president of comcast corp.. annyou can go to our web site ad watch all our programs on line. thank you for being with us. . . live sunday at noon eastern on book tv's "in-depth is out of --

in-depth." >> this is "america and the courts." sonia sotomayor moved one step closer to being confirmed for the supreme court thursday. a vote was made to send her nomination to the full senate for a vote. the committee largely voted along party lines, with lindsay graham the only republican voting for her. they will take up the full vote next week. >> do we have a quorum?

i want to thank all members of the committee for their cooperation. two weeks ago, during our hearings on the nomination of judge sotomayor, the supreme court got a chance to ask questions, also to raise concerns. it gave the nominee an opportunity to respond to relentless criticism, having had to remain silent for the two months prior to the hearing. it gave her her chance to half a public voice, and allowed the american people to see and hear for themselves. it is interesting that during those four days, almost 2000 people attended a hearing in person in this room. millions more solid, heard it,

read about it, there were newspapers, blogs, television, cable, and and the judiciary committee, we have a webcasting. obama was right when he said that she would bring all of the experience required over the course of a long legal career, but also wisdom acquired during a journey of hard work, fierce intelligence, and enduring faith in america and all things being possible. so i think the judge in a family for participating in our hearings with such intelligence and grace. and i must say, patients. now comes the moment when this committee is faced with the choice of whether to recommend this nomination favorably to the senate. each of us as a responsibility

to vote yes or no. judge sotomayor is well qualified, with the highest rating in the bar association. one need look no further than her temperament and judgment. she has more experience than anyone nominated to the spring quarter in nearly 100 years. the president nominated somebody with a federal trial judge experience, making her the only member of the supreme court with that experience. and she has tremendous experience in the most active prosecutor's office in this country. she is a restraint, fair, an

impartial judge that clings to the facts to decide cases. decisions were portia's been criticized -- -- where she was criticized are those when she refused to be an active judge and make laws from the bench. in 17 years on the bench, there is not one example, let alone eight pattern of bias, prejudice, or sympathy. she has been true to her own, faithfully and partially performing her duties as set forth by the constitution. as a prosecutor and a judge, she has administered justice without favoring one group of persons over another. she directly testified to this, and i acknowledge her as a judge for over a decade.

citing a wide range of precedents. throughout my years on the bench, i witnessed the consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of one but didn't -- litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice. during my time in the senate, often spoke for judicial nominees. i asked myself whether the nominee had been fair and impartial. as one who was tried in a lot of cases, a look at a judge and say whether any american could expect fair consideration of this judge, regardless of race, whether they are rich or poor, a person, a corporation, a republican, democrat, or

independent. i would like to think that i look at a judge and say this judge will make up his or her mind baseball hall, not on who the litigants are. -- based on bill wall -- the law. i am confident that judge sotomayor will be for justice in the supreme court. it is with enthusiasm that i will vote in favor of this historic domination. we will go back and forth based on sonority. >> you conducted a fair hearing, and for that we are a prospective. i think the seven on our side versus 12 on your side had a

duty and responsibility to ask the questions pertinent to this nomination and i believe they were done so effectively, fairly, and fairly. i appreciated the grace that she showed. she was patient and took care to participate in the process in a way i think reflected well on her personally. i would just say, mr. chairman, as i explained on the floor yesterday, based on her record as a judge and her statement, i am not able to support this nomination. i do not believe anybody should be on the court of the united states that does not deeply committed to the idea of american justice, and that is to set aside their personal opinions and vices when they roll from the court. but in speech after speech, year after year, she set forth a fully-formed philosophy that

conflicts with the great american condition of justice to the law as written. she has repeatedly said, among other things, that judges must judge when opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate. she accepts who she is will affect the facts that she chooses to seek as a judge. it is her belief that 8 "wise latina women would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a white male. there is no neutrality in judging, just a series of perspectives. those are phrases and words that have meaning.

i would agree that her testimony was not consistent with those repeated phrases and statements, but i have to say that her testimony to me did not have the clarity and compelling nature that would overcome those speeches. for example, on the correction, she testified when i first asked her if she was a green with justice o'connor, but in fact restatement when judge o'connor said a wise woman and man to reach the same conclusion, which is the ideal of american justice, in her speech, she said, "i am not sure i agree with that statement." she went on to explain why, and her reservations. so we encourage a look at the judicial record she has

established, and i have done that. in most cases, before the courts of appeals, they did not raise serious constitutional issues of the kind that the supreme court deals with on a regular basis. she decided three cases in recent months of the type that the u.s. supreme court would see on a regular basis, decisions on extremely short bases that lacked careful analysis. each reached an erroneous conclusion, ignoring the plain words of the constitution. in the richie case, which came to a three-judge panel, it was an appeal by 18 firefighters. the test they took to pass for promotion had been thrown out by the city, not because it was an

unfair test. it was never found on fair, but because they did not like the racial result. her opinion violated the constitutional command, i believe, that no one should be denied the equal protection along because of their race. judge sotomayor did not deal with this issue and a fair, open, and honest way. without justification, and in a violation of the rules of the second circuit, they initially dismissed the case by summer order without even adopting a lower court opinion, was no explanation whatsoever. the effect was to deal with it in a way that would not require the opinion to be published even circulated among the other judges in the circuit. the circuit states that when summary orders are appropriate only where a decision is unanimous and each judge on the

panel believes that no jurisprudential preference would be served by an opinion. it was only after another judge on the circuit requested that the case be reheard that a. curiam opinion was requested, a few cents adopting a lower court opinions. i did not feel good about that. that was a huge case of great influence. if not, the supreme court would not have taken it, and they were trying to dispose of it by summary order. her treatment of critically important second amendment issues that have come before her are equally troubling. again, i think she got the text of the constitution wrong, and did so in a cursory way that seemed designed to hide the significance of the case and her ruling. even after the watershed decision by the supreme court

and heller, she argued of the second amendment did not apply to the state, and the right to keep and bear arms is not fundamental. when asked about in the, she claims to have relied on precedent. but the supreme court has not looked at the clause and fall for over 100 years. instead, it has looked at the duke process clause. for her to fail to of knowledge that, and to fail to acknowledge the clear suggestion the hell in that footnote, that this matter is now open for consideration. again, it is not law.

the ninth circuit reviewing the decision reached a different conclusion altogether. they said that the second amendment does not apply to the state supreme court opinion, and i think that that was a big error. i would note that if her decision is not overruled, by the supreme court on which she aspires to sit, than any city in any state in america is completely denied the rights provided in the constitution to keep and bear arms. they can deny the right of people in their cities and states to keep and bear arms. and a third case, handled in a similar lawyerly course 3 manner -- similarly cursory manner, the mulally case -- maloney case of property rights. the supreme court for years had

decided -- three years ago, after deciding, judge sotomayor's court issued an opinion in which a private property owner found his property on which he planned to build a cvs pharmacy taken by condemnation by the city so a developer could bring a walgreen's pharmacy in. they said that he could keep the land as long as he forked over $800,000 and half ownership of the business. another time where without much discussion, she rejected claims. private property can only be taken for public use, and that was not followed in that case. so each of these three important cases deserves to be treated, a

liberal etiology against the individuals a certain constitutional rights. so i appreciate you, and i know people will disagree on this, but after all is said and done, i have concluded that there should not be confirmed. >> the proceedings are fair to all members, and most

importantly, to the nominee. i want to cast my vote for judge sotomayor, an individual whose life story is an inspiration to many americans, a child of immigrants with modest means, she has risen by dint of exemplary accomplishment and hard work to the cost of confirmation to our nation's highest court. but the judge is much more than only a story of accomplishment. she has also shown herself to be truly worthy of elevation to the supreme court. she has proven she has the necessary character and integrity to serve on the supreme court. her distinguished 17-year judicial record demonstrates her commitment to fair and impartial application double wall and the respect for values make up our constitution. at her hearing, we were assured

that she would listen with an open mind to all sides of an argument and be mindful of the very real impact heard decision will have on each and every american. she pledged fidelity to the constitution and precedent, as well as the responsibility that she cautiously review precedent when it is required. as we conclude our action on her nomination, we need to reflect upon the role the confirmation hearings play in the senate duty to revise and consent. while i have no reservations about my support for her, i share the concerns expressed by many americans, legal commentators, and others about our committee's ability to have tended and substantive conversations with nominees about the issues americans care about. we all know that the confirmation process is crucial

, but the public's only opportunity to learn about a nominee before he or she serves for life. we have seen that the path of least resistance is to limit responses and cloak them in generalities. understandably, they do not want to say anything that might provoke potential opponents, and we cannot ask nominees to disclose how they would vote on cases that might come before them. but it is reasonable for them to speak openly about past decisions and how they would decide cases that are close calls. what reasoning they would use, and what factors they would consider. the concerns raised to do not reflect personal criticism about the judge. i think she responded to our questions with great intellect and sincerity and she has

rightly earned bipartisan praise. however, going forward, mr. chairman, i hope that together our committee to explore ways to achieve the greater candor that the confirmation process demands and that the american people deserve. members of the bar, constitutional scholars, and perhaps members of the media with experience following the hearings could help us determine what specific questions we can and should expect substantive answers about. if we can do this, then the unique opportunity to engage nominees and the questions facing our nation will more effectively going to fulfil the constitutional duty. in the meantime, i say she has demonstrated an enduring

commitment to public service and a lot and i look forward to her service on the court. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and senator sessions for conducting a fair and thorough hearing on the nomination of judge sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i came to the process wanting to vote. i like justice sotomayor, and respect her commitment to the nation. i know her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading her speeches, articles,

and cases, and participated in all three rounds of questions. i wrestled with this decision. i did not use the standard taken by barack obama in 2005 when he voted against justice roberts, that is, of voting no even though he was qualified and had the temperament to be a good judge. obama voted against roberts because he thought his perspectives and and that he would lead him to results that senator obama would not like. i cannot accept that standard. the proper role focuses on the interpretation of the walk that leads to results, not results themselves. in the process, judges must solve consciously and deliberately set aside personal views, but these, and prejudices so that the law, not the judge, determines the results.

>> it will be in the record. >> let me say that i examined at the judge's record with the most exacting scrutiny. they describe a troubling approach to judging that her testimony did not resolve, as far as i was concerned. my judgment, she used inappropriate legal standards and not properly applied precedent. in the end, it left too many unresolved conflicts with fundamental principles about the judiciary that i fundamentally believe. as a result, i regret that i cannot support her appointment.

my extended statement will go into this in more detail. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you for conducting these hearings. mr. chairman, it is interesting to me to hear the comments of those who clearly will not vote for this judge, because for me, i look at her very differently, seeing her as a most impressive person on a number of different levels. first, in terms of personal history, it is truly impressive. it is everything that our country is all about. secondly, in terms of qualification, there are more qualifications for this job than virtually any of the prior three nominees that i have heard as a member of this committee. 29.5 years in law.

prosecutors, private practitioners, appointed to the federal court first by a republican president, secondly by a democratic president. the analysis of her record by the congressional research service says an interesting thing. the most consistent characteristic of her approach as an appellate judge has been as an inherent to the doctrine. she has done a splendid job, with dedication. this has been probed and picked at, but i find no example of infidelity to the law. at this time, would like to place in the record a sixth circuit court decision on a

matter like the fire fighter case, where the circuit found exactly as she did, if i might. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i found no example for not following precedent. for me, as a woman, to see this woman overcome the barriers that she has overcome, for the dedication and personality brought to this table, it was truly impressive. i believe she has been an impressive judge, an impressive lawyer, and i believe she will be an impressive member of the highest court in the land. i will vote for her with enormous pride. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator grassley. >> thank you.

after much deliberation, i conclude that i cannot support the nomination of judge sotomayor to be a justice. the senate must confirm individuals possessing a superior intellect, a distinguished legal experience, unquestioned integrity, and an even temperament. more importantly, the senate has a tremendous responsibility of confirming individuals who truly do understand the proper role of justice as envisioned in the constitution. this is the most critical qualification of the supreme court justice. our system of checks and balances demands that judges not take on a roll of policy makers, because of our great american tradition of checks and balances in visions that political and social battles be

fought in the legislature, not the judicial branch of government. further, we are required to check prices, personal preferences, and politics at the door of the courthouse, and just as lady justice is blindfolded, judges and justices must wear blindfolds as stated in mr. justice. i have used this standard since 1991. unfortunately, i believe that the judge's performance at her confirmation hearing left me with more questions than answers.

i'm not convinced that the judge has the ability to wear the blindfold and resist having personal biases and preferences dictate her judicial method on the supreme court. president obama clearly believes that she measures up to his empathy standard, encouraging judges to make use of personal politics, feelings, and preferences. this stands in stark opposition to what most of us understand to be the role of the judiciary to her credit, at the hearings, the judge repudiated the president's and the standard, but her record both in and out of the court room revealed to me a judicial philosophy bestowing a pivotal role to personal preference and believes in her judicial method in speech

she gave and are closer wrote over the years, the judge doubted that a judge could ever be truly impartial and argued that it would be a disservice to the law and to society for judges to disregard personal views shaved by one's differences as women or men of color. she proclaimed that the court of appeals is where policy is made. she said a wiesel is tina would more often than not to make a better decision then a white male. this is a repudiation of a statement by judge o'connor that a wise woman or man would reach the same conclusion in a case.

she said that judges should look to for a lot to get creative juices flowing. at her confirmation hearing, she attempted to explain the statements away, but i have problems harmonizing her answers with the statements she repeated over and over again throughout the years. the statements made at the hearing and outside the hearing in articles and reviews are polar opposites of each other, incompatible, and they cannot be reconciled. i also question the reliability of statements made at a formal hearing when they are trying to answer statements made throughout the years without a set goal in mind, that being confirmation to the judicial branch.

in addition, her record on the bench raises serious concerns, hard cases that say the most about a judge, and we also know that the supreme court takes on only hard cases. those raised the most concern. her record before the supreme court is not impressive. she was reversed eight out of 10 times and criticized another one of those cases, so the supreme court disagreed with her nine out of 10 times. questions were raised about whether she would adequately protect the second and fifth amendments, statements raising concerns that she will inappropriately create or expand the constitution. further, some of her cases raise questions about whether she will

impose personal policy decisions instead of those of legislative or executive branch. at her confirmation hearing, the judge was questioned at length about her understanding of rights under the constitution, including the second and fifth amendments, the right to privacy, and the rationale for decisions in ricci. she was also asked how she views precedent and applies in cases before her. unfortunately, i was not satisfied with her responses or her general understanding of constitutional rights. moreover, i was not assured that she would disregard her strong personal sympathies and prejudices when ruling on hard cases dealing with the important constitutional issues.

i was not persuaded by her claim that she full a precedent in ricci. i was concerned with her explanation of her decision. if maloney is upheld, the second amendment would not apply against governments. i was troubled with her failure to understand that her decision does not a program expand to

seize property, and in her discussion of landmark supreme court cases, her own decision on the second circuit did not convince me she understands the rights given to americans under the constitution, or will refrain from expanding those rights based on personal preferences. nor was i persuaded that the judge will not allow those personal preference is to steer her judicial methods and outcomes of cases. judge souter at his confirmation hearing, speaking about filling vacuums in the law, this is something i brought up with her. that concept worries me, because courts should never fill voids in the holes left by congress.

judge souter's decisions demonstrate he does believe that courts do indeed fill vacuums and along a wall -- in the law, and in the only case of voting for a supreme court judge, i have regretted my vote to confirm and ever since. so i asked several nominees about courts filling vacuums that their hearings. judge sotomayor's answer left me with the same pit in my stomach that i had with justice souter's rulings, that i had hoped to of cured with his retirement, and it reinforces my concerns with her testimony cases and speeches. in conclusion, all judges must have a healthy respect for constitutional separation of powers and judicial restraint. they must be bound by the words of the constitution and legal precedent.

however, supreme court judges are in a special position with respect to their decision making process. the supreme court has a final say on a lot. justices on the supreme court have fewer constraints under judging than judges on the district or appellate court. so it is critical that we insure nominees to the supreme court will resist temptation to mold the constitution to their personal beliefs. as one witness testified at the hearing, the hallmark of the supreme court justice is self- restraint. she is a remarkable woman of substance and personality, a trailblazer. there is no doubt of her intelligence, integrity, were distinguished legal background. we are proud of those accomplishments. however, i do not believe that the judge's demeanor possesses a critical element of the supreme

court. i'm not convinced she will be able to set aside personal biases and prejudices and decide cases in an impartial manner based upon the constitution. i am not convinced that she will protect important constitutional rights, nor am i convinced she will refrain from creating new rights under the constitution. i am not convinced she understands the proper role of a judge in checks and balances. only time will tell which judge sotomayor will sit on the court. the judge stepped proclaimed that the court of appeals is where policy is made, or is that the nominee who pledged fidelity to block -- of the law? is it the judge to disagreed with judge o'connor's statement about wise women and men, were the nominee who rejected

obama's identity standard. i hope i am wrong, but based on what i have seen, i think that i am right by voting no. >> i will be brief, but i want to say a few words about the judge and the hearing process we have just been through. i want to commend you and your staff for remarkably well-from proceeding. i think that anyone who saw the hearings would agree the process was closely fair, everyone got a chance to ask all the questions they wanted, they had time that they needed for follow-up questions and follow-ups to those follow-ups call and no stone was left unturned, even if the answer is that the judge gave were not always what the questioner hoped to hear. what the public does not see is the work done behind the scenes to get us to that point. not just to set up the room and complex preparations going into the smooth running of the hearing itself, but also the

smooth effort to make all of the background of formation the came to the committee available online virtually instantly. all letters, reports from people who know her, organizations that wish to express their views on her nomination, and material received in response to committee requests. mr. chairman, i think you have set a new standard for transparency and public access to supreme court nomination proceedings and truly i want to commend you for that if and thank you for all to you and your staff have done. it has been tremendous work. the scrutiny to be applied to a nominee is the highest of any. the supreme court has the power to reverse president, so i think anyone who sits on that court much not have a preset agenda, and they must recognize the tremendous power of the court to

do justice, and others except rights of our citizens. that is the standard i have applied to justice roberts and justice alito. but what we saw with judge sotomayor was a careful, thoughtful judge, committed to her craft and all law, someone who is responsible experience will add perspective. she will become the only justice who has served as a trial court judge, and will have more experience than any of her colleagues did. she is highly qualified, and she had an admirable temperament and demeanor doing her a service on

the court. her record and testimony satisfied me that she understands the role of the court. she struck down portions of the national security statute so dramatically affected by the patriot act. when asked how september 11 affect her, she gave the following answer. the constitution was designed to guide us through decades, generation to generation, and it has protect us as a nation and inspired survival. that does not change. later, she said a judge should never ruled from fear. a judge could rule from the law and the constitution. if those words give me hope that she will have the courage to defend the liberties of the american people from an overreaching executive or legislative branch. at the same time, she appreciates the deference to the judiciary must give to the legislature seeking to solve the problems of the american people.

i do not see in her record or public statement a burning desire to overturn president or remake lot in the image of her own preference, and i see no bias of any kind. the judge seems to understand that the extraordinary power she will wield as a justice will be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest. with all that said, i do want to express a note of dissatisfaction. not with your my colleagues, and not with the judge, but with the nominations process that fails to allocate -- educate about the views of potential justices. with that, i have to disassociate myself from the remarks of my senior senator from wisconsin. the only person who cannot express an opinion is the person

from whom the public must here. it is under the theory that doing so would keep an open mind and future case. i remain unconvinced that the question can be answered, that it is justified. these hearings have become little more than theater, where senators tried to ask clever questions and nominees try to respond without answering. this problem did not start with the hearings with this nominee, but perhaps it is inevitable. chances of a nomination are remote based on recent history, but nonetheless i do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent. i cannot say i learned

everything about judge sonia sotomayor that i would have liked to learn, but what i did learn makes me believe she will serve with distinction and i should vote in favor of her confirmation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator kyl is required to be elsewhere. he will be approximately able to vote when the time comes. so next, senator graham. >> i would like to add my compliments to you and senator sessions for conducting the hearings, whatever shortcomings they might have. i and you did a good job getting us a chance to ask, and senator sessions did a good job being a part of the opposition. i come to this differently, and you can tell with my vote. i'm going to vote for the nominee. i cannot disassociate myself,

being second term senator, from what almost happened a few years ago. i enjoy politics, and it has been an honor to represent south carolina and be able to have a say about things that matter in the country in a political forum. i enjoy traveling all across the country to help center mccain. in that endeavor -- people have things they do not feel good about, and i did not feel good about the election that we lost. i feel good about the country. i feel really good about the country, and about judge sotomayor. what i'm trying to do is to recognize that we can person close -- came perilously close to damaging an institution, the judiciary, which has held this country together in difficult times. the courts have been all over the place, like the american

people have been all over the place. sometimes, they have let our ideals down in their decisions. more times than not, the courts have been ahead of the public or politicians on very important concepts as to who we are, and the filibuster is going on a few years ago were historic in nature and i think that if carried out, and they keep repeating themselves, they will overtime drive good men and women away from wanting to become judges. we ask for the scrutiny that we have as politicians, the advertisements we run against each other and the things we say, and we have a chance to respond. but to be a judge is different. the theory espoused by senator sessions is true. the law should be a quiet place where even the most unpopular can have a shot. no way could you when the

election, but you might win in court. there is something a little bit bigger going on in the court room than 50 + 1. so this quiet place we call what really concerns me that we are about to change it and just make it an extension of politics in another form. that is why i am happy with the hearing. there were no filibusters. and to my colleagues who voted no, i completely understand. to my colleagues who voted for justice roberts, i am better understanding what you went through. leahy, find gold, coal. you decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen. i am deciding to vote for a woman who i would not have chosen, and as the hearings went on, it got easier, not harder for me. all of us seem to have

abandoned it what senator obama's said would be good for the judiciary and country. i can no more understand her heart and she can understand mind, and this makes us a dot in her field. i feel uncomfortable doing that. i really do. so i based my vote on qualifications, and i came away after the hearings believing that she was well qualified. that the american bar association gave her the highest rating anyone can receive, and that meant a lot to me, and it means a lot to me now. she was competent, not just qualified. it is not just me saying that. it is what everybody who has worked for her said. it is good character. when i rejected the standard and went back to what we used to duke, i found she was well- qualified, 16 years as a court of appeals judge, left of center, but in the mainstream.

and as to senator grassley, she could be no worse than souter, for my point of view. so there is not going to be a major shift in the balance of power here. but what she will do as a judge, i think, will be based on what she thinks is right, and that is not me saying or hoping that, it is based on a 12 year record where i have not seen this activism that we all dread and should reject. and there is another story here. the speeches. the speech as did bug the hell out of me. not because i disagree with what she was saying -- she was a judge at the time she was giving a speech as. she embraced some concepts that really were on nerving. but how many of my speeches would unnerve people on the other side? probably all of them. the speech is had to be put in

context for her judicial record, and i do not want to set a standard here, mr. chairman, where people aspiring to be a judge will never have a thought, never take on an unpopular cause. the clients she represented, i would not have represented that side. i would have been on the other side. but that is all right, and i hope democratic colleagues will remember that as a conservative republican gets back in the white house. it is ok to advocate a position different than that we would advocate ourselves, because it is required for a good country and you want to reward good lawyers when you find them, whether or not you agree with them. so i take the speeches and her advocacy role and i put them up against her record and i believe that she is well- qualified, of good character, and her record over a long time is in the mainstream. the last thing i would like to talk about is not the reasoning

to vote for or against her, but it is something to acknowledge. we are 200-and-something years old as a nation, and this is the first latino woman who in the history of the united states has been selected for the supreme court. now, that is a big deal. i would not have chosen her, but i understand why president obama did. i gladly give hurt my vote, because i think she meets the qualifications test used in scully and ginsberg, and if she, by being on the court, will inspire young women, particularly latina women, to seek a career and awa wall, that would be a good thing. i believe she will. i wish her well. america has changed for the better with her selection.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator schumer. >> thank you, and i want to add my comments to you, mr. chairman, for the judicious when you conducted these hearings, and i want to say to senator sessions that i thought his questions were short but fair, and to my colleagues that way. i also want to thank senator graham for the moving an important speech he gave in favor of the nation. and one final thing -- i'm sorry to be coming and going -- we have a democratic meeting at the finance committee to tie things down, so i apologize to my colleagues for that. i am enormously proud to be able to cast my vote today in favor of the confirmation of judge sotomayor. this is a historic day for america. americans are familiar with the

inspiring story that brought her from a bronx housing project through a prestigious legal education and now to a nomination to the highest court in the land. it is a great american story that will inspire americans everywhere. americans of all races and creeds and colors, to reach further and empire, and for that, the country's already better off. but judge sotomayor is a gifted jurist and public servant, not just a story. she has a 17-year record on the bench, 380 opinions on the appellate court alone. yet the words she was asked most often about with these three -- wise, latina, woman. to take a 17-year judicial career and that sum it up in three words is unfair. it is unfair to judge sotomayor,

on fair to the supreme court, unfair to the american people. my colleagues did ask about a handful of cases. the new haven firefighter case, the second amendment case -- but they were unable to prove anything other than what we heard before. she falls precedent in her court room. rule of law comes first. judge sotomayor's opinion speak much more clearly and loudly than snippets of speeches. her speeches, she said, were to inspire and motivate. her opinions are to construct and guide. as chief justice marshall said, "to say what the lolaw is." with so many opinions to review, it is troubling that colleagues are looking for reasons outside her record to posit that she is outside the mainstream. even with such a large scope of

opinions to examine, in hearings do matter. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were entitled to ask questions and i was pleased to see even the most difficult were asked and answered respectfully , but judge sotomayor's answers only emphasize what is abundantly clear from her lengthy record on the bench -- she comes to the bench without arrogance, without an agenda. i have three tests for evaluating judicial nominees. excellence, moderation, diversity. judge sotomayor passes all three with flying colors. no one can seriously doubt her legal excellence, and i do not think anyone here does. i have a hard time understanding how anyone could conclude she is anything but moderate. from cases ranging from business to criminal law immigration, she is squarely within the mainstream, and her 17 years on the bench have produced not even

a stray fought that could be viewed as way outside the mainstream. finally, her diversity is not just cosmetic. it arises not only from her race and gender, but also from her working-class upbringing and unique experiences, just as it did four other nominees such as justices alito and thomas, spoke movingly of their own backgrounds. if my colleagues cannot support judge sotomayor, it's simply suggests they will never support anyone nominated by president obama. she is thoughtful, a distinguished jurist, and moderate. elections do matter. to think that the president would nominate someone who mirrors the beliefs of the extreme conservativesa is

perplexing. so, mr. chairman, a message from judge sotomayor's record comes through loud and clear, and message of supreme intelligence and moderation. there is no reason to look further than that, and that is why, among other reasons, i am so proud to vote for her today. >> thank you very much. thank you for introducing her. senator corn andtn. -- cornyn. >> i want to thank my colleagues, as others have thank the chairman and ranking member for the manner in which these hearings were conducted. judge sotomayor herself knowledge she could not have received a fairer treatment before the committee, and it is my hope that that will set the to