no running water and no electricity. by sheer necessity, she learned how to mend fences, ride i also think about thurgood marshall, the great-grandson of a slaves. his grandfather was a pullman car waiter before working at a country club. his mother pawned her wedding ring to send him to law school in washington. justice blackmon grew up in my home state. he attended harvard because at the very end the club got him a scholarship. in four years of college, three of law school, he was not able

to go back for christmas. . ristmas. each of these very different justices grew up in challenging circumstances. no one can doubt that for each of these justices their life experiences shaped their work and they did -- that they did on the supreme court. this should be unremarkable and it's completely appropriate. after all, our own committee members demonstrate the value that comes from members who have different backgrounds and perspective. for instance, at the time my accomplished colleague whitehouse growing up in saigon during the vietnam war, i was working as a car hop at the a and w root beer stand in suburban minnesota. while senator hatch is a famed gospel music song writer, senator leahy is such a devoted fan of the grateful dead that he once had trouble taking a call from the president of the united states because the chairman was

on stage with the grateful dead. we have been tremendously blessed on this committee with the gift of having members with different backgrounds and different experiences just as different experiences are a gift for any court in this land. so when one of my colleagues questioned whether you, judge, would be a justice for all of us or just for some of us, i couldn't help but remember something that humphrey said. he said america is all the richer for the many different strands of which it is woven. along those lines, judge, you are only the third woman in history to come before this committee as a supreme court nominee and as you can see, there are currently only two women on this committee. senator feinstein and myself. so i think it's worth remembering that when justice o'connor graduated from law school, the only offer she got from law firms is legal secretary positions. justice o'connor that graduated third in the class from stanford law school saw the

accomplishmented reduced to a question -- can she type? justice ginsberg faced similar obstacles. at harvard law school, she was one of five women in a class of 500. one instructor demanded she justify why she deserved a seat over a man. nevertheless, both of them per severed and prevailed. their undeniable merit triumph over those who sought to deny them opportunity. the women that came before you to be considered by this committee helped blaze a trail and although your record stands on your own, you also stand on their shoulders. another woman with an opportunity to be a justice for all of us. and as justice ginsberg's recent comments of a strip search of a 13-year-old indicates and the disdent in the equal pay case, being a justice for all of us

may mean bringing real world practical experience into the courthouse. as we consider your nomination, we know that you are more than a sum of your professional experiences. still, you bring one of the most wide ranging legal resumes to the position. prosecutor. civil litigator. trial judge and appellate judge. straight out of law school, you went to work as a prosecutor in the manhattan d.a.'s office and ended up staying there for five years. when you're prosecutor, the law ceases to be an abstract subject. it is not just a dusty book in the basement. it's real. and it has an impact on real peoples' lives. whether it's victims and their familie families, defendants and families or neighborhood where you live. it also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. you never forget the big and difficult cases. i know in your case, one of those is the serial burglar turned murderer, tar zan murder case. in my case, a little girl of

edwards, a 11-year-old girl shot by stray gang fire sitting at the kitchen table doing her homework. as a prosecutor, you don't just have to know the law. you have to know people. so judge, i'm interested in talking to you more about what you have learned from that job and shaped your legal career and your approach to judging. i'm also interested in learning more about your views on criminal law issues, i want to explore the views on the fourth amendment, the con phenomenonation clause and sentencing. i would like to know in criminal and civil cases how you would balance the text of statutes and the constitution and the practical things you see out there in the world. it seems to me in cases like falso, santos and howard, you have an understanding of the real world implications of the decisions. i get concerned that it's missing in decision making, especially looking at the recent supreme court case in which the majority broadly interpreted the

confrontation clause for crime lab workers. i agree with the four justices that it has vast potential to disrupt procedures that give ample protection against the misuse of scientific evidence. your old boss manhattan district attorney called you a fearless and effective prosecutor. this is how he put it once in an interview. we want people with good judgment because a lot of the job of prosecutor is making decisions. i want to see some signs of humility in anybody that i hire. we're giving young lawyers a lot of power and want to make sure they're going to use the power with good sense and without arrogance. these are among the very qualities i'm looking for in a supreme court justice. i, too, looking for a person with good judgment, curiosity and independence but who also understands that the judicial decisions affect real people. with that, i think comes the second essential quality,

humility. i'm looking far justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility she will be given. understands the gravity of the office and respects the very different roles that the constitution provides for each of the three branches of government. finally, a good prosecutor knows that her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. like wise, a supreme court justice must interpret the law without fear or favor. and i believe your background and experiences including your understanding of front line law enforcement will help you to always remember that the cases you hear involves real people with real problems who are looking for real remedies. with excellent justice and excellent judgment and a sense of humility, i believe you can be a justice for all of us. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. and next, senator kaufman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, judge. welcome your family and friends and congratulations on the nomination and to your parents who did such a good job raising you to get to where you are today. we're now beginning the end of a an extraordinarily important process to confirm a supreme court justice to the united states. short of voting to go to war, the senate's constitutional obligation to advise and consent on supreme court nominees is probably our most important responsibility. supreme court justices serve for life. and once the senate confirms the nominee, she is likely to be affecting the law in american lives much longer than many of the senators who are here to confirm her. the advise and consent process for the nomination began after justice suitor announced the intent to resign and president obama consulted with members of

both parties before making his selection. it is continuing since then with help of public debate among commentators, scholars and activists, both in the traditional press and in the blogosphere. this public vetting process while not always accurate or temperate is extremely valuable both to the senate and to the public. one of the truly great benefits of a free society is our ability to delve deeply into an extensive public record. we've seen a wide range of discussion of the issues in which anyone literally anyone can help dissect and debate. even the most minute legal expression of opinion. and another less public part of the justice, judge, you met with 90 senators. over 90% of the senate. these meetings are also extremely useful. i learned a great deal from my meeting and i'm confident my colleagues did, as well. for me, the critical criteria

for judging a supreme court nominee are the following. a first-rate intellect. significant experience. unquestioned integrity. absolute commitment to the rule of law. unwaivering dedication to being fair and open minded. the ability to appreciate the impact of court decisions on the lives of ordinary people. based on what we have learned so far, you are truly an impressive nominee. i'm confident this hearing will give this committee and the rest of the senate the information we need to complete our constitutional duty. as senators, i believe we each owe you a decision based on your record and your answers to our questions. that decision should not turn on empty code words like judicial activist or in charges of guilt by association or any litmus test. instead, we should focus on your record and your responses and determine whether you have the qualities that will enable you

to well serve all americans and the rule of law on our nation's highest court. as my colleagues have already noted, your rise from humble beginnings to extraordinary academic and legal achieve systematic an inspiration to us all and i note that you would bring more federal judicial experience to the supreme court than any justice in over 100 years. you also have incredibly valued practice experience, not only as a prosecutor but also as a commercial litigator. in terms of the judicial record, you appear to have been careful, thoughtful and open minded and what strikes me most about the record is seems to reveal no biases. you appear to take each case as it comes. giving full consideration to the arguments of both sides before reaching a decision. when justice suitor announced the retirement in may, i suggested the court to benefit from a broader range of experience from the members. my concern at the time wasn't

the relative lack of women or racial or ethnic differences in the court. although that is glaring but pointing to the fact of the current justices share roughly the same life experiences. i am hardened by what you bring to the court based on the upbringing, story of achievement in face of adversity, professional experience as a prosecutor and commercial litigator and, yes, the prospect of being a first latina to sit on the high court. the supreme court is not a representative body. we should hold as an ideal. that it broadly reflects the citizens it serves. diversity serves many goals outside the courtroom. it better institutions to understand the viewpoints of the society. moreover, a growing body of social research shows that groups with experience come to the right outcome more often

than do not diverse groups who may be just as talented. i believe a diverse court will function better, as well. another concern i have about the current supreme court is its handling of business cases. too often it seems they disregard, settle law and congressional policy choices. based on my education, my experience and my inclination, i am not anti-business. but whether it's preeventing state consumer lawing, striking down punitive damage laws or overturning 96 years of pro consumer anti-trust law, today's court gives me the impression in business cases, the working -- is too one-sided. given the current economic crisis and failures of regulation and enforcement that led to that crisis, that bias is particularly troubling. congress can and will enact a

dramatically improved regulatory system. the president can and will make sure that relevant enforcement agencies are populated with smart, motivated and effective agents. but a supreme court resistant of government involvement could undermine those efforts. a judge or a court has to call the game the same way for all sides. fundamental fairness requires that in the courtroom everyone that comes to the plate with the same amount of no balls and no strikes. one of the aspirations of american judicial system is that it's a place where the powerless have a chance. for justice on a level playing field with the powerful. we need justices on the supreme court who not only understand that aspiration but also are committed to making it a reality. because of the importance of business cases before the supreme court, i plan to spend sometime asking you about your experience as a commercial

litigator, your from what i've seen of your record, you seem to recall these cases right down the middle without any bias or agenda, that is important to me. very soon those of us up here will be done talking and you'll have a chance to answer our questions. i look forward to hearing your testimony. thank you. >> thank you. senator speckor? >> chairman, i join my colleagues, sotomayor in welcoming your family here, and i compliment the president for nominating and -- an hispanic woman. i think it was wrong for america to wait until 1967 to have an african-american justice thurgood marshall on the court, waited too long 1981

to have the first woman, sandra day o'connor. to have the first woman, justice sandra day o'connor. i think as a diverse nation, diversity is very, very important. you bring excellent credentials, academically, professionally, your service on the court. but the constitution requires the process for this committee and then the full senate to consider in detail your qualifications under our consent function. most of the questions which will be asked of you in the course of these hearings will involve decided cases. i intend to ask about decided cases, but also, about cases that the supreme court decided not to decide. and on the rejection of cases for decision that's a big

problem. the court, i would suggest, has time for more cases. and chief justice roberts noted in his confirmation hearing that the decision of more cases would be very helpful. if contrast the docket of the supreme court in 1886 with currently, in 1886, there were 1,396 cases on the docket. 451 were decided. century later, there were only 161 assigned opinions, 2007, there were only 67 signed opinions. i start on the cases which are not decided although i could start in many, many areas. could start with the circuit splits where one court of appeals in one section of the country goes one way. another court of appeals goes the other way.

the rest of the courts don't know which way the precedents are and the supreme court decides not to decide. but take the case of the terrorist surveillance program which was president bush's secret warrantless wiretaps and contrast it with authority under article i on the foreign intelligence surveillance ban. providing the exclusive way to have wiretaps. perhaps the sharpest conflict in the history of this great country on the article i powers of congress and the article ii powers of the president as commander in chief. the federal district court in detroit said the terrorist surveillance program was unconstitutional. the 6th circuit decided 2-1 that

the plaintiffs did not have standing. i thought the dissenting opinion was much stronger than the majority opinion. and standing as we all know is where a flexible doctrine and candidly as i see it used frequently by the court to avoid deciding a case. then the supreme court of the united states decided -- decided not to hear the case. didn't even decide whether the lack of standing was a justifiable basis. this has led to great confusion in the law. at current as this morning's newspapers, recorded of other secret programs which apparently the president had in operation. had a supreme court of the united states taken up the terrorist surveillance program, the court could have ruled on whether it was appropriate for

the president not to notify the chairman of the judiciary committee about the program. we now have a law which says all members of the intelligence committees are to be notified. well, the president didn't follow that law. did he have the right to do so under article ii powers? well, we don't know. or within the past two weeks, thenied hearing a claim of victims of families of 9/11. and princes of saudi arabia. the congress decided what sovereign immunity was in legislation in 1976 and had exclusions for tourists but the supreme court denied an opportunity for those families who had suffered grievously from

having their day in court. and one of the questions when the opportunity arises will be to ask you what would be the standards that you would employ in decided what cases the supreme court would hear. there is currently a major matter at issue on the voting rights act. and the conflict has been present for many years between the authority of congress to decide what is the factual basis for legislation. the standard which justice harlan decided was a rational basis. the supreme court more recently has adopted a standard of

congruently -- con gruns in proportionately which justice roberts said invites judicial law making. you will hear a lot about in this hearing of judges' responsibility to interpret the law and the statutes and not to make laws. and during the confirmation hearing of chief justice roberts, he said in pretty plain terms that the court ought to allow the congress to decide what the factual basis is and for the court to do otherwise is to engage in judicial legislation. the voting rights case was decided on narrow grounds but it certainly looks if you read the record that the court is about ready to upset the voting rights case just like it did in garrett versus alabama on the americans with disability act, notwithstanding a vast record establishing the basis. so i would like to know what

your standard will be if confirmed. irrational basis which then had the traditional standard or congruents in proportionately and if you tell me that, then i'll ask you what it means. because it slips and slides around so much that it's impossible to tell what a constitutional standard is. and we senators would like to know what the standards are. so we know what to do when we undertake legislation. your decision on the district -- on the circuit court in a case captioned enter ji corporation versus river people incorporated involving the environmental protection agency and the clean water act has a special prominence now that we are debating climate control and global warming. in the second circuit opinion,

you were in the majority deciding that it was the best technology. supreme court reversed 5-4 saying that it's turned on a cost benefit analysis. it i think is worthy of exploration, although what you answer obviously is a matter of your discretion as to whether on a 5-4 decision, it's hard to say who's really right. the five or the four. it's a matter of interpreting the constitution or the statute. having a different view, i'd be interested to know if you care to respond when the time comes as to whether you agree with the -- what had been the minority and perhaps a voice as strong as yours in the conference room would produce a different result. you could have a real impact on what we're legislating now on cap an trade. with a few seconds i have left,

i'd like to preview televising court. i don't know why there's so much interest here today. haven't counted this much cameras since justice alito was sitting where you are sitting. you have had experience in the district court with television. you're replacing justice suitor who said if tv cameras come to the court, they'd have to roll over his dead body. if you're confirmed, they won't have to roll over his dead body but the court decides all the cutting edge questions of the day. the senate is televised. the house is televised. a lot of people are fascinated by this hearing. i'd like to see the court televised. you can guess that. thank you very much, judge sotomayor. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. thank you, senator specter. just want to understand the next -- senator franken and then we'll call for the two people who are going to introduce you and you then, judgev a chance to say something. senator franken is waiting patiently all day. i appreciate having you here. please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's an incredible honor to be here less than a week into my term as the united states senator. my first major responsibility is here at this historic confirmation hearing. i am truly humbled to join the judiciary committee which is played and will continue to play such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice. chairman leahy, for several years now, i have admired your strength and integrity in leading this committee. i'm grateful for your warm

welcome. and the consideration that you have given me, sir, and i'm honored to serve alongside of you. ranking member sessions, i want you to know that i plan to follow the example of my good friend and predecessor paul wellstone who wa willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work of the american people. i look forward to working over the years with you and my other republican colleagues in the senate to improve the lives of all americans. to all the members of this committee, i know that i have a lot to learn from each of you. like so many private citizens, i have watched at least part of each and every supreme court confirmation hearing since they have been televised and i would note that this ishe first confirmation hearing that senator kennedy has not attended

since 1965. >> senate -- officers please remove whoever is causing the disturbance and, again, as senator sessions and i have said, this is a meeting of the united states senate. we shall respect everybody who's here. we will show respect to everybody here. and certainly to judge sotomayor. to the senators on both sides of the aisle. and we will have order in this room. >> thank you, mr. leahy. >> thank you. senator franken, please continue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what i was saying is this is the first hearings since 1965 that senator kennedy has not been present and i know he's off the committee now but we do miss his presence. these televised hearings over the years have taught americans a lot about our constitution and the role that the courts play in

upholding and defending it. i look forward to listening to all of your questions and the issues that you and your constituents care about. to judge sotomayor, welcome. over the next few days i expect to learn from you, as well. as has been said, you are the most experienced nominee to the supreme court in 100 years and after meeting with you in my office last week, i know you are not just an outstanding juris but an exceptional individual and as others have said, your story is inspirational and one which all americans should take great pride in. i welcome your family, as well. as most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. that may mean i'm the most junior senator but it also means that i am the senator who most

recentlyook the oath@@@@@@@ @ @ judge sotomayor. i may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of americans, yet all of us, regardless of our backgrounds and professions have a huge stake on who sits on the supreme court, and we are profoundly affected by its decisions. i hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern the people of minnesota and the people of this nation. this hearing will help folks sitting in living rooms and offices in with a known anyway and duluth and the twin cities to get a better idea of what the court is, what it does and

what it's supposed to do and most importantly, how it affect it is everyday lives of americans. it's supposed to do and most importantly how it affects the every day lives of all americans. justice suitor whom you will replace if you are confirmed once said the first lesson's simple as it is is that whatever court we're in, whatever we're doing at the end of our task, some human being is going to be affected. some human life is going to be changed by what we do. and so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right. i believe justice suitor had it right. in the past month, i have spent a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of americans and reading and

consulting with some of minnesota's top legal minds. and i believe that the rights of americans as citizens and voters are facing challenges on two separate fronts. first, i believe that the position of congress with respect to the courts and the executive is in jeopardy. even before i aspire to represent the people of minnesota in the united states senate, i believe that the framers made congress the first branch of government for a reason. it answers most directly to the people. and has the legislation macy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch. i am weary of vushl activism and believe in restraint. the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to the congress and not make policy by itself. yet, looking at recent decisions

on voting rights, campaign finance reform and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas. i agree with senator fine gold and with senator whitehouse. we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians are running for office. and when they talk about what kind of judge they want on the supreme court. it seems their definition of an activist judge is one that votes differently than they would like. justice clarence thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than justice stephens and justice breyer combined. second, i am concerned that

americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. the supreme court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong. it is a last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age or gender or color. it is a last place a small business owner can ensure free and fair competition in the market. it is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from security fraud. it is last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet. it is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote. it is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights. yet, from what i see on each of those fronts, for each of those

rights, the past desaid has made a little bit harder for american citizens to defend themselves. as i said before, judge, i'm here to learn from you. i want to learn what you think is theroper relationship between congress and the courts, between congress and the executive. i want to learn how you go about weighing the rights of the individual, the small consumer or business owner and more powerful interests. and i want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of important issues like voting rights and open access to the internet and campaign finance reform. we're going to have a lot of -- more time together so i'm going to start listening. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator franken. what we are going to do and move a couple of chairs in, just stay

there, please, judge, and we're going to have two people who will speak each for five minutes to introduce you. i will then administer the oath of the committee to -- how about that? administer the oath -- the oath before the committee. and then we will hear your testimony. so going as we do by seniority, senator schumer, you are recognized for five minutes and then senator jigill brant, you e recognized. >> thank you. today is a great, national

opportunity. it is an opportunity to recognize that the nomination of one of the most qualified candidates to the supreme court in american history could not have happened anywhere else in the world. judge sotomayor's story is a great american story and i might add a great new york story, as well. consider this. in no other country in the world could a woman from a minority group who grew up in a working class family have received an education at the best institutions and having thrived there gone on to be a judge and now a nominee to the highest court in the land. this is because we don't have a cast system in this country or even a class system. 250 years ago, we threw away the centuries' old framework of gentry and nobility, we started fresh with no ranks and no titles, less than four score and seven years later, a farmer and

self-taught lawyer from illinois became perhaps our greatest president. and so, the american story goes. and judge sonia sotomayor from the bronx, daughter of a single parent practical nurse has written her own chapter in it. judge sotomayor embodies what we all strive for as american citizens. her life and her career are not about race or class or gender. although, as for all of us, these are important parts of who she is. her story is about how race and class at the end of the day are not supposed to predetermine anything in america. what matters is hard work and education and those things will pay off no matter who you are or where you come from. it is exactly what each of us wants for ourselves and for our children. and this shared vision is why

this moment is historic for all americans. judge sotomayor was born to parent who is moved to new york from puerto rico during world war ii. her father was a factory worker, he died when she was 9. her mother worked and raised her brother, juan, a doctor practicing in syracuse. judge sotomayor graduated first in her class in 1971. she's returned to cardinal spellman to speak there and to encourage future alumni to work hard, get an education and pursue their dreams the same way she did. when sonia sotomayor was growing up, a nancy drew stories inspired her sense of adventure, developed her sense of justice and showed her that women could and should be outspoken and bold.

now, in 2009, there are many more role models for a young cardinal spellman student to choose from. with judge sotomayor, foremost among them. judge sotomayor went on to employ her enormous talents at princeton where she graduated, received the pine prize, the highest honor on a princeton student. this is an award that's given not just to the smartest student in the class, but to the most exceptionally smart student who's also given the most to her community. she graduated from yale law school where she was a law review editor and because we have such an extensive judicial record before us, i believe that these hearings will matter less than for the several previous nominees or at the least that these hearings will bare out what's obvious about her, that she is modest and humble in her

approach to judging. as we become even more familiar with her incisive mind and balanced views, i am certain that this hearing will prove to all what is already clear to many. this is a moment in which all americans can take great pride, not just new yorkers, not just puerto ricans, not just hispanics, not just women. but all americans who believe in opportunity and who want for themselves and their children a fair reading of the laws by a judge who understands that while we are a nation of individuals, we are all governed by one law. mr. chairman, people felt that the founding of america that we were, quote, god's noble experiment. judge sotomayor's personal story shows that today more than 200

years later we are still god's noble experiment. thank you. >> senator schumer and senator gillibrand, the other senator from new york. please go ahead, senator gillibrand. >> thank you. the distinguished members of the xhilt tee, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor. president obama has chosen one of the country's outstanding legal minds with his nomination of sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. as a new yorker, i take great pride in judge sotomayor's nomination. along with the rest of my state and our delegation including senator schumer and my colleagues from the house, congresswoman valazquez and

senator sarah no. i take pride in this historic nomination. in the words of justice o'connor, it took a very long time, about 171 years, to get the first woman on the supreme court. and i thought that we'd very likely always have two and eventually more. i'm very thankful for president obama and his recognition of the importance of women's voices on the nation's highest court. sonia sotomayor's life and career are a study in excellence. commitment to learning, a dedication to the law and the constant pursuit of the highest ideals. her story's also the quintessential american and new york story, born to a puerto rican family growing up in public housing in south bronx and raised with a deep appreciation of hard work. judge sotomayor demonstrated a devotion to learning, graduating

from princeton and serving as a head or the on the yale law journey before pursuing her career in the law. the breath and depth of her experience make her uniquely qualified to the supreme court. judge sotomayor's keen understanding of case law and the importance of precedence is derived from working in nearly aspect of our legal system. as a prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, a trial judge and an appellate judge. as prosecutor, judge sotomayor fought the worst of society's ills, prosecuting a litany of crimes from murder, child pornography, to drug trafficking. the manhattan d.a. described her as fearless and effective prosecutor and an able champion of the law. judge sotomayor's years as corporate litigator exposed her to all facets judge sotomayor was appointed to the u.s. district court by president george herbert walker

bush presiding over roughly 450 cases and earning a reputation as a tough, fairminded and thoughtful juryist. she would replace justice suitor as the only member on the court with trial experience. judge sotomayor has participateed in of 400 panel decisions with only 7 being brought up to the supreme court which reversed only three of those decisions two of which were closely divided. with confirmation judge sotomayor brings more experience than any judge in 100 years and more -- as a testament to judge sotomayor, many independent, national, legal and law enforcement groups have already endorsed her nomination including among them the aba giving her the highest rating of well

qualified complimenting not only her intellect and rrd of deciding cases based upon the legal issues before her and following the law as it exists and that she has a healthy respect for the lented role of judges and the powers of lemming is lative and executive branches. and she has a healthy respect for the limited role of judges and the balance of pow er. the president of the fwra ternl order of police said she's mindful of the constitutional protections afforded to all u.s. citizens. a nominee's experience for a legal advocate for civil rights certainly must not be seen as a disqualifying criteria for confirmation but instead a hallmark of an individual's commitment to our founding principles of equality, justice and freedom. like ruth bader ginsberg's

participation in the aclu women right's project or thurgood marshall's participation on behalf of the naacp legal defense and education fund, judge sotomayor's leadership role in the puerto rican defense fund demonstrates her commitment to the constitution, constitutional rights and core values of eas i recallty as being an inalienable right, an inalienable american right and should not be ascribed based on gender or color. her entire breadth of experience uniquely informs her ability to follow law and precedence. her commitment to the constitution is unyielding. as she describes her philosophy, saying i don't believe we should bend the constitution under any circumstance. it says what it says. we should do honor to it. judge sotomayor's record on the second circuit demonstrates the paramount importance of this conviction. the importance of sotomayor's

professional and personal story cannot be understated. many of our most esteemed justices have noted the importance of their own diverse backgrounds and life experiences in being an effective justice. like judge sotomayor, they also understand that their gender or ethnicity is not a determining factor in their jew dish rulings but another asset sch they bring to the court much like education, training and previous legal work. justice anthony scalia said, quote, i'm the product of the melting pot in new york. i have absolutely no racial prejudices and i think i am probably at least as antagonistic as the average american, and probably much more so towards racial discrimination. justice clarence thomas said, my journey has been one that required me at some point to touch on virtually every aspect, every level of our country from people who couldn't read and

write to people who were extremely literate. >> senator, we're going to have to put your statement on the record so judge sotomayor can be heard. >> may i conclude my remarks. well, how about -- >> 20 seconds. i strongly support judge sotomayor's nomination and firmly believe her to be one of the finest jurists in american history.

please raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give before the committee be the truth, the whole >> please raise nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you. please be seated. and i thank my two colleagues from new york for the introduction and i appreciate it because i have known you both for some time. judge, you've also introduce d number of members of your family. now the floor is yores. i also want to thank senator schumer for his kind introduction. in recent weeks i have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting 89 senators, including

all of the members of this committee. each of you has been gracious to me and i have so much enjoyed meeting you. our meetings have given me an illuminating tour of the 50 states and invaluable insights into the american people. there are countless family members and friends who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. i am deeply appreciative for their love and support. >> i want to make one special note to my mother. i am here because of her aspirations and sacrifices for broet my brother juan and me. mom? i am very grateful to the president and humbled to be here today as a nominee to the united states supreme court.

my parents left puerto rico during world war ii. i grew up in modest circumstances in a bronx housing project. my father, a factory work we are a third grade education passed away when i was 9 years old. on her own, my mother raised my brother and me. she caught us that the key to success in america is a good education. studying alongside my brother and me so she could become a registered nurse. we worked hard. i poured myself into my studies, earning scholarships to princeton university and yale law school. my brother went on to medical school. our achievements are due to the values that we learned as

children and they have continued to guide my life's endeavors. i plan to pass on this legacy and serve as a mentor and friend to my many god children. and to students of all backgrounds. over the past three decades, i have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives. as a big city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a priel judge and as an appellate judge. my first job after law school was as an assistant attorney in new york. there i saw children exploited and abused. i felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the needless death of loved ones. i saw and learn ed the tough jo

law enforcement has in protecting the public. in my next legal job i sfo focussed on commercial instead of criminal matters. i litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses, and advised them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks. my career as an advocate ended and my career as a judge began when i was pinted by president george h.w. bush to the niets district court for the southern district of new york. perhaps my biggest case was the major league baseball strike in 19957. after six extraordinary years on the district court, i was appointed by president clinton to the united states district court of appeals on the second circuit. i have enjoyed the benefit of

sharing ideas and perspectives with wonderful colleagues. as they have worked together to resolve the issues before us, i have now served as an atell lat lath judge over a decade, with a wide range of statutory and other legal questions. throughout my 17 years on the bench. i have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interest of any one lit gatt, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice. in the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. simple. fidelity to the law. the task of a judge is not to make the law. it's to abide by the law.

and it's clr, i believe, that my record reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms. interpreting statutes according to their terms and congress's intent and huing faithfully in precedence established by the supreme court and by my circuit court. in each case i have heard, i have applied the law to the facts at hand. the process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerned of the parties to the litigation are underand acknowledged. that is why i generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is acceptable or rejected. that is how i seek to both strengthen the rule of law. my personal and professional

experiences help me to listen and understand with the law always commanding the result in every case. since president obama announced my nomination in may all over the country. each have touched me, each reflects a brief in a dream that led my parents to come to new york all those years ago. it is our constitution that makes that dream possible. and i now seek the honor of upholding the constitution as a justice on the supreme court. senators, i look forward in the next few days to answering your questions, to having the

american people learn more about me and to being a part of a process that reflects the greatness of our constitution and of our nation. >> thank you, judge. i thank all senators for their opening statements this morning. i especially thank senator schumer and senator gillenbrand for their state staimts. but especially to you, judge to [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]