there wasn't much left of the airplane. they said that nuclear plants cannot exist without a federal subsidy. there is a federal -- there is a federal insurance plan, but this has never paid a dime of insurance. there are 104 nuclear plants in the united states that can be assessed with $100 million in damages with an accident -- and this is adding to the consciousness. most of the reactors have a revenue of $2 million a day, to pay for the construction loans and still make possible lower rates for consumers. when the tennessee valley authority restarted the reactor two years ago, they thought it would take 10 years to pay off the $1.8 billion construction debt. . pay off the 1.8

billion construction debt. it took three years. when oil prices were skyrocketing, connecticut proposed putting a windfall profits test on the two nuclear reactors in the state because they were making so much money. >> nuclear power is the obvious first step to a policy of clean and low-cost energy. 100 new plants in 20 years would double u.s. nuclear electricity double u.s. nuclear electricity production, making it 40% of electricity production. add 10% for sun and wind and other renewables. another 10% for hydroelectric. maybe 5% for natural gas, and we begin to have a cheap as well as a clean energy policy. step two for a cheap and clean energy policy is to electrify half our cars and trucks. according to estimates by

brookings institutions scholars, there is so much unused electricity at night we can also do this for 20 years without building one new power plant if we plugged vehicles in at night while we sleep. this is the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, one. to keep fuel prices low, two, and third, to reduce by the one-third of carbon that comes from gasoline engines. step three is to explore offshore for natural gas its low carbon and oil, using less oil, but using more of our own, and the final step is the double funding for energy research and development that launched many manhattan projects like the one we had in world war ii. this time to meet seven grand energy challenges, including batteries for plug-in vehicles and making solar power cost competitive with fuels, making

carbon capture a reality for coal-burning power plants. i suggested to secretary chu that he reserve a nobel peace prize for a scientist that figures out a way to capture carbon from existing coal plants. safely recycling used nuclear fuel. crops we don't eat, make them competitive with gasoline. making more buildings green buildings and providing energy from fusion which is recreating on the earth what happens at the center of the sun. the difficulties with nuclear power are political, not technological, social, not economic. the main obstacle is a lingering doubt and fear about the technology. any progressive administration that wishes to solve the problem of global warming without crushing the american economy should help the public resolve these doubts and fears. what is needed boils down to two

words, presidential leadership. we can't wait any longer to start building our future of clean, reliable and affordable energy. time has come for action. we can revive america's industrial and high-tech economy with the technology that we already have in hand. the only requirement that is that we open our minds to the possibility and potential of nuclear power. as we do, our policy of cheap and clean energy based on nuclear power, electric cars, off-shore exploration and doubling energy rnd will help family budgets and create jobs. it will also prove to be the fastest way to increase american energy independence, clean the air and reduce global warming. i hope you will let me know your thoughts at www.alexander.senate.gov.

you will find on our website a copy of this blueprint for nuclear power plants in 20 years. i thank you, and i would be glad to take some questions. yes, sir? >> senator, do you plan to introduce legislation to forward the blueprint or will you rely primarily on the gop energy package? we will start with the gop and the republican energy package. as i said this is my blueprint. i expect there will be other republican senators offering their own blueprints to advance the republican plan. i'm going to wait and so what the reaction is. i hope to get response and feedback and suggestions and corrections to what i've said in this blueprint. i hope that several democratic senators, a number of whom support nuclear power will agree with me that the smart thing to do in this country is build 100 new nuclear power plants so i'll wait and see. i'm going ahead with senator

carper on legislation to deal with sulfur, nitrogen. we know what to do about those. carbon is more elusive and i think i'll wait to see the reaction and if i can attract democratic support. yes, sir? >> senator alexander, what, at a minim minimum, needs to be in a nuclear title in a climate change bill in this senate for you to support it? >> well, i'm not sure we need a climate change. i'm not sure we need a climate change bill. >> but assuming that the democrats in the senate decide to proceed with a democratic house bill and also tried to get some republican support most people say the fastest way to do that is to add a nuclear title. i realize it's a hypothetical, but it's a likely hypothetical.

what would you like to see in this title? >> i would strenuously argue against adding a nuclear title to the waxman/markey bill. the waxman markey bill needs to be junked. i mean, it has become a contraption of taxes and mandates that hurts the economy that may not do very much for global warming. let me give you one example of why it's unfixable. we've had testimony before our energy committees and our environment committees in the senate that an economy-wide cap and trade is an inefficient way to discourage the use of carbon-based fuels. all it would do, at least for the near-term is raise the price of gasoline, say, but not reduce the amount of carbon because it's not enough to change the behavior of americans.

if you're going to put limits on fuel which is 30% of the carbon, the right way to do that is a low-carbon fuel standard that gradually shifts carbon out of fuels and people move to something else such as electricity. so i could not support any legislation with an economy-wide cap and trade. i think the more americans look at that, the more they'll see it's unnecessary and a huge tax and they won't want to pay an additional utility bill especially when there's an alternative that would reduce their utility bills and clean the air and in my view would put us within the kyoto protocol by 2030. >> yes, bill? >> what's your sense of what secretary chu's view is and whether he might be an advocate within the administration? >> well, of course, i'm very

impressed with secretary chu. ese a very impressive secretary. i believe he obviously knows nuclear power. i think he's restrained by administration policy. i congratulate him for moving ahead with the four loan financing arrangements that were created by congress in 2005. that's more than the bush administration got done in terms of loan financing and that's very important. as soon as you get the first four nuclear plants built it will make it much easier to build the rest, but there is this strange reluctance on the part of an administration that declares that global warming is one of its great missions to the single technology that would help us deal with global warming in this generation and until this president becomes as interested in 100 new nuclear power plants as he is at building wind mills, i don't think secretary chu will be

permitted to have a very aggressive nuclear policy, but that's one reason for our agenda. sometimes by our advocacy, we can change the minds of enough people that it brings democratic support to republican ideas and we have a bipartisan idea and my goal would be that the president would eventually adopt this and say we'll have to do this if we have to deal with global warming in this generation without running all of our auto jobs overseas. yes, sir? >> senator, have you been approached by senator boxer and senator kerrie and any of the democrats that are trying to push the climate bill in trying to build bipartisan support and would you vote against a cap and trade bill even if it goes against an economy-wide cap? >> i just said yes to that. >> yes. an economy-wide cap and trade is a disaster for our country. it is a job-killing $100 billion

a year tax and you add to that the mdates that require the southeast and huge wind turbines. that's like requiring a state that has deserts to make elect rhys frit hydroelectric dams and rivers that they don't have. they don't have the river s as we don't have the wind. so, yes, i would hope that the senate would start over and draft a climate change bill that would avoid an economy-wide cap and trade and that would focus on nuclear power, electric cars, off-shore exploration and many manhattan projects to make renewable energy cost competitive. yes, ma'am? >> senator, do you anticipate any othe nuclear power plants -- >> well, it might very well. the tennessee valley authority is leading the country right now in terms of restarting nuclear

power plants and i just finished one and it's half way through another and it's exploring new plants which is part of the territory. nuclear power is attributed to tennessee. we have the mountains in cities like knoxville and always struggling with dirty air. we need to produce electricity from something that doesn't put smog and soot in the air and doesn't contribute to global warming and for us nuclear power is the best option. yes, sir? >> senator, you mentioned that there were a number of democrats when it comes to nuclear energy and you are hoping some of them would come onboard and have you had a chance to discuss this with them and what is their response. >> we know the senators like senator carper of delaware and

senator carbon of maryland are strong supporters of nuclear power and there are others. i have not discussed this proposal. i'm offering this blueprint today and i'm sending it to senators and solicit their advice and hopefully gain their support. >> yes, sir? >> i'm still confused about what you want the government to do to build these nuclear plants. is anyone stopping the industry from building plants right now if they want to. >> yes. if the ideal way to start would be the president to direct the department of energy to give him a plant to build 100 nuclear power plants and to list the obstacles that stand in the way of it. >> it's not so much that the government needs to do anything. it's that the government needs to avoid stopping the plant. the one affirmative thing that the government could do is

increase the number of loan financing guarantees for the first six or eight plants. secretary chu is committed to doing it for four. that would be an $18 billion credit. i'd like to see that go to $50 billion and all those dollars should not be at risk to the taxpayer because they simply allow the tax to borrow the money to make the construction. a second thing the government could do that might be on the list of the president would be a manhattan project to do a better job of recycling used nuclear fuel. we can't do that today, but if as most people believe, i believe, that we should find better ways to recycle nuclear fuel than we have today. we can still use nuclear waste on site for years and in the next five, 10, 12 years with aggressive research we can find ways to recycle that fuel and do

itnam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- another thing the government to do is make sure it has sufficient staff to process the applications so that it doesn't slow walk applications. it is a national goal to build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years. a presidential leadership for the two things that we need the most. >> on the issue of presidential leadership, you already insinuated your frustration. i wanted to ask you about the economic policies that have anted to ask you about already the economic policies have already cost about half a million machine tool types of

jobs. what do you prepare to do about the loss of capacity to actually be able to build the parts required to have this type of program? the single west way to rebuild in america, the capacity to build nuclear plants is to start building them. there is a new french company that's come to chattanooga to build large turbines that will be necessary. westinghouse who is interested in building nuclear plants is creating a school for welders. as soon as investors are clear that the united states will build 100 ants, as soon as we get three or four up, there will be new industry here. plus there is an announcement today by babcock ask wilcox that it plans to seek approval of a small nuclear reactor that would be 125 megawatts instead of the 1240 or 1500 megawatt great, big

things that we now see. that's very promising. ge has a small reactionor as others do. if we start building small reactors, that could accelerate the building of reactors because utility companies wouldn't have to invest such large amounts of money and in the babcock and wilcox place, all of the parts are built in the united states. they're built in ohio and they're built at the factory and these megawatts and ship them by rail to a plant sit and if they needed two or three they would be put together like lego blocks. >> would you be -- what do you think about contrasting something like retooling gm. giving them contracts to bell these things. would you be opposed to that? >> i don't want to see the government get in the business of -- the government is already getting into the insurance business, the banking business and the student loan business

and maybe the health care business. i don't want the government to get into the business of building power plants. it's not necessary. we built the first power plants with the rate payer's money and not government money. all we have to do is create an environment in which private enterprise can succeed. yes? >> your plan calls for a long-term -- you know, it talks about not increasing the use of electricity in the united states over the next 20 years and reducing the amount of coal by 50% and cutting coal use by h f half. how do you propose to ensure those two goals, the energy conservation coal and the coal reduction come to pass. >> i don't believe i say anywhere in there that we won't use more electricity in the united states over the next 20 years. i think we will use more electricity in the united states over the next 20 years which is why we need to build nuclear power plants.

i think we are likely to use less coal over the next 20 years, and i think we should use less coal. we have some dirty coal plants that ought to be closed and the best way to replace them is with nuclear power plants and they can't be replaced by solar or wind because they only blow or shine a third of the time. even the big, new plants in tennessee that were delighted to have that make poly silicone, the material for solar panels on roofs. each of those uses 120 megawatts of power. so if they were dependent on solar power, they wouldn't be there. they're dependent on nuclear and coal. the one exception would be that over this time, i'm very hopeful, as i said earlier, that some scientists will win the nobel prize by inventing a commercially viable way to remove carbon from existing coal plants. that would be tremendous for our country and for the world.

it would permit the whole world to have low-cost, clean energy and perhaps that will be a solution. if that is the case then we'll be using plenty of coal. >> is there an energy legislation that ensures the emissions reductions that your plan believes it could achieve? >> the answer is yes, i do. i'm not speaking for the whole republican caucus because i have different views about that. i would be in favor of's low carbon fuel standard, for example. that's 30% of all of the carbon that's produced in the united states and since we have electric cars and trucks about to be manufactured by almost every manufacturer. nissan's going to build them in tennessee, for example, we can require less carbon and fuel without raising the price of fuel. in fact, i think we could lower

the price of fuel. brookings says, as i mentioned that we have so much unused electricity at night that we can plug in cars and trucks at night and have not to build a power plant. the difference with coal is that we don't have an alternative to coal. we don't have a commercially viable way yet to take the carbon out of coal, and we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in 30 years, and while we can build natural gas plants, that's a dangerous thing for us to do because, as we know, the price can go up. it was $14 or $15 just a few years ago and we use it for so many other things. so i would -- i could support limits on carbon on coal plants after we've started -- we built and opened some nuclear power plants and shown that we're going to open more or we have invented a commercially viable

way to recapture carbon from existing coal plants. yes, sir? >> can we store nuclear waste on site or what can we do if we can't resolve the issue now to existing plants and how are we going to deal with doubling the number of plants? >> one, we can forget yucca mountain. the president's told us that. although that's sort of like saying we're not going -- we're going to close guantanamo bay without figuring out where we'll put the terrorists. that causes a problem. in the case of nuclear fuels, two thing, one, it can be stored on site safely for the next 30 to 40 years. france does it. they all believe it can be done safely. number two, we should have a mini-manhattan project on how to -- on the safest and best way to recycle used nuclear fuel.

i'm not satisfied that we've got that yet. so let's take 10 or 20 years to figure that out and at that point we can recycle the waste and have almost no residue left from the waste. so it's a two-part plan. >> yes? sir, it sounds like most of the effort is going to come from the president then in terms of pushing 100 nuclear reactors. the one thing you mentioned congress could do is up the loan guarantees. is there anything else? are you going to pursue this since you're not going to go to the cap and trade likely the way the senate's going? are you going to produce this as a stand alone bill? i'm taking it step by step and i have a blueprint for the goals. i'm inviting comment and criticism and suggestions and i'm looking for bipartisan

support. i'm also meeting with people who understand nuclear power plants and asking them what are the first ten thins that the federal government can do to make it more likely that we could build 100 plants in 20 years. i think the president should be doing that. if he really believes in global warming and that we ought to deal with it in a generation, he ought to call in his very bright administrators and distinguished scientists and say tell me exactly what we need to do at the federal level that make sure we have 100 power plants in 20 years. i mentioned loan financing for plants. a second thing is the research on what to do with advanced -- wi fuel. we may discover four or five other steps that the federal government needs to take. i mentioned a third thing. >> the senate -- >> well, each of those. congress would have to approve

more financing. congress would have to approve a larger staff for the nuclear regulatory commission if needed. congress would have to fund the research and development on a recycling of nuclear fuel, but it would make it much easier if the president would say here are the ten things we need to do. i asked congress to do this. it's part of our goal. we worked with president bush in a bipartisan way a few years ago on what we need to do to remain competitive. we had the national academy of sciences tell us the ten things we need to do. they told us 20. we tried to put it into legislation and we passed it. we could do the same thing with this goal. >> the subsidy? to an industry, and you want the loans up front and doesn't the liability end up becoming a huge -- you know? why can't you get the loans from

the private sector? why can't you get the liability insurance from the private sector? why can't it come from the government? >> well, the credit's not available, and the question would be whether the government as authorized loan financing for nuclear power plants and i give secretary chu great credit for going ahead with the first four. that's not a taxpayer subsidy if the taxpayer is not out any money and the taxpayer should not be, in the end, because the plants themselves have to put up enough money so if there's any default they'll pay for it. as far as the price anderson federal legislation about insurance, that often gets brought up, but as i say in my remarks that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything either, and it never has because today, if there is an accident at a nuclear plant, each of the 104 nuclear plants that exist today are liable up to $100 million to pay for any damages that have occurred. so there may need to be some

federal action, but, and i'm looking to say what it should be, and i haven't seen a reason for federal subsidies yet. i do encourage the use of electric cars and trucks, and i do support federal subsidies in the level of $8 billion a year about the president's proposals for energy research and development on renewable energy. >> that is the key, why didn't we get it under the previous administration. >> i don't know. it would have been better if we had. >> we can't constantly. at some point, the new administration will take credit for being president. i mean, we can't just, for example, with the debt, we can't just get in and say a that, the boat is sinking and the problem is the boat and let's dig a second hole. i've given secretary chu credit for doing something president

bush wasn't able to do which is to do loan financings for nuclear power plants authorized in 2005. what i'd like to see is president obama be aggressive about 100 new nuclear power plants. make that a part of his goal of dealing with global warming and reindustrializing america. maybe one more and then we'll stop. >> while you addressed earlier that there is a real problem with the economy, with the job losses, the fact that almost every state is bankrupt and difficult to get loans from banks, i am with the political action committee and we've been mobilizing around the country for a new, for a actual bankruptcy. in the 1920s and 30s and to actually figure out what is the

means, the first thing he did was he put the wall street financial interests on public trial and showed and mobilized the people to see what we were up against. what caused the collapse and right now we're in a situation. >> what is the question? >> the question is how are we going to create a new credit system so we can direct credit to the infrastructure projects like nuclear power and mag leff transportation and water systems,ed kind of project that would recreate our real economy. >> it's a very good question and a good one to end on. i think we've lost sight. two-word answer is cheap energy. cheap energy. i think we've lost sight of how important cheap energy is to good jobs. across tennessee, just as one example, we have a lot of manufacturing jobs and a third of them are auto jobs. almost everyone i know down

there whether they're making autos or autoparts or air conditioners. they look at every cost they have. the cost gets too high, off they go overseas searching for a lower cost, but if electric rates are low and energy costs are low, we're much more lely to be making cars in tennessee, than in japan and mexico, and if we invent new and better ways as we did with nuclear power to provide cheap energy and think of what that does to relief poverty around the world. even in nashville, tennessee, a year ago, 10% of the people said they couldn't pay their electric bills in december. and around the world people have much less money. so i think it is wrong for the united states to embark on an expensive energy policy which is the house bill. i think it is right to take the republican senate bill which is

100 nuclear plants, electric cars and trucks, off-shore drilling and doibling energy rnd for renewable energy. that's the plan for the next 20 years, and that would actually lower utility bills and create jobs that other plants would create a new utility bill for every american family and run jobs overseas. i thank you for your time. this is the blueprint for 100 new nuclear power plants, and i hope it promotes the same kind of discussion we had today. if you're watching th -- thank you very much for coming.

>> tomorrow morning on washington journal, representative peter roskam also jess bravin discuss the hearings and then janet murguia her endorsement of the judge. and a vat of the confirmation hearings will continue on the c- span network tomorrow morning beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. you can see the first hour of the hearings here on c-span before the house gavels in for the day. you can also see the hearing in its entirety on c-span3 and don c-span.org. also listen to the hearing on c- span radio. our live coverage begins at 9:30

a.m. eastern. >> how is c-span funded? >> dhue were funded? >> private contributions? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. and no government mandate, no more -- no government money >> the president's health-care proposal was one of the main topics at today's white house briefing. this portion is just over 50 minutes.

>> mr. babington, take us away. >> thank you. robert, attorney general holder reportedly is leaning towards having a criminal prosecutor look into whether u.s. interrogators tortured terrorist suspects. what are the president's thoughts on the wisdom of doing or not doing this? and has the white house communicated in any fashion with mr. holder on this subject? >> i think my best guidance for you and others on this would be to look back at what the president has said over the course of the past many weeks, including at his speech at the archives; that our efforts are better focused looking forward than looking back; and that the president, and i think the attorney general, all agree that anyone who followed the law, that was acting in the good faith of the guidance that they were provided within the four corners of the law will not and should not be prosecuted. obviously, if some laws were broken, that falls into the dominion of the attorney general. >> so the answer is, no, that

you don't want the cia's secret operations revealed to congress? >> well, now, you're talking about something fundamentally different than what chuck is talking about. i don't want to conflate two stories with the same initials cia. so let's just keep it a little bit more clear. >> yes, if i could just follow up -- and you're right. but you said just now that you think the attorney general agrees that those who acted within the four corners of the law -- i believe you said that -- >> yes. but let me -- that's not a new statement. that's not based on some guidance i was given today. obviously, if people -- i think this was said at the release of the olc memos, the release of the archives -- or the presentation of the archive's speech -- those that followed the law, acted in good faith with the guidance that they were provided should not and will not be prosecuted. >> some time and some developments have taken place between now and the archive's speech. has there been any type of communication, either direct or

indirect, between the white house and mr. holder about this topic? >> not that i'm aware of. >> the president mentioned health care in his speech. is there now a possibility that you won't get legislation by august, as you had hoped? >> maybe. i don't know. i think the president, i think, was pretty clear last week, that we're continuing to make progress, he thinks, towards that. i spent, obviously, last week out of town, but looking back at some of the coverage there's always a little bit more drama over aspects of this rather than -- negative aspects of this than positive aspects of this. i get that; that's how this town continues to operate. i think if you asked the president he would say we are closer to comprehensive, fundamental, cost-cutting reform than we have been at any

point since we've had this debate over the course of the past 40 years. i think if you look at -- whether it's agreements with the pharmaceutical industry, the aarp, hospitals -- people are at the table. those are people that in previous attempts at reforming the system in a comprehensive way were at this point of the debate on opposite sides of the table. so i think -- obviously we're -- there's a lot of legislative nitty-gritty that's going to be handled out in the next three or four weeks, but i think the president sees good progress. >> will the president support the rangel tax proposal? >> well, i have been asked virtually every week since being bestowed this job to comment on individual tax proposals, so i'll begin whatever week of my tenure this

is by saying that the president has laid out what he thinks the best proposals are. you know them because i've said them 483 times. but the president is also going to watch what plays out on capitol hill and see what happens. yes, sir. >> the president has said that health care reform, he'd like it on his desk by the august recess, and he thinks -- >> well, i think the president has talked about moving a bill forward. i don't think anybody was under the illusion that the whole process would be wrapped up by the beginning of august. >> well, what does he want done by the beginning of august? >> well, i think we can get a bill through the house and a bill through -- hopefully a bill through the senate, but i don't think anybody is under the illusion that all of it is going to be wrapped up in a just a couple of weeks, but that we can make a lot of progress

toward that goal. >> i guess maybe i misunderstood, other people did too -- so by august recess, he would like to have it through the house and the senate or through the house and maybe the senate? >> well, i'll take either one -- [laughter] -- but obviously we'd like to see it through both houses, but understanding that there's a lot of work to be done. >> is that moving the goal posts a little bit? did you just kind of -- you sound a little bit more pessimistic about it -- or i shouldn't say "pessimistic," you sound a little -- >> did somebody bring in goal posts? >> well, the baseball metaphors on capitol hill today, i thought i'd change the sport. >> oh, okay. i was going to say, goal posts -- >> you sound a little less optimistic about this than we've heard -- >> no, i -- >> you said, maybe, i don't know, when he asked if it was going to be -- >> while you were moving in your goal posts, i left my crystal ball back in -- i think you heard the president say -- [cell phone rings] -- is that the president now? [laughter.] that's right, got to love it.

i think as you heard the president say just the end of last week, that's his strong hope, that we get something moving through by august. >> and also, there are some meetings today with jewish leaders. i was wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about that. >> we will give you a readout off of that. i know a number of people, many of whom the president has known for quite some time -- lee rosenberg, alan solow, and others -- are in to talk about issues that they're concerned about, particularly long-term peace in the middle east. but we'll give you a readout of who is in there and what they discussed. >> robert, the president has always used strong language in going after critics who don't think that health care reform can actually happen. but he sounded a little tougher today in the remarks when he was unveiling his surgeon general. is there a sense of desperation

here that perhaps this is slipping away? >> no. again, i -- understand, dan, that opponents of health care reform, the special interests that have lined up the same way every time this debate is had, over the course of the past 40 years. delay is absolutely what they want. but the american people, american families, american small businesses can't wait. they can't wait for reform that cuts costs, they can't wait for reform that provides the opportunity for millions of americans to have the hope of quality and affordable health care. i think the president was simply noting the stakes of this debate, that -- again, i think

if you look at this just from what happens in a subcommittee, not also what happens with, as i said earlier, major stakeholders involved in the business of health care at the table, negotiating productive agreements that move us closer to something that we haven't seen in a long time. so i don't think -- >> if they're so concerned, though, why do you have this -- specifically been addressed? why did the president have to address his critics? i mean, you could just -- if you think you're going to win and you think you have this in the bag, then -- >> maybe you changed the entire premise of your question here in the follow-up. i think the president obviously is concerned that we need to get reform this year. >> it's not about the reform,

but about the chances of getting the reform. >> yes, i think that the president has talked about this for a long time and he's talked about the stakes and he's talked about what's involved, and he's going to work hard over the next several weeks to make sure that we get, from being as close as we are now, to something that's productive for the american people. >> and he's meeting here at the white house later this afternoon with some key congressional democrats. can you tell us more about that? is that supposed to be a private meeting, a secret meeting? we didn't know about it -- >> have you been invited? [laughter.] >> we didn't know -- >> did you not get your invitation? >> typically when somebody -- >> somebody call social -- >> i would like an invitation; we'd love to be there. but usually we find out about these meetings ahead of time, and this sort of seemed to be somewhat of a, i guess, closely held -- >> well, i was going to say, if it's a secret meeting, we did a really poor job, but we'll get -- >> i mean, was it intentional? can you tell us more about it? >> i think he's meeting with some of the democratic

leadership and democrats involved in health care reform to discuss where we are and how we can move forward. >> is it more than baucus and rangel? i mean, who's coming? >> i think leadership like senator reid, speaker pelosi. i don't have a full detail of that, but we'll give you some kind of readout -- >> and what time is it? >> i haven't the slightest idea.

>> can i follow? >> yes. >> just to follow on jake's question about the timing and how important it is that the senate also pass something by august. it looks like the house will probably do that, and you weren't so sure -- >> i mean, look, our hope obviously is the senate will get something done by august. >> what i'm wondering is, do you think -- does it make a difference whether or not the congress goes on recess having actually passed two bills, or whether the -- the fear of some of the advocates is that if the senate hasn't passed something the opponents of this have a whole month to take potshots at all these possible elements of the plan. >> they've had months and months and months to do that anyway, so i don't -- >> you don't think it matters whether the senate passes something -- >> no, i didn't say that. what i'm suggesting that somehow if they go on recess there will be a proliferation of potshots, they seem to be in today and there's a proliferation of potshots. that's just the way the merry- go-round goes. no, the president is -- again, i think the president was pretty clear on this on friday, albeit in italy, that he wants something moved through this process by august. i think that -- >> but wasn't he saying he wanted a bill to sign by august? >> no, no, he never said that. >> no, no. i don't think that's -- >> he said, i really want it by august. >> yes, getting this thing through the process -- trust me, you guys are -- yes, i would agree that we have a lot on our plate if we're going to get the whole kit and caboodle

done by the beginning of august. but to your larger point, mara, i mean, i think we've got -- it's july 13. we've got i think through the first week -- we've got several weeks to go, let's just put it that way, to continue to make the progress and build on the momentum we've seen. >> but would he ask congress, please stay in session -- the senate -- stay in session until you pass this? >> i don't know that -- i don't know if something like that's been communicated. i think we certainly believe that there are plenty of days in order to get that progress going. and, look, if we're not making progress, then i'm sure the president will encourage them to continue to stay and do what needs to be done in order to have that happen, understanding again that this is a big priority of the president's. as i've said countless times,

we have families that are struggling with the skyrocketing costs of health care; we've got businesses; we've got state and local governments -- we've got the federal government that's dealing with the skyrocketing costs, and we've got to do something about it. >> just to follow, what does the president say to lawmakers who say, look, this is legislation that deals with one-sixth of our economy; let's not rush it through, let's take the time to get it right? a year -- our legislative year ends at christmastime. what's the rush to get it done by august? >> well, first of all, i don't -- this is not a new debate to washington, right? i mean, health care didn't -- this isn't a debate that started, say, at or around march -- well, it did, actually, it's march of, like, 1960-something. >> but this is a legislative effort that started with this congress and this particular group of lawmakers this year. >> i think the president believes we can't afford to wait on reform; that, again, we've got countless people struggling with the high cost of health care. i don't think our -- i doubt

the president's message is going to be, "don't worry, we can struggle through with the high cost of health care for several more months." our hope is to get something done. >> maybe it could wait until september, when they feel comfortable getting it done? >> well, if you get your invitation with dan to come to the meeting, i'll let you impart that to the president. >> if we're going to do this following up stuff -- >> don't worry, guys, i'm here the whole hour. you guys can -- >> my question is -- >> hold on one second, helen, let me -- >> -- will he veto if there isn't a public option? >> i don't think we've laid anything down quite that definitively. i think the president has been -- let me go to many of the principles that the president outlined, including the strong belief that for those who can't get -- who are not provided insurance through their employer or who can't get it at an affordable rate as part of the private market, that they have the option to go into -- or to have the option for a public

plan. i think the president believes that's very important. i'd also address -- i think the president -- and i've heard him say this on a number of occasions and i think i've told you all this -- if there aren't substantial savings, if we're not improving the way health care is delivered so that the budgetary expenditure for families, for businesses, and for the government isn't changed, he's not interested in doing something that's just called reform in the title but perpetuates a system that finds america spending twice as much as the average industrialized country on health care with outcomes that are not as good. anybody else on health care? go ahead. >> yes, i have -- >> there's no "do or die" on -- >> well, the president has outlined very strongly his principles. but i'm not going to -- it's july 13, guys. we're not going to get into drawing all these lines this early. >> well, he should have a -- >> oh, don't worry, helen.

fret not. >> on health care? >> yes, well, my distinguished colleague, bill plante -- bill plante asked what even the president said was an excellent question. >> i promise not to take some umbrage at your moniker there, william, but no. >> he asked an excellent question, even the president said it was a good question -- which he declined to answer it for whatever reason, which is: why doesn't the president get more involved on capitol hill and that senators are saying he needs to? why didn't the president answer it if he thought it was such a good question? and in his stead, could you? >> well, we just talked about this very top secret meeting that we're having today that unbeknownst to me is now part of the public domain. >> must have been a secret. >> no, it wasn't. i mean, come on. have you ever assembled six members of congress in washington and kept it a secret. [laughter.] my god. that's my dream, helen. come on. >> i thought there were four.

so it's six? [laughter.] >> i just pulled six out of the air. see, i -- [laughter] -- i missed you guys. [cross-talk] >> i'm surprised i didn't take you guys up on that. again, i think the president believes that we're making progress. that's what's important. that we're going to -- and we're going to continue to work toward that, understanding again, we know we have a long way to go and we're going to keep working. >> but the feeling among some democrats on the hill is that he's just not involved enough. >> well, i -- given the amount of time that staff spend up on capitol hill or spend dealing with capitol hill, i'm not entirely sure that's the case. i think the president has outlined some very strong principles about the reform he wants to see, and we'll continue to work.

again, chip, i think what's important -- again, there is a tendency to always focus on the negative. there was a great headline out in one of the papers that we read over the weekend -- "despite progress" -- basically, the synopsis was: despite good news, health care lags. i mean, it's kind of like -- i guess in some ways i'm glad some of the people who do that aren't weathermen. but, again, i think if you look at the players that are involved, the people that are sitting around the negotiating table, they're all still there, you haven't seen sides devolve into the traditional debates that we've seen over the past 40 years that have delayed this

type of comprehensive reform. so i think we're making good progress. >> i want to go into the $250,000 tax pledge the president went ahead and reiterated earlier today, at the nomination of the surgeon general. for about three or four weeks we've badgered you on this issue of reiterating the pledge -- >> i don't think it's three or four, but yes. >> and you wouldn't do it. he did it today -- >> well, then quote him. >> i understand. [laughter.] >> he did receive more votes. >> why for four weeks didn't you do it, and then -- i mean, is this a signal to capitol hill that whatever funding mechanisms that they're coming up with on the house side, remember it's got to stick with the pledge? >> well, i think the most important thing, not to get away from your question, but the most important thing is that we have to have a plan that doesn't add to the deficit.

i think that's -- the president has outlined that, a series of things, including the very game-changers that i was talking about a minute ago that have to be involved in reform. we have to have -- we have to change the arc of health care spending in this country for all of those that are involved, and i think the president is adamant about making sure that that's in the legislation. and, again, chuck, i don't even have to remind you that the president supersedes me in whatever he says. >> no, i understand that, but it was clear that that had a been a lingering question and you guys wanted to put that to bed. no? >> no, i mean, it was more -- my past statements on this have been i think not wanting to get into as much as you all have wanted me to get into, despite the fact that we don't appear to be very involved in health care -- you know, giving you guys a tally each and every day of every different proposal that comes up or down. >> i understand that, but does that mean, okay -- funding proposal, if you guys determine it's going to raise taxes on families that make less than $250,000, whether it's a soda

tax or something, that -- but this is a -- so it's a nonstarter for the president? >> i would -- i'll let you quote the president. jonathan. >> picking that up, the president has made clear he wants this paid for. he's also made it clear that he doesn't want to tax people under $250,000. but you don't want to engage us on whether he supports this idea of a surtax on incomes over $350,000. now, the president during this campaign said -- talked about a possible surtax on incomes that high to pay for social security. he's already talking about rolling back the bush tax cuts on incomes like that. >> no, i think -- i think what we talked about on social security was not a surtax but -- and i'll go back and look at my notes -- but if i'm recalling correctly, it's at that $250,000 level that chuck talked about. you've got this gap that once

you're at like $102,000, warren buffett and i pay the same amount of social security tax, up to $102,000, even though it might surprise you to find out i make less each year than warren does. so i think what the president talked about in terms of social security was making sure that the payroll tax didn't disappear for the most fortunate. >> it was actually like a 2- percentage point tax on incomes over $250,000. they even said that would be a difficult doughnut hole. but anyway -- but the point is

-- my point is, is there a point where you really are soaking the rich, where the carrying capacity of this small group of people has been exceeded and there's just no way you can keep lumping all of the problems of the finances of the united states on 1 percent of those households? >> i don't know how that 1 percent of the households did over the past sort of 10 to 15 years, but my sense is pretty well, whether it was a pretty darn good economy for seven or eight years in the '90s, or a tax system that -- as i know, you have looked at the causes for the long-term deficit that we're now working on and understand that some of those very tax policies make up a sizable portion of the current deficit that we carry. so i think the bottom line is that i think the president believes that the richest 1 percent of this country has had a pretty good run of it for many, many, many years. >> on the labor -- the meeting with labor leaders today, can you tell us anything about the

subject of that? and is -- >> well, i think they'll talk about the economy. obviously, they'll talk about health care. i think those will be -- jobs, obviously. those will be the predominant topics that the president will cover today. peter. >> robert, this comment that he made in the rose garden about chatter about the health care plan while he was gone -- to what extent does that reflect concern or frustration that perhaps some momentum was lost on this while he was out of the country? >> again, i think i sort of -- i think dan asked a similar question. i mean, again, i think there's always the tendency for the focus on the negative, not on the positive. i think, again, i think if you look objectively at where we are in this process relative to comprehensive reform, with all the stakeholders that are

involved, you'll find we've made a significant amount of progress and are closer than we've been in those four decades. >> along the same lines, why does the president find it necessary to ask people for more patience with the economic plan at this juncture, as he did over the weekend? >> well, i think what the president was doing was reemphasizing that the stimulus plan -- as you know, because we went over this ad nauseam for several weeks -- is not a four- week or four-month plan, right? it's a two-year economic recovery act combined with many other factors that we ultimately believe will lay a foundation for long-term economic growth and ultimately get the economy turned around again. understanding part of that -- when i mentioned financial stability system is -- you know, we covered in some detail earlier in this process where we were with the health of the banks, right? remember we had all these

questions about how much more money are you going to need to give to the banks, right? so in a few months, now we figure out that banks that went through health testing, stress testing, actually could raise $50 billion to $80 billion by themselves. . .

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo'

sessions. @

>> everybody a chance to get in place here.

what we are going to do, we will have opening statements from members, and, of course, as we all know, the confirmation hearing for the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be a justice for the united states supreme court. judge sotomayor, welcome to the senate judiciary committee. you have been before us twice before when president george h. w. bush nominated you as district judge and of course we nominated you -- and president clinton nominated you as a court of appeals judge. before we begin the opening statements of the senators, i know you have family member here. i did not know if your microphone is on are not, but

would you please introduce the members of your family? >> if i introduce everybody who is family-like, we would be here all morning. >> you know what i am going to do. because some days this will be in the archives, this transcript. introduce whomever you would like, then we will hold the transcript open for you to add any other names that you want. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman, i 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 aricans 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 committe 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 eply 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

attemp 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 statementpposing 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@@@@% :xå%78d%/7:xå7 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@@@@@ 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. yo 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 li, 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 wheer 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 uk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 tional 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 @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ s)@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 jurisdiion -- "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 for the porter rican defense legal fund, 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@@@@@@@ @ r@ @ @ now what standard to apply apply? if i apply the standard of sen. obama i would not vote for you. the standard would make it impossible for anyone with my view of the law and society to vote for somebody with activism in their background. he said something about the 5% of the cases -- he said that in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is what is in the heart of the judge. i have no idea what is in your heart anymore than you know about mine. that is a dangerous precedent. 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.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> judge, you may have a broken ankle, but you beat me back to

the hearing room. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. . they said this is not final because we are infallible, is the importance for this nomination,, to join the colleagues in extending a warm welcome to you and your family, and of course, during -- my other colleagues have spoken about your distinguished career, as i have said as often as i have been asked about your nomination in the weeks since this occurred. your nomination should make all of us feel that as americans.

-- good as americans. sacrifice and love and through the support of their families to achieve great things in america. that makes me feel very good about our country and the opportunity it provides to each of us. in the history of the united states, there have only been 110 people who served on the supreme court. 110. it is amazing to think about that. this means that each and every supreme court nomination is a historic moment for our nation. each supreme court nomination is a time for national conversation and reflection on the role of the supreme court. we have to ask ourselves, those of us who have the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent, which is the proper direction of the supreme court in deciding how we should vote and conduct ourselves during the course of

the hearing? of course, i think it is always useful to recall our history. the framers created a written constitution to make sure our constitutional rights were fixed and certain. that the state conventions who represented we, the people, looked at that written constitution and decided to ratify it. and the idea was, of course, that our rights should not be floating in the ether but rather be written down, so we could all understand what those rights, in fact, are. this a free market judges a role that is both unique and very important. -- this framework to give judges a role that is unique and important. the role of judges is to be modest, self restraint, and limited. judges are not free to invent new rights as they see fit. rather, they're supposed to

enforce the constitution's text and leave the rest of to week, the people, through the elected representatives of the people such as congress. it is my opinion that, over time, the supreme court has often veered off the course established by the framers. first, the supreme court has invented new rights not clearly rooted in any constitutional text. for example, the supreme court has micromanaged the death penalty, recognized in 35 states and above the federal government itself, and create new rights spun from old cloth. it has announced constitutional rules governing everything from punitive damages to sexual activity. it has relied on international law which we have heard some discussion about the the people have never adopted. the supreme court has even taken on the job of defining the rules of the game of golf.

if you're curious, that is pga tour versus martin from 2001. some people talk about judicial activism. in one sense, activism is a good thing if it is enforcing the rights and laws passed by the legislative branch. on the end, as you know, inventing new rights, a very off this course of forcing a written text and pulling ideas out of the either are pretty far from enforcing the written constitution the framers proposed and that the people enacted. my opinion is that as the supreme court has invented new rights, it has often neglected others. this flip side is troubling to me, too. many of the original importance of guards and government power have been watered down or even ignored. express constitutional limitations like the takings clause of the fifth amendment

designed to protect private property and the commerce clause is limitations of the first amendment as well as the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms. i believe it has been artificially limited almost like they have been written out of the constitution over time. on location, judges have not been forced them like i believe the american people expected them to do. so what is the future like? where should the supreme court go from here? they think there are two choices. first, the supreme court could try to get us back on course. that is the court could demonstrate renewed respect or our original plan of government and return slowly but surely to written constitution and written loss. rather than judge-made laws. the supreme court's recent second amendment decision in d.c. verses heller is a good example of that. or a kirk could alternatively

veer off course once again and follow its own star. it could continue to deduct from the written constitution. it could further erode the established rights we have in the text of the constitution. and it could infant even more brand new rights not rooted in the text and not agreed to by the american people. your honor, i think the person of this hearing is to determine which path the would take us on if confirmed to the united states supreme court. would you vote to return to written constitution and laws written by elected representatives of the people or would you take us further away from the written constitution and laws legitimize by the consent of the government? to help the american people understand which of these paths you would take us down, we need to know more of your record. we need to know more of the legal reasoning behind some of your open in the second circuit. and we need to know more by some of your public statements

related to your judicial philosophy. in looking at your opinions of the second circuit, we recognize that lower court judges are bound by the supreme court and by circuit precedent. to borrow a football analogy, the lower court judges let the quarterback who executes the place, not the coach that calls them. a means many of your cases do not tell us that much about your judicial philosophy or what it would be an action of confirm to the u.s. supreme court. but a few of your opinions do raise questions that i intend to ask you about, and i think they suggest the kinds of plays he would call if you're promoted to the coaching staff. they raise the question, which steer the court in a direction of limiting the rights that generations of americans have regarded as fundamental? so americans need to know whether you live and, for example, the scope of the second amendment and whether we can count on you to a poll of one of the fundamental liberties

enshrined in the bill of rights. we need to know whether you limit the scope of the fifth amendment and whether you would expand the definition of public use by which government can take private property for one person and give it to another. and we need to know whether you will uphold the plain language of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, promising no state shall denied that any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the loss. judge, some of your opinions suggest to limit some of these constitutional rights and some of their public statements that have already been mentioned suggest the would invent rights it did not exist in the constitution. in a 2001 speech, you argue but there's no objective the in wall. but only what you called a series of perspectives rooted in life experience of the judge. in a 2006 speech, you said that judges can and even must change the law, even introducing would

you call the "radical change." to meet the needs of an evolving society. in a 2009 speech, you endorsed the use of foreign law in interpreting the american constitution on the grounds that it is judges "and ideas." and "did their creative juices flowing." george sotomayor, no one can accuse you of not having been candid about your views. not every nominee is so open about their views. yet, many americans are left to wonder whether -- what these various statements mean and what you are trying to get out with these various remarks. some wonder whether you are the kind of judge who will uphold the reconstitution are the kind of judge that will take us off course and a toward new rights invented by judges rather than ratified by the people. these are some of my concerns, and i assure you you will have every opportunity to address those and make clear which path

you would take us down if you were confirmed to the supreme court. i thank you very much. and congratulations, once again. >> thank you very much, senator. senator white house. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge sotomayor, welcome to you and to your family. your nomination has already been a remarkable -- a remarkable legal career, and i join many americans that are so proud to see here today. it is a great country, isn't it? and you represent its greatest attributes. if your record leaves no doubt that you have the intellectual ability to serve as justice. for a meeting with you and from the outpouring of support, i have experienced both personally and from organizations that have worked with you your demeanor, your collegiality are well established. i and your collegiality are well established. i appreciate your years as a

prosecutor working in the trenches of law enforcement. i'm looking forward to learning more about the experience and judgment you are poised to bring to the supreme court. in the last 2 1/2 months and today, my republican colleagues have talked a great deal about judicial modesty and restraint. fair enough to a point, but that point comes when these words become slogans, not real critiques of your record. indeed, these calls for restraint and modesty and complaints about activist judges are often code words seeking a particular kind of judge who will deliver a particular set of political outcomes. it is fair to inquire into judicial philosophy and we will here have a serious and fair inquiry.

but the pretense that republican nominees embody modesty and restraint or the democratic nominees must be activists runs starkly counter to recent history. i particularly reject the analogy of a judge to an umpire who merely calls balls and strikes. if judging were that mechanical, we would not need nine supreme court justices. the task of an appellate judge, particularly on a court of final appeal, is often to define the strike zone within a matrix of constitutional principle, legislative intent and@@@@@@@@℠ though he cast himself as an umpire. there is a recent report that says that in every major case

since he became the chief justice, he has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative branch, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiffs. some umpire. and is it a coincidence that this pattern, to continue toobin's quote, "h served the interests and reflected the values of the contemporary republican party"? some coincidence. for all the talk of modesty and restraint, the right-wing justices of the court have a striking record of ignoring precedent, overturning congressional statutes, limiting constitutional protections and discovering new constitutional rights. the infamous ledbetter decision, for instance, the louisville and

seattle integration cases. the first limitation on roe versus wade that outright disregards the woman's health and safety and the d.c. heller decision discovering a constitutional right to own guns that the court had not previously noticed in 220 years. some balls and strikes. over and over, news reporting discusses fundamental changes in the law brought by the roberts courts right-wing flank. the roberts court has not kept the promises of modesty or humility made when president bush nominated justices roberts and alito. so, judge sotomayor, i'd like to avoid code words and look for a simple pledge from you during these hearings, that you will respect the role of congress as representatives of the american people, that you will decide cases based on the law and the facts, that you will not

prejudge any case, but listen to every party that comes before you, and that you will respect precedent and limit yourself to the issues that the court must decide. in short, that you will use the broad discretion of a supreme court justice wisely. let me emphasize that broad discretion. as justice stevens has said, the work of federal judges from the days of john marshal to the present, like the work of the english commonlaw judges, sometimes requires the exercise of judgment, a faculty that inevitably calls into play notions of justice, fairness and concern about the future impact of a decision. look at our history. america's commonlaw inheritance is the accretion over generations of individual exercises of judgment. our constitution is a great document that john marshall noted, "leaves the minor ingredients to judgment, to be deduced by our justices" from the document's great principles.

the liberties in our constitution have their boundaries defined in the gray and overlapping areas by informed judgment. none of this is balls and strikes. it's been a truism since marbury versus madison that courts have the authority to say what the law , even to invalidate statutes enacted by the elected branches of government when they conflict with the constitution. so, the issue is not whether you have a wide field of discretion. you will. as justice cardozo reminds us, you are not free to act as a knight errant, roaming at will in pursuit of your own ideal of beauty or of goodness. yet, he concluded, wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains. the question for this hearing is, will you bring good judgment to that wide field? will you understand and care how your decisions affect the lives of americans? will you use your broad discretion to advance the promises of liberty and justice made by the constitution?

i believe that your diverse life experience, your broad professional background, your expertise as a judge at each level of the system will bring you that judgment. as oliver wendell holmes famously said, "the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience." if your wide experience brings life to a sense of the difficult circumstances faced by the less powerful among us, the woman shunted around the bank from voice mail to voice mail as she tries to avoid foreclosure. the family struggling to get by in the name where police only come with raid jackets on. the couple up late on the kitchen table after the kids are in bed, sweating out how to make ends meet that month, the man who believes a little differently or looks little different or thinks things should be different. if you have empathy for those people in this job, you are doing nothing wrong. the founding fathers set up the american judiciary as a check on the excesses of elected branches

and as a refuge when those branches are corrupted or consumed by passing passions. courts were designed to be our guardians against what hamilton and the federalist papers called "those ill humors which the arts of designing men or the influence of particular conjunctures sometimes disseminate among the people and which have a tendency to occasion serious oppressions of the minor party in the community." in present circumstances, those oppressions tend to fall on the poor and voiceless. but as hamilton noted, considerate men of every description ought to prize whatever be tend to get that temper in the courts, as no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice by which he may be a gainer today. the courtroom can be the only sanctuary for the little guy when the forces of society are a raid against him, when proper opinion and elected officialdom

will lend him no ear. this is a correct, fitting and intended function of the judiciary and our constitutional structure and the empathy president obama saw in you has a constitutionally proper place in that structure. if everyone on the court always voted for the prosecution against the defendant, for the corporation against the plaintiffs and for the government against the condemned, a vital spark of american democracy would be distinguished. a courtroom is supposed to be a place where the status quo can be disrupted, even upended when the constitution or laws may require, where the comfortable can sometimes be afflicted and the afflicted find some comfort all under the stern shelter of the law. it is worth remembering that judges of the united states are shown great courage over the years, courage verging on heroism, in providing that sanctuary of careful attention which james bryce called "the cool, dry atmosphere of judicial

determination amidst the enflamed passions or invested powers of the day." judge sotomayor, i believe your broad and balanced background and empathy prepare you well for this constitutional and proper judicial role, and i join my colleagues in welcoming you to the committee and looking forward to your testimony. >> thank you. judge, welcome. it is truly an honor to have you before us. it says something remarkable about our country that you're here. and i assure you, during your time before this committee, you will be treated with the utmost respect and kindness. it will not distinguish, however, that we will be thorough as we probe the areas where we have concerns. there is no question that you have a stellar resumé. and if resumes and judicial history were all that we went by, we wouldn't be needing to

have this hearing. but, in fact, other things add in to that. equally important to us providing consent on this nomination is our determination that you have a judicial philosophy that reflects what our founders intended. there is great division about what that means. i also wanted to note that i thought this was your hearing, not judge roberts' hearing and that the partial birth abortion ban was a law passed by the united states congress and was upheld by the supreme court. so, i have a different point of view on that. as i expressed to you in our meeting, i think our nation's at a critical point. i think we're starting to see cracks. and the reason i say that is because i think the glue that binds our nation together isn't our political philosophies.

we have very different political philosophies. the thing that binds us together is an innate trust that you can have fair and impartial judgment in this country, that we, better than any other nation, when we've been wrong have corrected the wrongs of our founding, but we have instilled a confidence that, in fact, when you come before you, there is blind justice, and that, in fact, allows us the ability to overlook other areas where we are not so good because it instill in us the confidence of an opportunity to have a fair hearing and a justice outcome. i am concerned, and as many of my colleagues, with some of your statements. and i don't know if the statements were made to be provocative or if they're truly heartfelt in what you have said.

but i know that some of those concerns will guide my questioning when we come to the questioning period. and you were very straight forward with me in our meeting, and my hope is that you will be here as well. i'm deeply concerned about your assertion that the law is uncertain. that goes completely against what i just said about the rule of law being the glue that binds us together. and your praise for an unpredictable system of justice. i think we want it to be predictable. we want it to be predictable in its fairness and the fact in how cases are viewed. and it shouldn't matter which judge you get. it should matter what the law is and the facts are. and i am worried that our constitution may be seemed to be maliable and evolving, when i,

as someone who comes from the heartland, seems to grasp and hold, and the people that i represent from the state of oklahoma, seem to grasp and hold that there is a foundational document and there are statutes and occasionally treaties that should be the rule, rather than our opinions. other statements, such as the court of appeals is where policy is made, that is surprising to me. and as i look at our founders, the court is to be a check, not a policy-maker. your assertion that ethnicity and gender will make someone a better judge, although i understand the feelings and emotions behind that, i'm not sure that that could be factually correct. maybe a better judge than some, but not a better judge than others. the other statement, "there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives, no

neutrality, no escape from choice in judging." what that implies -- the fact that it's subjective implies that it's not objective, and if we disregard objective consideration of facts, then all rulings are subjective and we lose the glue that binds us together as a nation. even more important is your questioning of whether the application of impartiality in judging, including transcending personal sympathies and prejudices is possible in most cases or is even desirable is extremely troubling to me. you've taken the oath already, twice. and if confirmed, will take it again. and i'm going to repeat it again. it's been said once this morning. here's the oath -- i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the

rich and will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the constitution and the laws of the united states, so help me god." it doesn't reference foreign law anywhere. it doesn't reference whether or not we lose influence in the international community. we lost influence when we became a country in the international community to several countries. but the fact that did not impede us from establishing this great republic. i think this oath succinctly captures the role of a judge, and i'm concerned about some of your statements in regard to that. your judicial philosophy might be -- and i'm not saying it is -- inconsistent with impartial, neutral, arbitrary the oath describes. with regard to your judicial philosophy, the burden of proof rests on you, but in this case, that burden has been exaggerated

by some of your statements and also by some of president obama's stated intent to nominate someone who is not impartial, but instead, favoás@ the implication is that the judges that we have today do not have this. the empathy to understand what it is like to be poor, to be african-american or gay or old. most judges know what it is like to be old. obama showed his empathy standard against roberts. he said this only be determined with one's particular values. and the depth and breadth of the end of the. i believe this standard is antithetical. the american people expect the

judges to treat everyone equally. judges to treat all litigants equally, not to favor and not to enter the courtroom already prejudiced against one of the parties. that's why lady justice is always depicted blind and why aristotle defined law as reason free from passion. we expect a judge to merely call balls and strikes, maybe so, maybe not, but we certainly don't expect them to sympathize with one party over the other, and that's where empathy comes from. judge sotomayor, you must prove to the senate that you will adhere to the proper role of a judge and only base your opinions on the constitution's statutes, and when appropriate, treaties. that's your oath. that's what the constitution demands of you. you must demonstrate that you

will strictly interpret the constitution and our laws and will not be swayed by your personal biases or your political preferences, which you're entitled to. as alexander hamilton stated in federalist paper number 78, "the interpretation of the law is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. the constitution, however, must be regarded by the judges as fundamental law." he further stated, "it was indispensable in the courts of justices that judges have an inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the constitution." a nominee who does not adhere to these standards necessarily rejects the role of a judge as dictated by the constitution and should not be confirmed. i look forward to a respectful and rigorous interchange with you during my time to question you. i have several questions that i hope that you will be able to answer. i will try not to put you in a case where you have to answer a

future opinion. i understand your desire in that regard and i respect it. i thank you for being here and i applaud your accomplishments. may god bless you. >> thank you, senator. we've been joined by the deputy majority leader, senator durbin, and just so those who could plan, especially you, judge, we'll hear from senator durbin. we'll then recess until 2:00 and we'll come back at 2:00, at which point, senatoor klobuchar will be recognized. >> thank you. judge sotomayor, welcome to you and your family. these hearings can be long and painful, but after surviving a broken ankle and individual meetings with 89 different u.s. senators in the past few weeks,

you are certainly battle-tested. at the nomination hearing for judge ruth bader ginsburg in 1993, my friend, senator paul simon of illinois, asked the following question -- you face a much harsher judge than this committee. that's the judgment of history. and that judgment is likely to relve around the question, did she restrict freedom or did she expand it? i ask this question with respect to the nominations of chief justice roberts, justice alito, and i think it's an important question of any court nominee, particularly to the supreme court. the nine men and women on the supreme court serve lifetime appointments and they resolve many of our most significant issues. if the supreme court defines our personal right to privacy and decides the restrictions that be placed on the most personal aspects of our lives, the court decides the rights of the victims of discrimination,

immigrants, consumers, the nine justices decide whether congress has the authority to pass laws to protect our civil rights and our environment. they decide what checks will exist on the executive branch in war and in peace. because these issues are so important, we need justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, the proper judicial temperament and a commitment to impartial justice. more than that, we need our supreme court justices to have an understanding of a real world and the impact their decisions will have on everyday people. we need justices whose wisdom -- >> the officer will remove the person. the officer will remove the person. we will stand -- as i've said before, and both senator sessions that i have said, you are guests of the senate while you are here. everybody is a guest of the

senate. judge sotomayor deserves respect to be heard. these senators deserve the respect of being heard. no outbursts will be allowed. it might interrupt the ability of the senators or of the judge, or i might say of our guests who are sitting here patiently listening to everything that's being said. i thank the capitol police for responding as quickly and as rapidly, as professionally as they always do. i apologize to senator durbin for the interruption. i yield back to him. >> thank you, mr. chairman. more than that, we need our supreme court justices to have an understanding of the real world impact their decisions have on everyday people. we need justices whose wisdom comes from life, not just from law books. sadly, this important quality seems to be in short supply. the current supreme court has issued many decisions that i think represent a triumph of ideology over common sense.

when chief justice roberts came before this committee in 2005, he famously said a supreme court justice is like an umpire, calling balls and strikes. we have observed, unfortunately, that it's little hard to see home plate from right field. if being a supreme court justice were as easy as calling balls and strikes, we wouldn't see many 5-4 decisions in the court. but in the last year alone, 23 of the supreme court's 74 decisions were decided by a 5-4 vote. the recent decision of ledbetter versus goodyear tire and rubber is a classic example of the supreme court putting activism over common sense. the question in that case was simple, fundamental -- should women be paid the same as men for the same work? lily ledbetter was a manager at a goodyear tire plant in alabama, worked there for 19 years, didn't learn until she was about to retire that her male colleagues on the same job were paid more. she brought a discrimination lawsuit. the jury awarded her a verdict. the supreme court in a 5-4

decision reversed it, threw out the verdict. the basis for it? they said lily ledbetter filed her discrimination complaint too late. they said her complaint should have been filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck. that decision defied common sense. and the realities of the workplace, where few employees know what their fellow employees are being paid, it contradicted the decades of past precedent. in the sanford versus united school district verse us redding, 13-year-old girl strip-searched at her school because of a false rumor she was hiding ibuprofen pills, but an argument in april, several supreme court justices asked questions about the case that unfortunately revealed the stunning lack of empathy about the eighth grade victim. one of the justices even suggested that being strip-searched was no different than changing clothes for gym class. although justice ruth bader ginsburg helped her eight male colleagues understand why the strip search of a 13-year-old

girl was humiliating enough to violate her constitutional rights, the majority of the justices ruled that the school officials were immune from liability. 5-4 case in 2007, gonzalez versus carhartt, supreme court overturned past precedent and ruled it permissible to place restrictions on abortion that don't include an exception regarding a woman's health. judge sotomayor, you have overcome many obstacles in your life that have given you an understanding of the daily realities and struggles faced by everyday people. you grew up in a housing complex in the bronx. you overcame a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes at age 8 and the death of your father at age 9. your mother worked two jobs so she could afford to send you and your brothers to catholic schools, and you earned scholarships to princeton and yale. i know how proud you are of your mom and your family. your first job out of law school was an assistant district attorney, where you prosecuted

violent crime. you went on to work in a law firm representing corporations which gave you another valuable perspective. in 17 years as a federal judge, you have demonstrated an ability to see both sides of the issues. you earned a reputation as being restrained, moderate and neutral. of the 110 individuals who have served as supreme court justices throughout our nation's history, 106 have been white males. until thurgood marshall's appointment to the supreme court a generation ago, every justice throughout our nation's history had been a white male. president obama's nomination of you to serve as the first hispanic and the third woman on the supreme court is historic. the president knows and we know that to be the first, you have to meet a higher standard. before you can serve on this court, the american people through their elected senators will be asked to judge you. we owe it to you and the

constitution to be a fair jury. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. and judge, thank you. enjoy your lunch. we'll look forward to coming back. and when you come back, we'll hear from senator klobuchar, senator kaufman, senate or specter, senator franken, and i welcome senator franken to the committee. and we will then have -- and then we'll have an introduction of you and what everybody's really been waiting to hear, we'll hear from you. so, thank you very, very much, judge. @@ seats and

we resume our coverage on c-span3. >> thank if we could get back to water in the room. order in the room.

and judge, good to have you back he here. as i recall it, senator clopenshire, you are next. >> thank you very much, chair. welcome back, judge. it is a pleasure to see you again. i enjoyed our conversation and what i most remembered about that is that you confessed to meow once brought a winter parka to minnesota in june. and i promise i will not hold that against you during this week. i know you have many friends and family here but it was really an honor for me to meet your mom. when president obama first announced your nomination, i love the story about how your mom saved all of her money to buy you and your brother the first set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood. and reminded me of when my own parents brought us encyclopedias that held the hollowed place in the hallway. for me, they were a window on

the world and a gateway to knowledge when ch they clearly were to you, as well. from the time you were 9 years old, your mom raised you and your brother on her own. she struggled to buy the encyclopedias on a nurses sal y salary. you went on to be the value d k valedictorian of your class. you became a local prosecutor. most of my questions during this hearing will be about opinions you have authored and work that you have done in the criminal area. i believe having judges with real world, front line experience as prosecutors is a good thing. when i think about the inspiring journey of your life, i'm reminded of other supreme court justices that came from in your own words modest and challenging circumstances. there's justice o'connor who lived the first years of her life in a r