for decades to come. >> i am jeff sessions, senator from the state of alabama and ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. before i talk about the federal courts, i want to make note that in the early hours of the morning, 65 years ago today, a generation's worth the brave americans sailed across the troubled waters of the english channel to an unknown fate on the beaches of normandy. they came from all walks of american life, from the northern cities to small southern towns, united behind a devotion to their country and a belief that democracy and freedom should not perish from the earth. with a keen awareness of the danger that lay ahead, they stormed the court -- coast of normandy with a four century that would forever change the human course of history. too few of those heroes as set out across so stormy waters on june 6, 1944, are with us today, but we take a moment now to

honor their great sacrifice, to thank all those who have served our country, and to keep alive the memories of lost loved ones. the greatest generation bestowed on us the gifts of a continued liberty and democratic government, each based on the exceptional american commitment to the rule law. this week, i met with sonia sotomayor, president obama's nominee to the united states supreme court. she has a rich and engaging personality, a marvelous personal story. she also has a strong resume, the sort of education and legal background we should look for in a nominee. she has spent time in private practice, served as a federal prosecutor, and now sits as an appellate judge on the second circuit court of appeals. as i told her during our meeting, i and my republican colleagues in the senate are firmly committed to conducting a fair and respectful process. too often in the past,

confirmation hearings have devolved into political theater, short on substance and long on distortions of character and record. i am convinced that the senate can do better, when the american people look back on these hearings, i hope they will remember them as the most substantive, thorough, and thoughtful and memory, and focused on the issues that really matter. the fact is, the senate confirmation hearings are too important to squander. this is because only five justices are needed to declare the meaning of our constitution and laws, and might defining the meaning of our constitution, judges have the power to impose their will on the people. unlike congress or the president, who are accountable to the voters at the ballot box, judges are granted lifetime tenure to exercise their power. with that in mind, we in the senate have an obligation to act on behalf of the american people, to carefully scrutinize

the nominee's records before nomination. we will examine the nominee's previous judicial records. we will study her academic writings and speeches. we will ask tough, probing questions, and in every instance, we will give the nominee a fair opportunity to provide full and complete answers. one issue that marriage close examination during this process is a -- one issue that merits examination is the direction of the legal system. although we sometimes take our heritage of neutral an independent judiciary for brennan, the truth is, this great tradition is under attack. the american people are rightly concerned. i am troubled by president obama's use of the empathy standard when selecting federal judges. with this view, a judge should use his or her personal feelings about a particular group or issue to decide a case.

it stands in stark contrast to the impartiality that we expect in the american courtroom. if the judge is allowed to let his or her feelings for one party in the case this way his decision, has and that judge then demonstrated a bias against the other party? if a judge is allowed to inject his personal views into his interpretation of the law, does he not then have a license to rewrite the laws to suit his own preferences? i fear that this into the standard is another step down the path to a cynical, results oriented world where words and laws have no fixed meaning, where unelected judges set policy, and were constitutional limits on government power are ignored when they are inconvenient to the powerful. this standard is deeply troubling, because it is so contradictory to our country's

long heritage of a fateful and impartial adherence to the rule block. impartiality is a cornerstone of the american legal system. the rule of law is a hallmark of an orderly society. together they form the basis for the moral authority of law. that moral authority is the reason that americans every day respect and accept the rulings of courts even when they strongly disagree. as a member of the armed services committee, i have traveled to iraq and pakistan and afghanistan numerous times. what the people of those countries want desperately, and need more than anything, is the rule of law. a guarantee that contracts will be fairly enforced, that rights will not be infringed, and that grievances will be peacefully addressed. our legal system is the bedrock of our liberty and prosperity. it is unique in all the world.

we must do all we can to protect it. i hope that the american people will engage in this nomination process and followed closely. they should learn about the issues and listen to both sides of the argument. at the end of the day, they should ask, if i must when they go to court, what kind of judge i want to hear my case? do i want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to impact the outcome? or do i want a judge that objectively applies the law to the facts and fairly rules on the merits. that is the central question of around which this entire no