will limit myself to just my immediate family. sitting behind me is my brother, juan sotomayor, my mom, and next her, my favorite husband of my mom, omar lopez, next to me is my niece, kylie, and next of her is mom and sister-in-law, and then corey and conner sotomayor -- i should have said that last name first -- and the remainder of that role is filled with god children and dear friends. but this is my immediate family. .

senator schumer will give a short opening statement, he will reserve some of his time for a letter of introduction. i would note for the record we are considering the nomination of judge sotomayor to be a justice of the united states supreme court. the constitution is interesting in this regard. we have over 300 million americans, but only 100 people get a chance to say who is on the supreme court. president obama, who made the nomination. then 100 senators have to seventh place of three under 20

million -- american's parent the president has made a historic nomination. now the senate has to do its part on behalf of the people. president obama often quotes dr. martin luther king jr. who said the ark of the moral universe as long, but it bends towards justice. each generation of america is taught that are towards justice. and we have improved upon the foundation of our justice with the civil war abundance the expansion of the right to vote, the civil rights act of 1964 and voting rights act of 1965 the 26 a member of the extension to vote to young people. these actions have marked

progress towards our more perfect union. this nomination can be another step along that path. judge sotomayor said journey is a truly american story. she was raised by her mother, anders -- a nurse come in the south bronx. he graduated as valedictorian of your class. she continued to work hard. she arranged for tutoring to improve for writing. she graduates 5 beta kappa.

after excelling at princeton she was an active member of law school committee. upon graduation, she had many options. she chose to serve her community as -- in the new york district attorney's office. everyone of us who have had the privilege of being a prosecutor knows what kind of a job that is. she prosecuted murders, robberies, assaults, and child pornography. first president bush named her to the federal bench in 90 -- 1992 she to serve as a trial judge. president clinton appointed her to the circuit. judge sothos -- sotomayor is

extremely qualified. she is the first nominee in well over a century to be nominated to three different federal judgeships by three different presidents. she is a first nominee in 50 years to be nominated by these supreme court. she will be the only supreme court justice to serve as a trial judge. she is a prosecutor and a lawyer in private practice. she brings a wealth of the diversity of experience to the court. hers is a success story in which all americans can take pride. those who break barriers also face the added burden of facing

adversity. he won a remarkable 29 out of 32 cases before the supreme court. despite all of these qualifications, when he was before the senate for his confirmation, they asked questions designed to embarrass him, such as are you prejudiced against the white people of the south? i hope that time is past. justice louis brandeis struggled with anti-semitism and charges that he was a radical. the commentary at that time includes questions about the jewish mind, likewise, the first

catholic nominee had to overcome the argument that as a catholic he would be dominated by the pope. this is a different era. i hope everyone rejects the partisanship from outside groups that sought to create a caricature that judge sotomayor is limited in her intelligence. let no one demesne this extraordinary woman, her success, her understanding of constitutional duties she is faithfully performed in the last 17 years. i hope all senators will join together. this hearing is an opportunity for americans to see and hear judge sotomayor, and to consider her qualifications.

it is the most transparent confirmation hearing ever held. her decisions and confirmation materials are posted on line and made publicly available. her record is more complete than that available when we consider president bush's nomination of john roberts and samuel alito just a few years ago. the judge's testimony will be carried live on several television stations. it will also be live via web cast. our review of her record includes she is a restrained judge with a deep respect for judicial precedents. this conclusion is supported by a number of independent sources.

she has a deep understanding of the real lives of americans, and the duty of law enforcement to keep americans save, and the responsibility of all of us to respect the freedom of those of us. she has been subject to political attacks. she had been attacked even before the president made his selection. that is not the american way, and that should not be the senate way. we do not have to speculate on what kind of a justice she will be, because we have seen what kind of justice she has been. she is a judge in which all americans can have confidence.

our ranking member said the charges flying from right and left are false. i think we have a responsibility to base any criticism we have done a fair and on the statement of the past -- fax, and it ought to be subjected to the distortion of the facts. we are a country bound together by our magnificent constitution. it guarantees the promises that our country will be a country based on the rule of law. and our service as a federal judge, judge sotomayor

understands that promise. there is not one law for one color or another. there is only one lot. judge are remember so well as you sat in my office and you said that a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their opinion has been. that is the fair, impartial judgment that the american people expect. that is the kind of judge that judge sotomayor has been. that is what the american people deserve. judge sotomayor has been nominated to replace justice souter. justice souter served the nation distinctly for nearly two decades with a commitment to justice, the understands -- the understanding how we -- how the

decisions affected people in their daily lives. he served in the matter of some justice sandra day o'connor. all have heard senators make comments. equal justice under law. judge sothos nomination keeps faith with those words. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe he set up some rules for this hearing. i have enjoyed working with you on this project. i hope this will be the best during this committee has ever had. why not? by joining chairman leahy and

judge sotomayor in welcoming you here today. i know your family is proud, and rightly so. it is a pleasure to have them here today. i expect this hearing and resulting debate will be characterized by respectful tone and discussion of serious issues, and may be some disagreement. we have worked hard to set that town. i have been an active litigator in federal courts, i was a federal prosecutor. the constitution and our great heritage of lot i care deeply about. they are the foundation of our liberty and our prosperity, and this nomination is critical for two reasons. justices on the supreme court have responsibility, hold enormous power, and have a lifetime appointment. just five members can declare

the meaning of our constitution, bending or changing the meaning from what the people intended. this hearing is important because i believe our legal system is that a dangerous crossroads. down one path is a traditional american system, so admired around the world where a judge as part -- in partially applied the law. this is the compassionate system. courts do not make law or set the tone. allowing unelected officials to make lawful strike at the heart of democracy. the 03, i do solemnly swear that i will administer justice without respect to persons, and he " right to the rich and the port and that i will -- to and the pork, and i will discharge

and perform the jobs under the constitution and laws of the united states, so help me god. americans except ruling even when they disagree. our legal system is based on a firm belief and an objective truth. trial is a process by which the impartial judge guide us to the truth. down the other path lies a brave new world where words have no true meaning, and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. in this world, a judge is free to push her own social agenda. i reject that view and americans reject that view. we have seen federal judges to force their political and social agenda on the nation, dictating that the words under god be removed from the pledge of

allegiance and barring students from even silent prayer. judges have dismissed the people's rights to their property, saying the government can take a person's home for the purses -- purpose of developing a private shopping center cha. terrorist captured on the battlefield can sue the government and our own country. judges have cited foreign law, world opinion and a united nations resolution to determine that a state death penalty law was unconstitutional. i am afraid our system will only be further corrupted as a result of president obama's view that in such cases this ingredient for a judge is the depth and breadth of one's empathy. as well as his words may bring a vision of what america should

be. like the american people, i have watched this process for a number of years, and i fear that this empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist-activist world where laws lose their meaning, and elected judges set policy rather than simply the americans, where the constitutional limits on power are ignored. we have reached a fork in the road. i want to be clear. i will not vote for and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality to every person who appears before them. i will not vote for and no senator should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is

acceptable for judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathy to sway their decision in favor of the court. such a philosophy is disqualifying. such an approach means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but feels empowered to favor one team over another. call it empathy, prejudice or sympathy. whatever it is it is more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the court. some will respond, judge sotomayor would never say it is acceptable for prejudice in a case. what i regret to say that some of your statements outlined seem to say that clearly. let's look at a few examples. we have seen the video of the

duke university panel where judge sotomayor says, if the court of appeals is where policy is made, i know that this is on tape and i should never say that, and should not think that. during a speech 15 years ago, judge sotomayor said, i willingly accept a judge must not deny the differences resulting from heritage but attempts to judge when those sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. and in that same speech he said, my experiences will affect the fact i choose to see. having brought a lot of cases, that particular phrase bothers me. i expect all the judges to see the facts. when i asked about judges -- judge sotsotomayor's live robert

gibbs and supreme court justice ginsburg defended the substance of these remarks. the nominee did not misspeak. she is on record making these statements five times over the course of the decade. i am providing a copy of the full text for the record. others said that despite the statements, we should look to the nominee's record, which we should characterize as moderate. people tried the same to justice ginsberg, one of the most activist members of the supreme court. some senators ignored judge ginsberg's philosophy, but those cases were necessarily restraint by precedent and the threat from

reversals from the higher court. those checks on the judicial power will be removed, and the judge's philosophy will be allowed to reach full fruition. our nominee has made some troubling rulings, i am concerned about the new haven firefighters case recently rick -- and recently overturned where she wanted to change the promotion rules in the middle of the game. justice sotomayor has said the checks ups her opinion and sympathies and prejudices will affect her rulings. there are clues against her decision with the firefighters. the litigation committee,

organization that pursued racial quotas from city hiring and fought to overturn the results promotion exam. it seems to me judge so's sympathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice for another. m but the for one part is prejudice against another. in abortion, where an organization of which you were an active leader chartered bus -- record hectare money to fund -- got taxpayer money to fund abortion. private property were you ruled

that the government can take property from one developer and give it to another. capital punishment, were you signed a statement opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in new york because of the in human psychological burden it places on the offenders family. i hope the american people will follow these hearings closely, they should learn about the issues and listen to both sides of the argument. at the end of the hearing as, if i must one day go to court, what kind of a judge do i wish to hear my case? do i want a judge that allows his or hers political and social views to change the outcome? or do i want a judge set him partially applies the law to the fact, and fairly rules on the merits without bias or prejudice. it is our job to decide which side the nominee is on. thank you. >> another housekeeping thing.

try to keep these opening statements to 10 minutes. we will recognize senators on the democratic side based on seniority. the next senator is senator kohl. >> thinking. let me extend my welcome to you and your family. you are to be congratulated on your nomination. your nomination is a reflection of who we are as a country, and it represents an american success story that we all can be proud of. your academic and professional accomplishments as prosecutor, a trial judge and appellate judge are exemplary. as a judge you have bought a richness of experience to the bench and judiciary which has

been an inspiration for so many. today we begin a process in which the senate engages in this constitutional role to advise and consent on your nomination. this week's hearing is the only opportunity we, the american people will have to learn about church judicial fall -- philosophy and your motivation before you put on the black robe and are heard from only in your opinions. the president has asked us to trust you with an immense amount of power. power which by design is free from political constraints to, unchecked by the people and unaccountable to congress except in the most extreme circumstances. our democracy and rights and everything i hold dear are built on the foundation of our constitution. for more than two hundred years, the court has interpreted the meaning of the constitution and in so doing guaranteed our most cherished rights.

the right to equal education, the right to an attorney and a fair trial for the accused. the right to personal privacy, the right ball to speak both and were shipped without interference from the government. you and your colleagues will decide the future scope of our rights and the breadth of our freedoms. your decisions will shape the fabric of american society for many years to come. that is why it is so important over the course of the next few days we gain a good understanding of what is in your heart and mind. we don't have our right in advance on how you will rule on cases which may come before you. we need and deserve to know what you think about fundamental issues, such as civil rights, property rights, the separation of church and state and civil liberties, to name a few. some believe that the confirmation process has become scripted and that nominees are

far too careful in avoiding their questions and with covets about future cases. i recognize this, but i also hope you recognize our need to have a frank discussion about these important issues. these are not just concept for the law books. these are issues americans care about. crime place our communities, we navigate between human rights and law enforcement, the attempt to maintain order. the families attempt to make ends meet, we question the role for government and helping to get the economy back on track. as we continue to strive for equal rights in our schools and workplaces, we debate admissions policies and hiring practices that and -- acknowledged diversity. these issues invite all americans to struggle with dilemmas of democracy and the

great questions of our constitution. if we discuss them with kantor, i believe we will have a conversation that the american people will profit from. when considering supreme court nominees over the years, i have judged each one with a test of judicial excellence. first judicial excellence means the confidence, character and temperament that we expect of a supreme court justice. they must have a keen understanding of the law, and the ability to explain it in ways that the litigants and american people will understand, even if they disagree. i look for a nominee to have a sense of values which form the core of our political and economic system. no one including the president has the right to require ideological purity from members of the supreme court. we do have the right that the nominee except basic principles of the constitution and its values in society.

we want a nominee with a sense of compassion. this is a quality that i considered with the last six supreme court justices. compassion does not mean bias or lack of impartiality. it is meant to remind us of the law is more than an intellectual game, and more than a mental exercise. as justice black said, the court's stance against in the wind, for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, or because they are not conforming to systems of prejudice and public excitement. a supreme court justice must be able to recognize the real people with real problems are affected by decisions rendered by the court. they must have a connection with and an understanding of the problems that people struggle with. justice may be blind, but it must not be deaf. as justice thomas told us at his confirmation hearing, it is important that a justice, can

walk in the shoes of the people who are affected. i believe this comment embodies what president obama intended when he said he wanted and nominee who understand -- understood how the world work. some critics are concerned the to background will improperly impact your opinion. you have acknowledged that your experience in life has shaped your attitudes. what you said next, i am cognizant -- thompson enough that it does matter.

after confirmation to the court of appeals you said, as long as people of goodwill are participating in the process and attended to be balanced, then the system will remain healthy. i hope our process will include a healthy level of balance, and i look forward to the opportunity to learn more about you and what sort of justice you aspire to be. thank you. >> thank you. senator hatch? >> thank you. judge, welcome to you and your good family. this is the 12th hearing for a supreme court nomination in which i have participated. i was struck today as i was but the seriousness of our responsibility. i am confident that under this committee's leadership both you, mr. chairman, and the distinguished ranking member of

this hearing this will be substantive. the judge comes to this committee for the third time, having served in the first two levels of this judiciary. she has a compelling life story and a strong record of educational and professional achievements. her achievements speak to the opportunities provided for men and women of different backgrounds and heritage as. this requires our best effort to protect the best liberty. our liberty it rests on the foundation of a written constitution that limits and separates government powers, self-government by the people and the rule of law. those principles the fund the kind of judge our liberty requires. they defined the role judges are made to play in our system of government. i describe my approach to the judicial confirmation in more detail elsewhere, so i ask

consent to my article published earlier this year to have a constitution in place in the record. >> without objection. >> my approach includes three elements. the senate owes some deference to the president's call five nominees. a judicial nominees qualifications include not only legal experience, but also judicial philosophy. i mean a nominee's understanding that the power and proper role of judges in our system of government, this standard must be applied to the nominee's record. i have also found gets from way -- what may seem to be an unusual source. in 2005, then a senator barack obama explained his, he made

three arguments set i find relevant today. first, he argued that the test of a qualified judicial nominee is whether she can set aside her personal views and as he put it, decide each case on the merits alone. that is what our founders intended. judicial decisions have to be based on facts. they have to be based on president and law. also, senator obama reviewed justice brown's speech is with clues about what he called her, overreaching judicial philosophy. there is even more reason to do so today. this is a nomination to the supreme court of america. judge sotomayor, if confirmed, will help change the president's that today binds her as the circuit court of appeals judge. judicial position to which she has been nominated is quite

different than the judicial position she now occupies. this makes evidence outside of her appeals court's decision approach to judging more not less, important. judge sotomayor as a is a thought, spoken and written much on these issues. with respect to her, we will take her entire record seriously. senator obama said that while a nominee's race, gender and life story are important, they can not distract from the fundamental focus on the kind of judge she will be. they said then as i say now, that we should all be grateful for the opportunity that our liberty affords for americans of all different backgrounds. we should applaud judge sotomayor's achievements.

i shared president's hope that we have arrived at a point in our country's history where individuals can be examined and criticized for their views, no matter what their race or gender. today, president obama says that personal empathy is an ingredient into picking a judge. today, we are urged to ignore the judge's decisions. i don't believe we should do that. other current standards have been applied to the past nominees. democratic senators -- senators say she has agreed with her

republican appointed second circuit colleagues 99% of the time. joined by then senator obama, many of the same democratic senators voted against justice samuel alito is a confirmation, even though he had voted with his democrats 99% of the time. during a much longer appeals court career. all although justice alito received high marks, he joined a total of 42 democrats and voted against confirmation of now justice alito. senator obama never voted to confirm supreme court justice. he even voted against a man who administered the oath to presidential office, chief justice roberts. if a compelling life story,

academic and professional excellence and a top rating make a convincing confirmation, estrada would be a circuit court judge today. he is a brilliant respected lawyer, one of the top supreme court practitioners. he was opposed by groups and repeatedly filibustered by democratic senators. the ones who say today that the same factors should count in s judge sotomayor's favor. judicial appointments have become very contentious. some of the things that has been said about judge sotomayor have been unfair. there are now on newspaper reports reporting groups are

engaged in a smear campaign, in one of her cases. a man who will be testifying later in the week. if that is true, it is beneath most -- contempt in this process as well. there must be a debate about the kind of judge america needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. the judges consider their personal feelings and just -- deciding cases. is impartiality a duty or an option? the fact that judicial decisions affect some people's lives require judges to be objective and impartial, or does it allow them to be sympathetic? this raises important issues, and i look forward to a respectful and energetic debate. the confirmation process in general, and this hearing in particular, must be both dignified and thorough. there are very different views

about the issues we will explore, the role of judge should play in our system of government. the task before us is to determine that -- if judge sotomayor is qualified by legal experience and by judicial philosophy on the supreme court. doing so requires examining her entire record, her speeches and articles as well and her judicial decisions. we must be thankful for the opportunity represented by the judge's nomination, and focused squarely on whether she will be the kind of judge required by the very liberty that makes that opportunity possible. judge, i am proud of you, and i wish you well. this will be an interesting experience, and i expect will be treated with dignity and respect her out. thank you. >> senator feinstein?

>> good morning, judge sotomayor. i want to congratulate you on your nomination, and i want to start out with a couple of personal words. your nomination i view with a great sense of personal pride. you are indeed a very special woman. you have overcome adversity and disadvantaged, you have grown in strength and determination, and you have achieved respect and admiration for what has been a brilliant legal and judicial career. if confirmed, you will join the supreme court with more federal judicial experience than any justice in the past 100 years. you bring with you 29 and one- half years of legal experience in the court. by this standard, you are well qualified. in your 11 years as a federal

appellate court judge, you participated in 3000 appeals and offered roughly 400 published opinions. in your six years on the federal district court, you were the trial judge in approximately 460 cases. for four and a half years to prosecute crimes as an assistant d.a. in new york city, and you spent eight years litigating business cases out of new york law firms. what is unique about this experience is that you have seen a lot truly from both sides, on the district court, we saw firsthand the impact of the law on people before you in both civil and criminal cases. you consider, wrote an joined thousands of opinions clarifying the law and reviewing district court decisions in your time on the appellate court. you're 11 years there, is a

rigorous training ground for the supreme court. it is very unique for a judge to have both levels of federal court experience, and you will be the only one on the current supreme court with this background. you were a prosecutor who tried murder, robbery and child pornography cases. you know firsthand the impact of crime on a major metropolis. you have administered justice in the close and personal forum of a trial court. you also possess a wealth of knowledge in the complicated every not of business law, with contract disputes, patent and copyright issues and antitrust questions. as an associate and partner at a private law firm, you had tried complex civil cases in the areas of real estate, banking and contract law as well as intellectual property, which i

am told is a specialty of yours. you bring deep and broad experience in the lot to the supreme court. in my 17 years on this committee, i have held certain qualities that a supreme court nominee must possess. first, relevant experience. a strong and deep knowledge of the lot and the constitution. you satisfied that. third, a firm commitment to follow the law, and you have it all the statistics indicate that. next, a judicial temperament and integrity. you have both of those. and mainstream legal briefing. there is everything in your record to indicate -- > please remove that man!

there will be no outbursts allow the either for or against any position. this is a hearing of the estate's senate. we will have order. this will be done orderly. i will direct the police to remove anybody who makes any kind of an outburst for or against the nominee, either for or against any members of this committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman for your words. >> the record will show my comments and i yield back to

work. >> i believe your records indicate you possess all of these qualities. over the past years of my service, i find it increasingly difficult to know from answers to questions asked how a nominee will act as a supreme court justice because answers here are often in direct and increase simply crouched in euphemistic phrase as. nominees have often responded to specific questions with phrases like, i have an open mind, or yes, that is president, or i have no quarrel with that. of course these phrases obfuscation and prevent a clear understanding of where a nominee's stance. for example, several past nominees have been asked about the casey decision, where the court held that the government

cannot restrict access to abortions other medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. some nominees responded by assuring that roh and casey were precedents of the court entitled to respect. in one of the hearings, questioning by senator specter, this was acknowledged to have acknowledged -- to have made a super precedent. but once on the court, that laws restricting a medical care must contain an exception to protect your help. their decision did not comport with the answers they gave here. it disregarded stereo assizes, and the president established in roe, and casey and others. super president went out the

window and women lost a fundamental protection that it existed for 36 years. also, it showed me that supreme court justices are much more than umpires calling balls and strikes and the word activist is always used only to describe opinions on one side. in just two years, the same nominees have either disregarded or overturn precedents in at least eight other cases, a case involving assignments to attain a racial diversity in school assignments, a case overruling 70 years of precedent on the second amendment and federal gun control law, a case which increased the burden of proof on older workers to prove age discrimination, a case overturning a 1911 decision to allow manufacturers to set minimum prices for their

products, a case overruling two cases from the 1960's on time limits for filing criminal appeals, i case reversing precedent on the sixth amendment right to counsel, a case overturning a prior ruling on a case relating to political campaigns. and a case regarding prior law and creating a new standard that limits when the city's can replace civil service exams, that they may believe has discriminated against a group of workers. i do not believe that supreme court justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes. i believe that they make the decisions of individuals who bring to the court their own experiences and philosophies. judge sotomayor, i believe you are a warm and intelligent woman. i believe you are well studied

and experienced in the law with some 17 years of federal court experience, involving 3000 appeals and 450 trial cases. i believe you, too, will bring your experience and philosophy to the highest court. that will strengthen this high institution of our great country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator grassley? congratulations on your nomination for associate justice, and welcome to the judiciary committee. cut a warm welcome to you and your family and friends. they are all very proud of you and rightly so. you have a distinguished legal record.

it is one we would expect of any individual nominated to the supreme court. you made your start from humble beginnings. you overcame obstacles and excelled at the nation's top schools. you became an assistant district attorney and a successful private attorney. these are impressive legal issues and qualify you to be on the supreme court. an impressive legal record are not the only criteria that we on this committee have to consider. to be truly qualified, the nominee must understand the proper role of a judge in society. we want to be absolutely certain

that the nominee will faithfully interpret all lot of the constitution without bias or prejudice. this is the most critical qualification of a supreme court justice, the capacity to set aside one's own feeling so that he or she can blindly and dispassionately administer equal justice for all. the senate has a constitutional responsibility of advise and consent, to confirm intelligent, experienced individuals anchored to the constitution, not individuals who will pursue personal and political agendas from the bench. judge sotomayor, you are nominated to the highest court in the land which has the final say on the law. as such, it is even more important for the senate to ascertain whether you can resist the temptations to mow the constitution to your own

personal beliefs and preferences. it is even more important for the senate to ascertain whether you can dispense justice without bias or prejudice. supreme court justices sit on the highest court in the land so they are not as constrained to follow precedent to the same extent as history and circuit judges. there is a problem role of a judge in our system of limited government with checks and balances. our democratic system of government demands the judge's not take on the role of policy- makers. that is a role reserve to legislators, who can be voted out of office if people don't like what they legislate, unlike judges. the supreme court is a legal institution, not a political one. but some individuals and groups don't see it that way.

they see the supreme court as ground zero for their political and social battles. they want justices to implement their political and social agenda through the judicial process. that is not what our great american tradition and visions. those battles are appropriately fought in our branch of government, the legislative branch. it is very important that we get it right and confirmed the right kind of person to the supreme court. supreme court nominee should respect the constitutional separation of power. they should understand that the touchstone of being a good judge is the exercise of judicial restraint. good judges understand that their job is not to impose their own personal opinions of right and wrong. they know their job is to say what the law is, rather than what they personally think that it ought to be. good judges understand that they

must meticulously applied the law and the constitution, even if the results they reach are unpopular. good judges know that the constitutional law constraints judges every bit as much as they constrain legislators from executives, and our citizenry. good judges not only understand these fundamental principles, the limb -- they live and breed them. president obama said that he would nominate judges based on their ability to empathize in general, and with certain groups in particular this and with the standard is troubling to me. i am concerned that judging based on empathy is really just legislating from the bench. the constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics, feelings and preferences.

president obama's empty standard appears to encourage judges to make use of their personal politics, feelings and prejudices. this is contrary to what most of us understand what the rule -- the role of the judiciary. president believes you measure up to his empathy standard. that worries me. i reviewed your record and have concerns about your judicial philosophy. in one speech to data that a judge could ever be truly impartial. in another speech to argue that it is a disservice both to all societies for judges to disregard personal views the shaped by one's differences as a woman or man of color. in yet another speech, you pre -- proclaim that the court of appeals is your policy is made. you're wise platina comment contradicts a statement by justice o'connor that a wise old

man and woman would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case. the statements go directly to your views of how judges should use his or her background and experience when deciding cases. unfortunately, i don't feel they comport with i and many other believe it is the proper role of a judge. the american legal system requires that judges check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the door of the town house. lady justice appears blindfolded it holding the scales of justice. judges must wear a blindfold when they interpret the constitution and administer justice. i will be asking you about your ability to wear that judicial blindfold. i will be asking you about your ability to decide cases in accordance with the law. i will be asking you about sure

judicial fallout -- philosophy. ideally, the supreme court should be made up of men and women who are on the side of one special group or issue, rather the supreme court should be made up of men and women who are on the side of law and the constitution. i am looking to support or restraint purest committed to the rule of law and the constitution. i am not looking to support a created jurist, who will allow his or her background and personal preferences to decide cases. the senate needs to do its job, conducting a careful review of your record and qualifications. you are nominated to a lifetime position on the highest court. the senate has a tremendous responsibility to confirm an individual who has superior

intellectual abilities, and an even judicial demeanor. above all, we have tremendous responsibility to confirm an individual who truly understands the proper role of a justice. i will be asking questions about your judicial qualifications. like all of my colleagues, i am committed to giving you a fair a special hearing as is appropriate for supreme court nominees. >> thank you senators. >> i would like to concur rage -- congratulate judge sotomayor. let me also think you in advance for the long week you are about to spend in this room. the supreme court plays the role in the lives of our nation.

it is not surprising at all that the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice is such a widely covered event. the nine men and women who sit on the court have responsibilities, and with those of us tasked with voting on the nomination, we have a significant responsibility as well. this is one of the most consequential things that one does as the united states senator. the ultimate responsibility is to safeguard the rule of law, which defines us as a nation and protect us all. . .

>> is said no to the administration and congress when they tried to strip the constitutional right of habeas corpus to prisoners held at guantanamo bay. these were courageous decisions. they were correct decisions. as justice o'connor wrote, a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens. these were all close decisions, some decided by a 5-4 vote. that underscores the unparalleled power that each supreme court justice has. one of the most important

qualities that a justice must have is courage. courage to stand up to the president and to congress in order to protect the constitutional rights of the american people. i have touched on the reason crucial decisions of the court. we know there are countless past supreme court decisions that have had a major aspect of our national life. the court rejected racial discrimination in education and guaranteed the principal of one- person, one-vote. and made sure that even the poorest person accused of a crime in this country could be represented by counsel. it made sure that newspapers cannot be sued for libel. and for protecting the privacy of telephone conversations from unjustified government eavesdropping. protecting an individual's right to possess a firearm. it made these decisions by interpreting and applying a open ended language and our constitution. phrases like equal protection of

the law, due process of law, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms. senator feinstein just suggested these momentous decisions were not the result of an umpire calling balls and strikes. the great constitutional issues that the supreme court is called upon to decide require much more than the mechanical application of universally accepted principles. that is why justice is the great legal expertise, wisdom, judgment, and they need to understand the impact of the decisions. from new york city to small towns. they need a deep appreciation of the quality and delivery of democracy. i suggest to everyone watching today that they be wary of a

free state appearing at this hearing, judicial activism. the term seems to have lost all usefulness. so many rulings of the conservative majority on the supreme court can fairly be described as activist in their disregard for precedent. perhaps we should all accept that the best definition of a judicial activist is a judge to decide a case. each of the decisions i mentioned earlier was undoubtably criticized by someone at the time it was issued, and maybe even today as being judicial activism. some of them are among the most revered supreme court decisions in modern times. mr. chairman, every senator is entitled to ask whatever questions he or she wants at these hearings. i hope judge sotomayor will

answer all questions as fully as possible. i have questions of my own on a range of issues. senators did ask tough questions and saw as much information from the nominees. i'm glad that judge sotomayor will finally have an opportunity to answer some of the of substantiatincharges. one is that she would be biased against litigants because of a racial and ethnic heritage. this charge is not based on anything in her judicial record. there's nothing in the hundreds of pages she has written to support it. that long record, which is the most relevant evidence we have to evaluate her, demonstrates a cautious and careful approach to judging. instead, if you pull lines from the 2001 speech -- i believe that no one to read the whole

speech could come to that conclusion. the speeches and remarkably thoughtful attempt to grapple with rough issues. how does a judge's personal background and experience affect their judgment? judge sotomayor concludes her speech with the following, "i reminded each day that i render decisions that affect people concretely and bank hold costa and country vigilance in checking my presumptions, and to the extent that my abilities and capabilities prevent me, that i really made them -- that i really with them." thoughtful, humble, and self aware judge. it seems to me that is a quality we would want in our judge. judge sotomayor is living proof that this country is moving in the right direction on the issue of race. the doors of opportunity are finally starting to be open to

all of our citizens. i think the judge's nomination will inspired countless children to study harder and dream i year. -- dream higher. that is something we should all celebrate. she has the knowledge, the wisdom, the judgment, the integrity, and the courage to serve with distinction on our nation's highest court. . thank you, mr. chairman. . >> thank you very much. i will recognize senator kyl. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope that every american is proud that a hispanic woman has been nominated to sit on the supreme court street in fulfilling our advice and consent role, we must evaluate judge sotomayor. with a background that creates a case for confirmation, the primary question i believe judge sotomayor must address is her understanding of the rule of an appellate judge. from what she has said, she

appears to believe the role is not constrained to objectively decide who wins based on the law, but brother, who in her personal opinion should win. the factors that will influence this are apparently her gender and latina heritage, and foreign legal concepts. what is the traditional basis for judging an american? for 220 years, appointing and confirming justices who are committed to putting aside their biases and prejudices, and applying law to fairly and in partially resolve disputes. this is shared across the ideological spectrum. the judge in the ninth circuit explained this in the same venue where less than 24 hours earlier, judge sotomayor may

turn now famous remarks about a wise latino woman. the judge described the instructions that he was about to give to jurors. they recognize that he might have bias and prejudice, and determining whether you can control it so that you can judge the case fairly. if you cannot set aside those prejudices, biases, and passions, then you should not sit on the case. the judge said the same principle applies to judges. we take an oath of office said the federal level. it is an interesting oath. the first time i heard this oath, i was startled by this. i have it hanging in the wall to the office to remind me of my obligations. although i am a latino judge, i'm viewed as a latino judge.

as i judge cases, try to judge them carefully. i tried to remain faithful to my oath. what this judge said has been the standard for 220 years. unfortunately, a very important person has decided it's time for a change. time for a new kind of judge. one who will apply a different standard of judging, including employment of his or her empathy. that person is president obama. the question before us is whether his first nominee to the supreme court follows his new model of judging or the traditional model of articulated by a judge paez. president obama, in opposing the nomination of chief justice roberts said that "will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before our court, but matters on

the supreme court are those 5% that are truly difficult. the language of the statue will not be perfectly clear. we will process a loan will not lead you to a rule of decision -- legal process alone will not lead you to the rule of decision." does he want them to use judicial precedent? no. president obama says, "in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." of course, every person should have ended the -- every person should have empathy. the problem is with other things become the critical an agreement -- and read into

deciding cases. they must be set aside so that a judge can render an impartial decision as required by the judicial oath and as the parties before you expect. i respectfully submit that president obama simply outside the mainstream about how judges should described cases. i practiced law for almost 20 years. never once did i hear a lawyer argued that he had no legal basis to sustain his client's position, so that he had to ask the judge to go with his gut or heart. if judges routinely started rolling this way, the entire legitimacy of the judicial system would be jeopardized. the question for this committee is whether judge sotomayor agrees with president obama theory of judging, or whether

she will take seriously the oath of her perspective office. many of judge sotomayor's public statements suggest that she may allow or even increase decisionmaking based on her biases and prejudices. the wise latina woman quote suggest that judge sotomayor endorses the view that judges should allow devices to guide her when rendering of judicial opinion. this is in stark contrast to judge paez's view. judge sotomayor said that there is "no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives, and no neutrality, no escape from choice, and claims that the aspiration to impartiality is just that." she says it is an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are experiences making different choices than others.

no neutrality, no impartiality. yet is that not what the judicial oath explicitly requires? judge sotomayor clearly rejected the notion that judges should shrine for an impartial brand of justice. she has already accepted that her gender and latino heritage will affect the outcome of her cases. this is a serious issue. it is not the only indication that judge sotomayor has an expansive view of what a judge may appropriately considered. in a speech to the porter recant aclu, she endorsed the idea that american judges should use good ideas found in foreign law so that america does not lose influence in the world. laws and practices of foreign nations are simply irrelevant to interpreting the will of the american people as expressed through our constitution. additionally, the best expansive foreign judicial opinions and practices of which one might draw simply gives activist

judges cover for promoting their personal preferences instead of the law. you can understand my concern when she says judges must borrow ideas from foreign jurisdiction -- "america is going to lose influence in the world." that is not a judge is concerned. some suggest we should not read too much into this, but the focus should be on her judicial decisions. i agree that her judicial record is an important component of our evaluation. i look forward to hearing why the supreme court's has reversed or vacated 80% of her opinions. by a total vote count of 52-19. but we cannot simply brushed aside her extra digits sjudicial statements.

if confirmed, there will be no restraint that will prevent her from deciding cases based on her heartfelt views. before we can fit we discharge our consent, we must be confident that judge sotomayor is absolutely committed to setting aside her biases and impartially deciding cases based on the rule of law. >> this is somewhat different than normal. senator schumer will being recognized for five minutes. we will reserve his other five minutes for later on when he will be introducing judge sotomayor. senator schumer, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome judge sotomayor.

we in new york are so proud of you. and to your whole family. our presence here today is about a nominee who is supremely well qualified with experience on the district court and appellate court benches that is unmatched in recent history. it is about a nominee who in 17 years of judging has authored opinion after opinion that is smart, thoughtful, and judicially modest. judge sotomayor has stellar credentials. there's no question about that. judge sotomayor has twice been the four been nominated to the bench. the first time she was nominated by a republican president. most importantly, judge sotomayor's record bespeaks judicial modesty, something that our friends on the bright have been clamoring for in a way that no recent nominees has.

it is the judicial record, more than speeches and statements, more than personal background, that actually measures how modest the judicial nominee will be. there are several ways of measuring modesty in the judicial record. judge sotomayor more than measures up to each of them. first, judge sotomayor was rule of law above everything else. given her extensive an even- handed record, i'm not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda. unlike justice alito, you do not come to the bench with a record number of dissents. her record shows that she's in the mainstream. she has agreed with republican colleagues 95% of the time. she has ruled for the government in 83% of immigration cases

against the immigration plaintiff. she has ruled for the government in 92% of criminal cases. she has denied race claims a 83% of the cases. and is split evenly on employer- employee cases. judge sotomayor gets the early into the facts of each case. she trusts that an understanding of the facts will lead to justice. i would ask my colleagues to examine a random sampling of her cases in a variety of areas. she rolls up her sleeves, learns the facts, and comes to a decision in respect of her inclinations or personal experiences. in a case involving a new york police officer who made white supremacist remarks, she upheld his right to make them. in a case brought by plaintiffs who claimed they were bumped from a plane because of race,

she dismissed their case. she upheld the first amendment right of a prisoner to wear religious beads under his uniform. in hot button issues such as professional sports, she carefully of years to the facts. she withheld the nfl's ability to retain certain players. also, helped end the major league baseball strike. judge sotomayor states careful to the stacketext of statutes. in dissenting from an award of damages to injured plaintiffs, she wrote, "we start from the assumption to articulate the appropriate standards to be applied as a matter of federal law." mr. chairman, just four years ago, then judge roberts sat

where judge sotomayor is sitting. he said his jurisprudence would be characterized with modesty and humility. he illustrated this with the well-known quote, "umpires do not make the rules, they apply them." many can debate whether his four years on the supreme court, he actually called pitches as they came, or whether he tried to change the rules. any objective review of judge sotomayor's record on the second circuit leaves no doubt that she has simply called balls and strikes, for 17 strikeyears fare closely than chief justice robbers has. if judge sotomayor continues to approach cases on the supreme court as she has for the last 17 years, she will be absolutely

modest. she does not adhere to a philosophy that it takes results over facts. if the number one standard that conservatives use and apply is judicial modesty and humility, no activism on the supreme court, they should vote for judge sotomayor unanimously. i look forward to the next few days of hearings and to judge sotomayor's confirmation. >> thank you very much. i'm going to recognize senator gramm. then we will take a short break. >>. -- thank you. i have learned something already. the schumer conservative standard. we will see how that works. no republican would have chosen you, judge. that is just the way it is. we would have picked a strata.

i do not think anybody on that side would have voted for that judge, who was a immigrant from honduras who came to this country as a teenager, graduated from columbia, harvard, and a stellar background like yours. that is just the way it was. he never had a chance to have this hearing. he was nominated by president bush to the d.c. circuit of appeals. he never had this day. the hispanic elegant of this hearing is important, but i do not wanted to be lost. -- the hispanic elements of this hearing is important, but i do not want it to be lost. there are some of my colleagues on the other side that voted for judge robbers and judge alito knowing that they would not have chosen either one of those. i will remember that now.

unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed. i do not think you will. the drama that is being created here is interesting. my republican colleagues to vote against it, i assure you could vote for a hispanic nominee, they just feel honored by your speeches and by some of the -- unnerved by your speeches and some of your writings. i do not know what i will do yet. i know that you as an advocate for the porter rican defense legal fund, you took on some cases that i would have loved to be on the other side of. your organization advocated tax payer funded abortion. and said to deny a poor black woman medicaid funding for an abortion was the public to the dread scott case.

i think that was heartfelt. i would look at it either way. to take my tax payer dollars and to provide an abortion to pay for an abortion i disagree with is pretty extreme. there's two ways of looking at that. you were a prosecutor, but you organization argue for the repeal of the death penalty. your organization argued for quotas when it came to hiring. i just want my colleagues to understand that there can be no more liberal group in my opinion than the porter rican defense legal fund when it came to advocacy. if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment. you can be the nra general counsel and still be a good lawyer. i will not hold it against you or the organization for advocating a cause for which i disagree. that makes america a special

place. i would have loved to be on the cases on the other side. i hope that would not have disqualified me. when it comes to our speeches, that is the most troubling thing to me. that gives us an indication when you're able to get outside the courtroom inside how you think life works. this wise latina, it has been talk about a lot. if i have said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. that is true of most people here. you need to understand that. i look forward to talking to you about that comment. does that mean i think you are racist? no. that just bothers me when somebody wearing a robe takes the role off and says that their experience makes them better than somebody else. i think your experience can add a lot to the court. i do not think it makes you better than anybody else.

when i look at your record, there's a lot of truth to what senator schumer said. i do not think you have taken the opportunity on the circuit to be a cause for the judge. we're talking about what we do when it comes to making policy. i'm pretty well convinced i know what you are going to do. you will probably decide cases differently than i would. that brings me back to what, i suppose to do knowing that? i do not think anybody here worked harder for senator mccain than i did. we lost. president obama won. that ought to matter. it does to me. what standard to apply? if i applied senator obama's standard your nomination, i would not vote for you. the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your

activism and background when it comes to the lowering your judging. he said something about the 5% of cases that were -- he said something to the effect -- in those difficult cases, it is the critical ingredient of what is in the judge's heart. i think that is an absurd, dangerous standard. maybe something good can come off of these hearings. if we start applying that to nominees, it will ruin the judiciary. i have no idea what is in your heart anymore you have an idea of what is in my heart. i think it takes us down a dangerous road as a country. there was a time when someone like justice scalia and justice ginsburg got 95 plus votes. if you were confused as to where

justice scalia was coming down, as a judge, you should not be voting. anymore than if you were in mystery about what justice ginsburg would do in the 5% of the cases. that is a mystery. there's some aspect of you that i'm not sure about that gives me hope the you may not go down senator feingold's the when it comes to the war on to evter. generally speaking, the president has nominated someone of good character, who is passionate, who has stood out and stood up from day one, and you have been a strong advocate, and you will speak more mind. the one thing i'm worried about is that if we keep doing what you're doing, we will deter people from speaking their mind.

i want to to be able to speak your mind. you have to understand that when you gave the speeches as a sitting judge, that was disturbing to me. i want lawyers who are willing to fight for something. i do not want the young lawyers of this country feel that there are certain kinds they cannot represent because it will be the end of their career when they come before. the. -- when they come before the senate. i do not know how i will vote. my inclination is that the elections matter. i'm not going to be upset with any of my colleagues that find that you are a bridge too far. in many ways, with a gun in your legal career -- what you have done in your legal career give me good insight to what you will do. president obama won the election and i will respect that. when he was here, he saiet in

motion a standard that was more about seeking the presidency than being fair to the nominee. he said the critical ingredient was supplied by what is in the judge's part. the translation is, i will not run against my face because i'm running for president. we have a chance to start over. my belief is that you will do well. whether or not i agree with you on the big themes of life is not important. the question for me, have you earned the right? if i give you this robe, i believe he will do at the end of the day what you think is best, that you have courage, and that will yo do what is fair. thank you. >> mr. estrada was nominated

when the republicans were in charge of the senate. he was not given a hearing by the republicans. he was given a hearing when the democrats took that the majority in the senate. he was given a hearing. a number of questions were submitted to him by republicans and democrats. we answered those questions. he declined to. he may have been distracted by an offer of a very high paying law firm. i do not know. he was not given a hearing when the republicans were in charge. >> if i may, mr. chairman -- >> we had 7 attempts to bring him up. i think i spoke with his behalf more than any other senator.

i do feel like it was a clear decision on the part of the democrats. and the rejection over the release of documents, the internal memorandum, the legal memorandum -- the solicitor general said it was not appropriate. thank you. >> should have had the hearing with the republicans were in charge. once the senator is finished, we will take a short break. >> judge sotomayor, welcome to the united states senate. i think you will find that each member wants to do what is best for the country. we may differ on some of our views, but we all share or respect your public service. thank you. we thank your family.

i'm honored to represent the people of maryland in the united states senate as we consider one of our most important responsibilities, whether we should recommend the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to and be an associate justice. the next court is likely to consider fundamental issues that will affect the lives of all americans. there have been many important decisions decided by the supreme court by 5-4 vote. each justice can play a critical role in forming the meeting -- needed consensus. a new justice can have a profound impact. supreme court decisions affect each and every person in our nation. i think my own family's history. my grandfather came to america more than 100 years ago. i am convinced that they came to america not only for greater economic opportunities, because of the ideals expressed in our

constitution, especially the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom. my grandparents wanted their children to grow up in a country where they were able to practice their jewish faith and fully participate in community and government. my father became a lawyer, state legislator, circuit court judge, and president of the synagogue. his son now serves in the united states senate. our founding fathers made freedom of religion a priority, equal protection of all races to achieve. -- took longer to achieve. i attended a school that was part of a segregated school system. i remember with great sadness how discrimination was not only condoned, but more often than not, encouraged, against blacks, jews, catholics, and other minorities. there were neighborhoods that my parents wanted me to avoid for

fear of safety because i was jewish. the local movie theater denied admission to african-americans. community swimming pools have signs that said no jews or blacks allowed. sports clubs were segregated by race. then came from the board of education and suddenly my universe and community were changed forever. the decision to move our nation forward by correcting wrongs that were built into the law. it brought into the forefront of our nation's consciousness a great future jurist from baltimore, through good martial. he went on to represent the clintons in brown v. board of education. i 1967 -- he represented the plaintiffs in brown v. board of education.

the nine justices of the united states supreme court have the tremendous responsibility of safeguarding the framers intent of guarding the values of our constitution. at times, the supreme court has and should look beyond popular sentiment to preserve these basic principles. the next justice who will fill the place of justice souter will be an important voice on these fundamental issues. it is my belief that the constitution and bill of rights were created to be living documents and stand together as a foundation for the rule of law in our nation. our history reflects this. when the constitution was written, african-americans were considered property. nonwhites and women were not allowed to vote. individuals were restricted by race as to who they could marry. laws were passed by congress and decisions by the supreme court undeniably moved our country forward, continuing the

progression of constitutional protections that have changed our nation for the better. before ruling that separate was not equal, a law presented our society with different schools for black and white children. before roe v wade, women had no constitutionally applied right to privacy. these are difficult questions that have come before the court. new challenges will continue to arise, but the basic framework remains. i want to compliment president obama in nominating judge sotomayor, who is well qualified for consideration. her well-rounded background, including extensive experience as a prosecutor, trout gulctria, and appellate judge. as a relatively new member of the senate judiciary committee, i considered a few key standards that apply to all judicial

nominations. i believe nominees must have an appreciation of the constitution and the protection it provides to each and every american. she or he must embrace judicial philosophy that reflects mainstream american values, not narrow ideological interest. they should have a strong passion to continue the court's advancements in civil rights. there's a careful balance to be found. our next justice should advance the protections in our constitution, but not disregard important precedents that have made our society stronger. i believe judicial nominees must also demonstrate a respect for the rights and responsibilities of each branch of government. these criteria allow me to evaluate a particular judge whether he or she might place on their personal philosophy ahead of the responsibility of their office. as we begin considering the nomination, i want to quote

justice marshall. judge sotomayor is a perfect example of how family, hard work, support of mentors, an opportunity can come together to create a real success story. she was born in new york reporter rican family and grew up in public housing projects. her mother was a nurse and her father was a factory worker with a third grade education. she was taught early in life that education is the key to success. her strong work ethic enabled her to excel in school. she attended princeton university. to receive the highest honors princeton awards to an under graduate. at yale law school, she was known to stand up. for. nominated by both democrat and republican presidents, for 17 years, she has been a distinguished jurist. and now has more experience than any supreme court nominee in the

last 100 years. this week's hearings are essential. some understanding of the context judge sotomayor's judge life -- i believe it is fair to a fairly important during these confirmation hearings to question judge sotomayor on the guiding principles she would use in reaching decisions. it is important for me to understand her interpretation of established precedent, while protecting individual constitutional rights. i believe it would be wrong for the supreme court justices to turn back the landmark court precedents protecting individual constitutional rights. the supreme court will likely consider important protections for women, our environment, as well as voting rights, and the separation of church and state. the supreme court has recently been active in imposing limits on executive power. it will continue to deal with the constitutional rights in our criminal justice system, the rights of detainees, and the

rights of non-citizens. these issues test our nation and the supreme court's commitment to our founding principles and fundamental values. we need to know how are nominee might approach the issues and analyze these decisions. mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing from judge sotomayor on these issues and expect that she will share with this committee and her american people, her thoughts and views. judge sotomayor, thank you for your public service and readiness to take on these great responsibilities for our nation. i want to thank your family for their clear support and sacrifice. >> thank you. after discussion with senator sessions, we will take a 10 minute break and then come back. we are trying to figure out the lunch hour time. you have been very patient, judge.

there's a sign in front of you that has your name, which everybody knows. it is shining bright in the eyes. the sign will be gone, but that does not mean that is not your place when you come back. we stand in recess for 10 minutes.

>> a break being taken. senator leahy is making his way out of the hearing room as we begin our first day of hearings for judge sotomayor. what we saw in the last hour was an opening statement delivered by senator lindsey gramm. as this scheduled 10 minute break -- it might go longer than that -- we will show you the opening statement. >> nobody would have chosen you. that's just the way it is.

we would have chosen miguel estrada. i do not think anybody on that side would vote for estrada. he is from honduras. a stellar background, like yours. that's just the way it was. he never had the chance to have this hearing. he was nominated by president bush to the d.c. circuit court of appeals, which i think most people agree is probably the second highest court in the land. he never had this day. the hispanic elements of this hearing is important, but i do not wanted to be lost. this is more about liberal and conservative politics more than anything else. some of my colleagues voted for judge roberts and judge alito, knowing they would not have chosen either one of those. i will remember that now. unless you have a complete

meltdown, you will be confirmed. i do not think you will. the drama that is being created here is interesting. my republican colleagues who vote against you, i assure you could vote for a hispanic nominee. they just feel ununnerved by your speeches and some of the things you've said and some of your cases. having said that, i do not know what more to do. i do believe that you as an advocate for the poruerto rican defense, you took on some cases that i would have liked to be on the other side. you said in a brief to the night a poor black woman medicaid funding for an abortion was equivalent to the dread scott case. that is a pretty extreme casthig to say, but i think it was

heartfelt. i will look at it the other way . to pay for an abortion i disagree with with my tax dollars -- i disagree. your organization argued for the appeal of the death penalty because it was discriminatory against minorities. your organization argued for quotas when it came to hiring. i just want my colleagues to understand that there can be no more liberal group then the three can -- puerto rican defense legal fun when it comes to advocacy. i hope we will not forget this moment. you could be the nra general counsel and still be a good lawyer. i will not hold it against you or the organization for advocating a cause for much i disagree. that makes america a special place.

i would have loved to be on the other side of those cases. i hope that would not have disqualified me. when it comes to your speeches, that is the most troubling thing to me. that gives us an indication -- when you are able to get outside the courtroom without the robe, and is wise latina, it has been talked about a lot. if i had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. that is true of most people here. you need to understand that. i look forward to talking to you about that comment. does that mean that i think you are racist? no. that just bothers me when somebody wearing the robe says that their experience makes them better than someone else. i think your experience can add a lot to the court, but i do not think it makes you better than anyone else. when i look to your record,

there's a lot of truth to what senator schumer said. i do not think you have taken the opportunity on the circuit to be a cause-driven judge. we're talking about what you will do when it comes to making policy. i am pretty well convinced i know we will do. you will probably decide cases differently than i would. that brings me back to what am i supposed to do knowing that. i do not think anybody here work harder for senator mccain then i did, but we lost. president obama won. that ought to matter. it does to me. what standard to live like? -- what standard to i apply? if i applied senator obama's standard to your nomination, i would not have voted for you. the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for somebody with the activism and background.

he said something about the 5% of the cases that were all driven by. he said something to the effect -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. i have no way of knowing what is in your heart anymore than you do of what is in my heart. that is a dangerous standard. maybe something good can come out of these hearings. if we start applying that to nominees, it will ruin the judiciary. i have no idea what is in your heart anymore than you have an idea of what is in my heart. i think it takes us down a very dangerous road as a country. there was a time when someone like justice scalia and justice ginsburg got over 95 votes. if you were concerned about where scalia was coming down, as a judge, you should not be voting.

any more than if you were a mystery about what justice ginsburg was going to do in these 5% of cases. there is some aspect of you that i'm not sure about that gives me hope that you may not go down the senator fine gofineengold's role on the war on timber. generally speaking, you have lived a full and fruitful life. someone who is passionate from day one to the time they got to show kids who you work, you stood up and stood out. you have been a strong advocate and you will speak your mind. the one thing i'm worried about is that if we keep doing what we are doing, we will deter people from speaking their mind. i want you to be able to speak

your mind, but you have to understand them when you gave these speeches as a sitting judge, that was disturbing to me. i want lawyers who believe in something and are willing to fight for it. i do not want the young lawyers of this country feeling like there are certain clients they cannot represent because when they come before the senate, it will be the end of their career. i do not know how i'm going to vote, but my inclination is that elections matter. i'm not going to be upset with any of my colleagues that find that you are a bridge too far. in many ways, what you have done in your legal career and the speeches you have made give me great insight into where he will come out on these 5% of the cases. president obama won the election and i will respect that. when he was here, he set in motion a standard that was more

about seeking the presidency than being fair to the nominee. when he said the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart -- translated, that means i will not vote against my base. we have a chance to start over. i hope we will take that chance. you will be asked hard questions. i think you expect that. my belief is that you will do well. whether or not i agree with you is not important. the question for me is, have you learned the right to be here? -- have you learned the right to be here? do i believe that you have courage and you will be fair? come thursday, i think i will know more about that. good luck. >> thank you. just so we are all dealing with the same facts. mr. estrada was nominated when

the republicans were in charge of the senate, was not given a hearing by the republicans. he was given a hearing when the democrats took back the majority in the senate. he was given a hearing and told that a number of questions were submitted to him by republicans and democrats. and before voting, we answered those questions. he declined. he may have been distracted by an offer of a very high paying law firm, but i do not know. he was not given a hearing when the republicans were in charge. he was given a hearing when the democrats were in charge. >> mr. chairman, if i may -- >> i yield to senator sessions . >> we had 7 attempts. i think i spoke on his behalf

more than any other senator. i do feel like it was a clear decision on the part of democrats. and the objection over releasing documents, the internal memorandum that he had provided, that the solicitor general said it was not appropriate for the department of justice to produce. thank you. >> should have had that hearing when the republicans were in charge. >> back live in the hearing room. live picture as we bring you the first day of the nomination hearing for judge sonia sotomayor. she is currently out of the room as the break is being taken. you can see some of the members of the senate, some of the staffers milling about. it looks as though we are about to get under way again. let's watch the room.

live coverage continues on c- span as well as c-span radio and our web site, c-span.org.

>> judge, you may have a broken ankle, but you beat me back to the hearing room.