte area has experienced the second greatest increase in the rate of unemployment in the country. up ten points in one year. it's astonishing statistic.

there's been times when nearly one and five people in this hearing have been looking for work. using factories close and sons and daughters move away in search of jobs and opportunities. so this is more than an economic crisis. this goes to the heart and soul of the community that tests the strength of families and spirit of good people. hard-working folks who have given their all to a company and now don't know where to turn. there are some who see what's taking place here and suggest it's all somehow inevitable and the only way for america to get ahead is places like elkhart to be on and you hear that in washington. but you know and i know the truth is the opposite. i am here because i believe our ability to recover and prosper as a nation depends on what happens in communities just like this one. [applause]

that battle for america's future will be fought and won in places like elkhart and detroit and pittsburgh, south bend, youngstown and cities and towns across indiana and across the midwest and across the country that have been the backbone of america. it will be won by making places like elkhart but they once were and can be again and that is senators of innovation and entrepreneurship and ingenuity and opportunity. the bustling, the worry and humming and engines of american prosperity. as the world grows more competitive we can't afford to run the race at half strength or half speed. if we hope to leave the central like we did the last century we have to create the conditions and opportunities for places like elkhart to succeed. we have to harness the

potential, the innovative and creative spirit that's waiting to be awakened all across america. that is how we will rebuild the economy stronger than before, strong enough to compete in the global economy, strong enough to avoid the cycles of boom and bust that had staked so much havoc on the economy. strong enough to support the jobs of the 21st century and strong enough to unleash prosperity for everybody, just some. but before we can rebuild the economy for tomorrow we have to rescue it today. that is why we passed a recovery act less than one month after i took office and we did so without any of the earmarks or pork-barrel spending that is common in washington, d.c.. and let me just talk about the so-called stimulus package with the recovery act because there has been a lot of misinformation out there about the recovery act. let me tell you what it is and what it's not. the plan was divided into three

parts. one-third of the money has gone to tax relief for families and small businesses. one-third of the money is cutting people's taxes for americans struggling to pay rising bills with the shrinking wages we kept a campaign promise to put a middle class tax cut in the pockets of 90% of working families. a tax cut -- [applause] a tax cut that began shoving up in the paychecks of 4.8 million indian households about three months ago. we also cut taxes for small businesses on the investments they've made it more than 425 businesses in indiana have received sba loans through the recovery package. so that is one-third of the money was tax cuts. another third of the money in the recovery act has been for emergency relief that is helping

folks who've borne the brunt of this recession. for americans who were laid off be expanded unemployment benefits and that has already made a difference for 12 million americans including 220,000 folks right here in indiana. we are making health insurance 65% cheaper for families relying on cobra while looking for work. some of you know people who lost their jobs more worried now losing their health care couldn't afford cobra. we were able to reduce their cost by 65% said they could keep their health care while they were looking for jobs. and for states facing a historic budget shortfalls we provided assistance that has saved the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and public and police officers and other public servants so that you wouldn't see the recession get even worse. so that's the second half.

first half, tax relief, second half, support for individuals, small businesses and states that have fallen on hard times. the last three of the recovery act, and that is what we are going to talk about here today, is for investments not only putting people back to work in the short run but fleeing a new foundation for growth and prosperity in the long run. these are the jobs building the future of america. upgrading roads and bridges, renovated schools and hospitals. the elkhart area have seen the benefits. dozens were reemployed to surface run runway at the airport. a stretch of highway. the health center has received recovery dollars to expand services and how your additional staff. and as part of the recovery plan we are making a historic commitment to innovation. the recovery act creates jobs doubling the capacity to generate renewable energy building this margaret that

carries electricity from coast to coast laying down broadband lines and high-speed rail lines and providing the largest boost and basic research in history to ensure that america leads in the breakthrough discoveries of the new century just as we let them because that is what we do best in america. we turn ideas and inventions and inventions into industries. history should be our guide. the united states led the world's economy in the 20th century because we lead the world and innovation. today the competition is keen, the challenges tougher and that is why innovation is more important than ever. that is the key to good jobs in the 21st century. that's how we will ensure high quality-of-life for this generation and future generations. with these investments we are planting the seeds of progress

for the country and good pay in private sector jobs for the american people. so that's why i am here today. to announce $2.4 billion in highly competitive grants to develop the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks powered by the next generation of battery technology is all made right here in the usa. [applause] right here in america. the [cheers and applause] need in america. [applause] you know, for too long, for too long we have failed to invest in this kind of innovative work even as countries like china and japan were racing ahead. that's why this announcement is so important.

this represents the largest investment in this kind of technology in american history. i committed to a strategy that ensures america leads in the design and the planet of the next generation of clean energy vehicles. this is not just an investment to produce vehicles today. this is an investment in our capacity to develop new technology to market. it is about creating the infrastructure of innovation. indiana is the second largest recipient of grant funding. and it is a perfect example. you've got purdue university, noting, indiana university and i.t. tech and they are all going to be receding grant funding to develop degree and training program and free electric vehicles. [applause] fax number one. we've got a small business in

indianapolis that will develop batteries for hybrid electric vehicles. we've got allison transmission in indianapolis, delphi in kokomo, remi and pendleton and magnum located in muncie all who will help develop electric drive components for commercial and passenger vehicles. and right here in elkhart county, navistar which is taken over to the monaco coach manufacturing facilities will receive a 39 million-dollar grant to build 400 advanced battery electric trucks -- [cheers and applause] with a range of 100 miles. greider. [applause] just a few months ago folks thought these factories might be

closed for good. but now they are coming back to life. >> [inaudible] >> you're welcome. thank the american people. [applause] the company estimates this will create or save hundreds of jobs in the area and already folks like herman are being rehired. so over all the companies believe these investments in battery technology will save or create thousands of hoosier jobs, and i want to point out these thousands of jobs wouldn't be possible if there were all for the leaders in congress who supported the recovery act. leaders like evan bayh and joe donnelly, who is here today. and andre carson and brad ellsworth. [applause] and these grants will create tens of thousands of jobs all across america. in fact, today vice president biden is announcing grant winners in michigan.

members of my cabinet are fanning out across the country announcing recipients elsewhere. we are providing the incentives to those businesses large and small that stand ready to help us lead a new clean energy economy. by developing new technologies for new kind vehicles. i don't just want to reduce dependence on foreign oil and then in up being dependent on their for innovations. i don't want to have to import a hybrid car. i want to be able to build a hybrid car here. [applause] i don't want to import a hybrid truck. i want to build a hybrid truck here. i don't want to import a went now from someplace else. i want to build a wind tunnel here in indiana. [applause] i want the cars and the future and the technologies that power them to be developed and employ it right here, in america. and that's just the beginning. and no a area will innovation be

more important than in the development of new ways to produce, use and save energy. so we are not only doubling the capacity to generate renewable energy and building a stronger and smarter electric grid. we talk to reach and a grant to help fuel the economy standards and for the first time in history we passed a bill to create a system of clean energy incentives which will help make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in america while helping and dependence on foreign oil and protect the planet from future generations. the bill passed the house. we are now working to pass through sinner legislation. we know the real innovation depends not on government but on the potential of the american people if the american people get a clear set of rules, if they know what is needed, but challenges we've got to meet the will figure out how to do it. in fact that's why the budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit

permanent, the r&d tax credit. this is a tax credit that helps companies afford what are sometimes high-cost in developing new ideas and technologies and products, and that means new jobs. this tax credit returns to dollars to the economy for every 1 dollar we spend and for a long time we were just trying to renew once every year and companies didn't know whether or not they were going to be built to get them for the next year. that's changed. i also proposed reducing to see you know the capitol gains tax for investments in small or start up businesses. because small businesses or innovative businesses. small businesses produce 13 times more patents per employee than large companies. of course in order to leave in the global economy and ensure businesses can grow and enervate we also have to pass health insurance reform that brings down costs.

[cheers and applause] reform that brings down costs and provides more security for folks who have insurance and affordable options for those who don't. i promise you we will pass reform by the end of this year because the american people need it. the american people need some relief. [cheers and applause] we are going to have to make it happen. [applause] in fact, the recovery plan began the process of reform by modernizing our health care infrastructure. we took some long overdue steps of computerizing america's health records, which could reduce all the waste and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives while protecting patients' privacy. it's important also to know that these records all the potential offering a patient is the chance

to be more active participants in the prevention and treatment of illness. you won't have to fill out the same form a dozen times. you won't have to rely on your memory been talking to your doctor about medical history. all those things make people healthier but also reduce your cost, lower your premiums and give you more security in your health care. now, in addition to energy and in addition to health care, we also know that the nation that out educate us today will out compete dustin mauro. so you're making a historic commitment to strengthening and improving education from cradle for a career. why now our schools continue to trail many competitors and that is why i challenge states to dramatically improve achievement by raising standards and modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, forming new partnerships to promote health and science and improving the use of technology in the classroom, and i have set this goal in the next decade by 2020 america will once again have the

highest proportion of college graduates in the world. we used to be number one. we will be number one again when it comes to college graduates. [applause] now, to reach this goal we've provided tax credits and grants to make college to community colleges which are the unsung heroes in america's education system. america can and must have the best educated highest skilled workforce in the world. because if we are building new cars here in america, if we are building a new clean energy grade in america than we are also going to need to build engineers in america and scientists in america and skilled technicians right here in america. so all these pieces in the fitting together.

energy and innovation, healthcare and education. these are the pillars of the new foundation that we have to build. this is how we won't just rescue the economy, but we are going to rebuild it stronger than before. there are a lot of people out there who are looking to defend the status quo. there are those who want to seek political at vantage who want to oppose these efforts. some of them caused the problems we've got now in the first place and then suddenly they are blaming other folks for it. [applause] they don't want to be constructive. they don't want to be constructive, they just want to give the usual political fight back and forth. and sometimes that is fed by all the people chatter on the media. but you and i know the truth. we know that even in the hardest times against the toughest odds we have never surrendered.

we don't give up. we don't surrender to chance. we've always adored. we have worked hard and salt for the future. our parents had to fight for their future. our grandparents had to fight for their future. that's the tradition of america. this country wasn't built by griping and complaining. it was built by hard work and taking risks. [applause] and that is what we have to do today. [applause] i know these are tough times. if you haven't lost a job, you know somebody who has. maybe a family member, neighbor, , friend. you know the sense of loss when you lose your job is about more than just a paycheck. you know, we as americans define ourselves by the work we do. it is a source of pride. since that you're contributing and supporting your family and

then you're doing the right thing and you're responsible and the truth is it can be easy to lose hope especially when you see a lot of folks out there who failed to meet their responsibility from wall street to washington. it can be easy to grow cynical when you see politicians say one thing and then to another or say one thing and then do nothing. when you've seen in decades of broken promises and broken politics. but this is a rare moment in which we are called upon to rise above the failures of the past. this is a chance to restore that spirit of optimism and opportunity, which has always been central to our success. we've got to set our sights higher, not lower. we have to imagine a future in which american cars are powered by innovation, a future in which cities that led the global economy before are leading it again. a brighter future for elkhart, a

brighter future for indiana and for the united states of america. [applause] that's what we are fighting for. that is what this plant is about. that's what you're about. that's what we are going to achieve in the weeks and months to come. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] ♪

[inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪

[inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪

[inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪

♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations]

to take us up to the top of the hour and the return of the

u.s. senate to is a portion of debate from earlier today. five democratic women senators took to the floor for the first hour or so. we will show you as much of their comments as we can until the gavel comes down to call senate lawmakers to order. >> senator from minnesota is recognized. >> thank you mr. president. thank you, mr. chairman for the strong remarks on behalf of judge sotomayor. strong remarks for a very strong nominee. more importantly as the chairman of the senate judiciary committee i want to thank you and senator sessions for the way you conducted the confirmation hearing. the dignity that was shown to the nominee in that hearing. i think that was very important to the process. we may not have agreed with the conclusions some of our colleagues reached but no one can dispute it was conducted solely and with good tick matteo. this is a nominee that shows great dignity every step of the way. today i will be speaking in

support of judge sotomayor's nomination but first i am going to be joined by several of my esteemed fellow women senators including senator shaheen of new hampshire who is here already. senator stabenow of michigan, senator jalabert and of new york and senator murray of washington state. we all know that this nomination is history making for several reasons but one of them of course is that judge sotomayor will be only the third woman to ever joined the supreme court of the united states of america. we know she's incredibly well qualified. she's got our federal judicial experience than any nominee for the past 100 years. that's something that's remarkable. but i do think it is worth remembering what it was like to be a nominee for this court as a woman even just a few years ago. it's worth remembering when justice o'connor graduated from law school the only offer she got is after graduating from stanford law school where the legal positions.

justice o'connor graduated third in her class in law schools all her accomplishments reduced to one question, can she type. justice ginsburg faced similar obstacles when she entered harvard law school she was one of only nine women in a class of more than 500. the dean of the law school actually demanded she justify what she deserved the seat that could have gone to a man. later she was passed over for a strategic clerkship despite her impressive credentials. nonetheless, both of these women persevered and they certainly prevailed. they are undeniable merits triumph those who sought to denied an opportunity. the women who came before judge sotomayor, all of those women judges helped blaze a trail and although judge sotomayor's record stands on her own, mr. president, she is also standing on those women's shoulders. i am pleased to recognize several women senators here

today to speak in support of judge sotomayor and the first is my great colleague of new hampshire, senator shaheen. >> senator of new hampshire is recognized. >> thank you, mr. president. i'm delighted to be here to join the senior senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar, and to speak also after the senior senator from vermont, my neighbor senator leahy, in support of sonia sotomayor. this week we have the opportunity to make history. to make history by confirming the first hispanic and only the third woman to the united states supreme court, and senator klobuchar spoke eloquently about the challenges that women have faced and i am pleased to say i had the honor of governor as appointing the first woman to new hampshire supreme court. and i come today to the floor to speak in support of sonia sotomayor's nomination, however not because of the historic

nature of that nomination, but because she is more than qualified to sit on the supreme court, and i am really somewhat perplexed why the vote on her nomination will not be unanimous. judge sotomayor is qualified, the non-partisan american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary, which has evaluated the professional qualifications of nominees to the federal bench since 1948 unanimously rated sotomayor as well qualified to be a supreme court justice after carefully considering her integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. her decisions as a member of the second circuit court of appeals are well within the judicial mainstream of the country. congressional research service analysis on her opinions concluded she deludes easy

ideological categorization and demonstrates an adherence to judicial precedent and emphasis on facts of the case and avoidance of overstepping the circuit court's judicial role. described as a political centrist by the nonpartisan american bar association journal she has been nominated to the federal courts by presidents of both political parties. when president judge h. w. bush in 1992 and nominated sonia sotomayor to the u.s. district court for the southern district of new york the senate approved her nomination by unanimous consent. when president clinton in 1998 nominated her to the second circuit court of appeals this senate voted 67-29 to confirm her on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. for now familiar personal story is no less impressive.

the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the highest court of our country will inspire girls and young women everywhere to work hard and set their dreams high. americans look to the lawmakers to work together to make the country stronger. they expect us to put partisanship aside to advance the interest of the american people. if there is one issue we should be able to come together on to put aside our differences it is the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i look forward to having the opportunity to vote in support of her confirmation with the majority of my colleagues. thank you, mr. president and thank you, senter klobuchar -- senator klobuchar. i yield back the floor to senator klobuchar.

>> thank you very much, senator shaheen. >> the center of minnesota is recognized. >> having looked at judge sotomayor's record senter shaheen pointed out, her 17 years on the bench and fairness and integrity she will bring to the job i am proud to support her nomination. when judge sotomayor's nomination was first announced i was impressed by her life story as was everyone else which all of us know by now. she grew up in her own words and modest and challenging circumstances and she worked hard for everything she got. her dad died when she was 9-years-old and her mom supported her and her brother and one of my favorite images as a member of the judiciary committee from the hearing was her mother sitting behind her every moment of that hearing never raising her side, the mother that race for onerous's salary who save every penny she had just to buy an encyclopedia

britannica for the family. that struck me, because i know in our family we also had a set of encyclopedias that had a hallowed place in the hallway and that is what i used to write all of my reports. judge sotomayor went on to graduate from princeton summa cum laude. since law school she has had a dairy and interesting legal career. she worked as a civil litigator, has been a district court and appellate court judge and she has taught law school class is. but experience of hers in particular as it meets with me. after graduating from law school she spent five years as a prosecutor at the man had this to become manhattan district attorney's office. i want to talk a little about that because it is something she and i have in common. i was a prosecutor myself, mr. president. you know what that's like to have that duty. i was a prosecutor for minnesota's largest county. as a prosecutor after you

interacted with victims of crime and seen the damage the crime does to individuals and communities, after you've seen defendant's going to prison and we know their families are losing them sometimes forever you know that fell law is not just an abstract subject. it isn't just a dusty book in the basement. the law has a real impact on the lives of real people. it also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. no matter how many years might pass you never forgets some of the very difficult cases. for judge sotomayor we know this includes the case of the surreal burglar turned killer, the powers and murder. for me there was always the case of an 11-year-old girl with an on unforgivable smile at home doing her homework one day when a stray bullet from a gang shooting went through the window and killed her. as a prosecutor you don't just

have to know the law, you have to know the people. you have to know the families. you have to know human nature. as judge sotomayor's former supervisor said she is an imposing and commanding figure in the courtroom, someone who can weave together a complex set of facts and force the law and never lose sight whom she was fighting for and as her old boss manhattan district attorney robert morganthaal said she is a fearless and effective prosecutor. before i turn over to my colleague from michigan who has just arrived i thought it would be interesting for people to hear a little bit more about judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor, and you can hear this first hand from her own colleagues. this was a letter sent in from dozens of her colleagues that actually worked with her. worked with her when she was a prosecutor. not her bosses necessarily but just for colleagues. this is what they said in the letter.

the said we served together during some of the most difficult years in our city's history. crime was soaring, a general sense of disorder prevailed in the streets and the popular attitude was increasing violence was inevitable. sonia sotomayor, they say in this letter, began as a rookie in 1979 working long hours prosecuting an enormous caseload of misdemeanors before judges managing overwhelming dockets. sonia distinguished herself on this twinging assignment she was among the very first in her starting class to be selected to handle felonies. she prosecuted in a wide variety of felony cases including serving as co-counsel at a notorious murder trial. she developed a specialty in the investigation of prosecution of child pornography case. through this she impressed us -- this is from her colleagues -- as one who was determined in fighting crime and violence. for sonia, service as a prosecutor was a way to bring order to the streets of a city

she loves. and they go on, we are proud to have served with sonia sotomayor. she solemnly adheres to the rule of law and believes it should be applied equally and fairly to all americans. as a group, says this group of dozens of prosecutors who were her colleagues, as a group with a different world view and political affiliations, but our support for sonia is entirely nonpartisan. and the fact that so many of us have remained friends with sonia over three decades sparks, well, we think it speaks of her warmth and collegiality. mr. president, i see that my colleague from michigan has arrived. i will continue my statement when she has completed hers. but i am proud to have senator stabenow, the senator from michigan come here to speak on behalf of judge sotomayor. odd yield the floor.

>> mr. president. >> the senator from michigan is recognized. >> first i am pleased to be here with the senior senator from minnesota and have appreciated her wonderful words about judge sotomayor, as well as her advocacy on behalf of minnesota. we have a lot in common between minnesota and michigan, and so it's always a pleasure to be with the senator from minnesota. mr. president, i rise today to strongly support the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. as the next justice of the supreme court. over 230 years ago, alexander hamilton called experience that best oracle of wisdom. and his words continued to ring true today. judge sotomayor has over 17 years of experience on the federal bench. she will be the most experienced supreme court justice and over

100 years, our lifetime. but it isn't just her years of experience that will make her a great justice. it will be the experience of a uniquely american life. the american dream. she was raised in a south bronx housing project where per families instilled in her values of hard work and sacrifice. at age of mine, her father died tragically. after that, her mother, a nurse, raised her the best she could. i would say she did a pretty good job. her mom urged her to pay attention in school. she pushed sonia to work hard and get good grades, which she did. she studied hard, a graduate at the top of her class in high school. it was through education that the doors opened for judge sotomayor, as they have opened for millions of other americans.

after law school, she went to work as an assistant district attorney in new york prosecuting crimes like murder and robbery is and child abuse. she later went into private practice as a civil litigator working in parts of the wall related to real estate, employment, banking and contract law week. in 1992, she was nominated by president judge h. w. bush and confirmed by the senate to unanimously to serve as a district court judge. she performed admirably and president clinton having been nominated first by republicans and then again by a democrat president clinton elevated her to the second circuit court of appeals. it is in part due to this enormous breathitt experience as a prosecutor, lawyer and private

practice, as a trial judge can as an appeals court judge that the american bar association has given her their highest rating of well qualified. judge sotomayor's story really is the american story. that a young person, born into poverty, can work hard, take advantage of opportunities, and then succeed brilliantly and rise to the top of their profession. judge sotomayor is an inspiration to all of costs. she is a role model for millions of young people of every race, class, creed and background living in america today. last november, we demonstrated that every child in america really can grow up to be president of the united states. judge sotomayor proves that with hard work and the vacation they

can be a supreme court justice, too. mr. president, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm judge sonia sotomayor. thank you very much. >> mr. president. >> senator from minnesota is recognized. >> i thank the senator from michigan for her strong nominee. as i was talking about earlier, the experience that judge sotomayor brings to the bench as a prosecutor. for me, it means she needs one of my criteria for a nominee because i'm looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and impact that laws and the criminal-justice system have on people's lives. from her first day in the manhattan d.a. office, judge sotomayor talked about and understood how it was important to view the law as aboutpl