judge sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81% of the time. she also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues as a district court judge. she sentenced white collar criminals to at least six months in prison, 48% of the time. whereas her other colleagues did so only 34% of the time. and in drug indications, 5.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison -- 85.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence from judge sotomayor sotomayor compared to 79% of her colleagues' cases. a few weeks ago i was at the minnesota airport and a guy came up to me and ask if i was going to vote for that woman? i said, what do you mean? she said that judge. i said i actually went to -- i want to meet her first. this is before i met her. i said i want to ask some questions before i make a

decision. he said i don't know how you do that. because she always let's her feelings get in front of the law. this guy needs to hear the statistics. he needs to hear the statistics that senator gillibrand was talking about. the statistics when she served on the bench with a republican-appointed colleague, 98% of the time they made the same decision. i guess you could say that the republican-appointed judges are letting their feelings get in front of the law. 95% of the time sided with a republican-appointed judge colleague. during the hearing judge sotomayor was questioned about the death penalty and her use of the foreign law i'd say this, this was repeatedly mentioned that she might use foreign law to decide a death penalty case. what do we have as facts and evidence? there was one case of the death penalty came before her and she rejected the claim of someone who wanted to say that the death penalty wouldn't apply when she was a district court judge. and she never cited foreign law.

there was no mention of france or any kind of law anywhere in that decision. those are the facts in her judicial record. in no place has she ever cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the united states constitution. you know, i believe that about everything in a nominee's professional record is fair game to consider. afterall, we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone for an incredibly important lifetime position. that's our constitutional duty, and i take it seriously. with that said, when people focus on a few items and a few speeches that judge sotomayor has given phrases which she has basically said she would have said differently if she had another opportunity, you have to ask yourself, again, did those statements, are they outweighed by the record? are they outwayed by the facts? check out these endorsements, mr. president of people who looked at her record and looked at how she's come out on decisions. you have an endorsement from the

national district attorney's association supporting her. you have the support from the police executive research forum. you have the support from the national fraternal order of place. not exactly a raging liberal organization. you have the support of the national sheriff's association. again, these are the facts. these are the facts that my colleagues should be looking at. you have the support from international association of chiefs of police. you have the support of the major city's chief association. she has the support of the national association of police organizations. she has the support of the association of prosecuting attorneys. she have letters supporting her from the detectives, from the national black prosecutors association from the national organization of black law enforcement executives and the list goes on and on and on. those are the facts. unanimous, top rating from the a.b.a., american bar

association. those are the facts. i believe if we want to know what kind of a justice sonia sotomayor will be, our best evidence is to look at the kind of judge she's been. and i wanted to address one more thing that i mentioned at the judiciary hearing when she voted our votes for judge sotomayor, and that's been a point that irritated me and there have been stories and comments, mostly anonymous, about judge sotomayor's judicial temperment. according to one source, judge sotomayor developed a reputation of asking tough questions at oral arguments and sometimes being brisk and curt with lawyers not prepared to answer them. well, where i come from asking tough questions, mr. president, and having little patience for unprepared lawyers, is the very definition for being a judge. as a lawyer you owe it to the bench and your clients to be as well prepared as you ploibl can be. when justice ginsberg were asked about the anonymous comments of

judge sotomayor recently she rhetorically asked -- has anyone watched i scalia or breyer on te bench? surely we've come to a time, mr. president, when we can appoint as many to the point gruff female judges as we've confirmed to the point gruff mail judges. we've come a long way, as you can see from my colleagues that came here during the last hour. we know that when sandra day o'connor graduated from law school 50 years ago, the only position she was offered was for the position at a law office as legal secretary. judge sotomayor faced similar obstacles. we have come a long way. i hope that my colleagues will also come a long way and look at record, look at the facts. as i've said, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts. in short, mr. president, i'm proud to support judge sotomayor's nomination, and i

believe she will make an excellent supreme court justice. she knows the law, she knows the constitution. but she knows america too. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.cococonsent thae dispensed today to speak on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states. few positions carry more honor or solemn duty than becoming a justice of the highest court of the greatest democracy. also, few duties carry more honor or solemn responsibility than giving advice and consent on who should become a justice of the highest court. the walls of the supreme court form the vessel that holds the great protections of our liberty. the black robes give life to the constitution's freedoms and flourishing of our ideas and beliefs. if the congress is the heart of democracy, walk to the drumbeat of the people, then the supreme court is our soul, guiding us on what is wrong and what is right. in my role as a senator voting to fill that vessel, issuing

those robes, i always look to the constitution to guide my obligation to give advice and consent. it's an obligation separate and apart from my role as a legislator when i voted for or against legislation before this body. indeed, if the constitution means for us merely to vote on nominees by simple supermajorities, they could easily have said so. if we were meant to do nothing more than cast a vote based on whether we agree or disagreed with a nominee, where should we be then? would the hauls of government be empty every time a president faced a congress of the opposite party? would the cabinet sit empty because of partisan divide? would vacancies to the supreme court go unfilled because a majority of one party simply disagreed with the president of another? of course, that could not have been the intent of the framers. what kind of justices would we have when nothing more than partisan majority divides? when a senate controlled by the opposite party allow only the most moderate of voices or justices with no voice at all?

we would approve only justices that said nothing or wrote nothing with which the majority disagreed? if some are saying that a democratic president should not have a liberal justice, does that mean a republican president should not have conservative justices? that's not something i could support. for i surely supported judicial conservative justices such as roberts, alito, thomas, and bo bork. and certainly justice scalia, had i been in the senate at the time. that's the kind of justice i support, a judge who calls balls and strikes like an umpire, not letting their own personal view bias the outcome of that trial. the statute of justice is blindfolded for a reason. you cannot tip the scales of justice with prejudice or bias or belief. but i've supported justices with whom i've disagreed on this philosophy. justices pryor and ginsburg come to mind. they take a more active role in shaping their decisions to fit an ideal of their own vision. supported these nominees of a democratic president, as did 86 of my colleagues for justice

breyer. 95 of my colleagues for justice ginsburg. i hope those votes do not reflect a time that has slipped away when partisanship did not infect every facet of our political life. i could not forget that time, as regrettably president obama did when he was in the senate. i could easily say, as senator obama said, that i disagree with a nominee's judicial approach and that allows me to oppose the nominee of a different party. luckily for president obama, i do not agree with senator obama. i reject the obama approach to nominees. while i reject the way that senator obama approached nominations, that does not mean that i support the way judge sotomayor approaches judging. i disagree that civil rights of a firefighter mean so thatle they do not deserve -- so little that they do not deserve even a full opinion before an appeals court. i disagree that we should inspire with suggestions that wisdom has anything to do with the sex of a person or the color of their skin.

i disagree that judges should ever consider foreign law when looking for meaning in the u.s. statutes and constitution. i disagree that the second amendment's protection of an individual right to bear arms does not apply to states. but i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself a well-qualified jurist. i do agree that she has proven herself as a talented and accomplished student, federal prosecutor, corporate litigator, federal trial judge and federal appeals court judge. she has the backing of many in the law enforcement community, including the fraternal order of police, the national sheriffs association, and the national association of district attorneys. i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself as a leader of her community who inspires the pride and hopes of a growing and large portion of our american melting pot. i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself as a symbol of breaking through glass ceilings, and i do agree that my choice for president did not win the last election and that our

people's democracy has spoken for the change and they're getting it. elections do have consequences. now, hearing the call of that decision of our democracy does not mean that i support the president and everything he's proposed. i do not agree with the stimulus that has meant only more government spending and national debt, as unemployment continues to rise. i do not agree with cap-and-trade legislation that would raise energy taxes, kill millions of jobs without even changing the climate because china and india refuse to do the same. i do not agree with a government takeover of health care that would force millions of americans off their current health care, drive health care costs even higher for families, ration care, restrict access to the latest cures and treatments, and put health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients. but i do agree that the country is tired of partisanship infecting every debate. the country is tired of actions by a congress becoming a political battle. and so while i do not follow the

hypocrisy of many of my democratic colleagues who refuse to -- refused to support justice roberts and alito because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy and now suggest that republicans not do the same. i respect and agree with the legal reasoning of my colleagues who will vote "no." but i will follow the direction of the past and my hope for the future with less polarization, less confrontation, less partisanship. my friends in the party can be assured that i will work as hard as anybody to ensure that the next presidential election has consequences in the opposite direction. for my conservative friends, the best way to ensure that we have conservative judges on the bench is to work to see that we elect presidents who will nominate them. then we can resume filling the bench with more judges like justices roberts and alito, scalia, thomas. for my liberal friends, i hope they remember this day, when another qualified nominee before

the senate who is conservative. the standards set by senator obama should not govern the senate. as for judge sotomayor, she has accomplishments and qualities that have always meant senate confirmation for such a nomination. the senate has reviewed her nomination and has asked her its questions. there's been no significant finding against her. there's been no public uprising against her. i do not believe that the constitution tells me that i should refuse to support her merely because i disagree with her on some cases. i will support her, i'll be proud for her, the community she represents, and the american dream she shows is possible. i will cast my vote in favor of the nomination of judge sotomayor and i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i thank the a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. martinez: mr. president, i rise today also to speak on the

nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states, and i'm happy to have this opportunity for i view this historic moment in many, many ways. the confirmation of a supreme court nominee is really one of the most solemn and unique duties in our constitutional system of government. the framers recognizing the risk of abuse inherent in a lifetime judicial appointment created a process that brings together all three branches of the federal government. the constitution, article 2, section 2, requires that a nominee to the federal court must be selected by the president -- and then i quote -- "with the advice and consent of the senate." so these moments must be appreciated and approached with a great deal of thoughtfulness and respect. this is all the more true when

the appointment is to our highest court, the supreme court of the united states. there was a time when members of the senate seemed to better understand their role, where senators expected a president of the other party to pick a judge who would likely be different than someone they would have picked. and there's a couple of examples i'd like to use. justice ginsburg, a very talented person who served as general counsel to the aclu, not likely to have been someone selected by a republican president. but, yet she was confirmed with 95 votes. republicans knew that she would be a liberal justice, but she was also well qualified for the judge. that's another example, and that's justice antonin scalia. he was picked by a republican president and received 98 votes. every democrat knew or probably should have known that they were voting for a conservative.

but they also understood that then-judge scalia was incredibly qualified and should be serving on the united states supreme court given that he had been nominated by a president and had the requisite qualifications, which is really in the essence of what this confirmation process is and should be about. but things have changed since those votes. they've changed from what is historically acceptable and what has been the long historic tradition of the senate when it comes to senate confirmations of judicial nominees. over the past decade, i believe the senate has lost sight of its role to advice and consent. i'll notice another example, miguel estrada and chief justice roberts illustrate have politics have been permitted to overwhelm the question posed to the

senate, is this nominee qualified? do you give your advice an consent? my colleagues will recall that mr. estrada was first nominated by the first president bush to the d.c. circuit in may of 2001. he was unanimoly rated well qualified for the bench by the american bar association. mr. estrada had an impressive history and personal story and res. may. -- resume. he was a native of honorus, graduated magna cum laude and received his law degree from harvard in 1986 where he was a member of the harvard law review and clerked for supreme court justice -- justice kennedy. mr. president estrada entered private practice and was a well-respected lawyer working in a new york law firm. served as assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york where i

believe our nominee also served. then mr. estrada took a job in the george h. administration as an assistant solicitor general. what do they do? they prepare and argue cases before the supreme court. what could be a better training ground in addition to a prior clerkship for a court -- for a court member than to be a solicitor general? as a long-time attorney, i always admired greatly those who served in that office because they were the very best of the very best. but politics intervened. he was branded a conservative. through the course of an unprecedented seven cloture votes, democrats in this body filibustered her nomination. time and again filibustered his nomination. it lingered for 28 months until he finally exhausted, wanting to get on with his life, knowing that he needed to be able to continue to do work for clients, that he couldn't continue to be

in a limbo where he was for 28 months because of the misguided notion that he was just too conservative. it was ok to filibuster him and for 28 months hanging, dangling in the wind. that was not right. it was not the -- for the supreme court. some feared that it might be. he might have been the first hispanic serving in the supreme court nominated by, perhaps, a republican president. while the nominations of chief justice roberts and justice alito ended quite different than mr. estrada. during the debates of roberts and alito, then senator barak obama declared each man to be qualified to sit on the supreme court. then judge john roberts, senator obama said, and i quote -- "there is absolutely no doubt in my mind judge roberts is

qualified to sit on the highest court of the land." to which i would then say, so why won't you vote for him? he then said of judge alito -- quote -- "i have no doubt that judge alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. he is an intelligent man and accomplished jurist, thereon is no indication that he's not man of great character." now despite the emphatic statements of confidence, then senator obama voted against confirmation. and why? because of his perception that their philosophy would not allow him to vote for them. given this record some of my colleagues conclude that what is good for the goose is good for the grander. that because of -- gander. because of these recent presidents and despite her qualification, they still might vote against judge sotomayor's nomination. i couldn't disagree more heartly. it is my hope starting today we will no longer do what was done to miguel estrada.

that beginning today no member will pursue a course an come to the floor of this chamber to argue against the confirmation of a qualified nominee. so what about our current nominee? what makes her qualified? well, first, i think we do have in judge sotomayor a very historic moment and opportunity. it will be the first hispanic to serve on the highest court of this land. it is a -- a momentous and historic opportunity. but that's not good enough. what makes her qualified? well, i think that experience, knowledge of the law, temperment, the ability to apply the law without bias. these qualifications should override all over considerations when the senate fulfills its role to advise and consent to the president's nominee as dictated by the constitutional charge that we have. these are really the standards by which we, as a body, should determine who is qualified to

serve on any federal court including the highest court of the land. these are the standards i have used in evaluating judge sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. she has the experience. she knows the lawsm she has the proper temperment. and here's something that's very important, her 17-year judicial record overwhelmingly indicates that she will apply the law without bias. and that's really very important. because, you know, we could find someone who really is facially qualified, but whose views might be for some reason so outside the mainstream, so different than what the norm of our jurisprudence would be, that it might presentedder them, while factually qualified, unqualified. that they could not be relied on to look at the case and apply the facts and the evidence and apply the law to the evidence presented, that they would not

follow the law, that they would not be faithful to their oath. because of their views would be so extreme. so outside the mainstream. so completely beyond what would be the norm or considered to be the norm. but here in this person we have a 17-year record. she has written thousands of opinions. and these opinions ought to provide the body of law of what she does as a judge, not what she said to a group of students one day trying to encourage them in their lives and what they might be doing. not what someone might have from reading an opinion and perhaps not agree with. it is not whether we agree with her outcomes or not, whether her opinions have a reason, had a foundation in law, whether they were reasonable and whether she based them on law and evidence that are supported by sound, legal thinking. even her worst critics cannot

cite a single instance where she strayed from sound judicial thinking. i believe she will serve as an outstanding associate justice to the united states supreme court. and that she will be a terrific role model for many, many young people in this country. where i've had to have my opportunity to pick -- were i to have my opportunity to pick, i would have chosen someone different from judge sotomayor. that's not my job. i don't get to select judges. i get to give advice an consent. we sometimes confuse the role of the senate. elections haveonsequences. some of her writings might indicate that her philosophy might be more liberal than mine. that is what happens in elections. when i was campaigning for my colleague and their friend, john mccain, i knew it would be important because there would be vacancies to the court and i knew i would be much more

comfortable with a nominee that john mccain would nominate than one that my former colleague and friend president president obama would nominate. the president has the obligation, the responsibility to choose his own nominees. our job is to give advice an consent. -- and consent. the president has chosen a nominee and my vote for her confirmation will be based solely and wholly on relevant qualifications. judge sotomayor is well qualified. she's been a federal judge for 17 years. she has the most experience of any person, judicial experience, on the bench experience of any person nominated for the court in a century -- in 100 years, there hasn't been anyone who has been on the bench with such a distinguished record for such a long period of time. and that's why, by the way, her record is really her judicial decisions. we don't have to wonder. we don't have to sit around and

try to divine whether some day she will answer the siren call to judicial activism as i heard someone say on the floor of the senate. it might give you an excuse to vote against someone who is otherwise qualified. the fact is with a 17-year record, you should have a pretty good idea if that si ren call was answered now. to my estimation it hasn't been. she received the highest possible rating from the judicial bar association for a judicial candidate. equal to that of miguel estrada and chief justice roberts and justice alito. she was an outstanding lawyer and as a prosecutor beings she was a tough one. her 17-year judicial record reflects that, while she may be left of center, she is certainly well within the mainstream of legal thinking. her mainstream approach -- her

mainstream approach is so mainstream that it has earned her the support of the united states chamber of commerce as well as the endorsement of several law enforcement an criminal justice organizations. she's been endorsed by the national fraternal order of police, the national sheriff's association and the international association of chiefs of police. i dare say she'll be a strong voice for law and order in our country. now, i disagree with judge sotomayor about several issues. i would expect to have disagreements with many judicial nominees of the obama administration, but probably fewer with her than some that i might see in the future. although i might disagree with some of her rulings, we know she has a commitment to well-reasoned decisions, decisions that seek with restraint to apply the law as written. i do believe that she will rule

with are restrain. that has been her judicial history and philosophy. her view in her panels maloney v. cuomo opinion is too narrow and contrary to the founder's intent. i know that there is significant and well-reasoned disagreement among the nation's appellate courts on this issue. in other words, not out of the mainstream. on this issue i accept the idea that reasonable people may differ. this debate raises critical and difficult issues regarding the role of federalism in the application of fundamental constitutional rights. but the confirmation process is not the proper place to relitigate this question nor is judge sotomayor's judicial record on this issue outside the mainstream. i believe that her statements on the role of international law and american jurisprudence

reflect the view that is too expansive. yet her judicial record indicates that in practice she has given only limited, if any weight, to foreign court decisions. now, for example, in cr craellv.croll, involving the hague convention on international child abduction, judge sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion which she held that the courts of the foreign nations interpreting the same convention, we were -- quote -- "not essential to her reasoning." i believe that some of her statements that she made on her speeches about the role of one's personal experience are inconsistent with the judicial oaths requirement that judges set aside their personal bias when making those decisions. and there are several of my colleagues to say these statements demonstrate that judge sotomayor has had a

judicial activist in hiding. this is not supported by the facts. we can throw it out there, but it's not supported by the facts. the relevant facts, her 17-year judicial record shows that she has not allowed her personal biases to influence her jurisprudence. they can talk about her speeches, but they cannot talk about a single, solitary opinion in 17 years on the bench where that type of a view has been given life. where that type of a view has found itself into the pages of a single one of her opinions. i would rather put my trust and my expectations for the future on her 17-year record of judicial decisions than i would on one or two speeches as she might have given over 10 or 15 years. those who oppose judge sotomayor have yet to produce any objective evidence that she has allowed her personal bias to influence her judicial decision

making. moreover, in her testimony before the judiciary committee, she reiterated her fidelity to the law that as a justice she would adhere to the law regardless of the outcome it required. so based on my review, her judicial record, her testimony before the judiciary committee, i am satisfied that judge sotomayor is well qualified to sit on our nation's highest court. i intend to vote for her confirmation and i intend to also be very proud of her service on the supreme court of the united states where i think, again, she will serve a -- a very historic and unique role to many people in this nation who i know will look to her with great pride. thank you, mr. president. i yield the texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would like to address the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be an associate

justice of the united states supreme court. as well. i've spoken about this nomination several times, both here on the senate floor and on the senate judiciary committee on which i serve. i've shared what i admire about judge sotomayor, including her long experience as a federal judge, her academic background, which is stellar, and her record of making decisions that, for the most part, are within the judicial mainstream. i've also explained before why i will vote against this nomination, and i'd like to reiterate and expand on some of those comments here today, as all of us are stating our intrengsz this historic vote which i suspect will be held sometime tomorrow. firsts, i cannot vote to confirm a nominee to the united states supreme court who will restrict several of the fundamental rights and liberties in our constitution, including our bill of rights.

based on her decision in the maloney case, judge sotomayor apparently does not believe that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. indeed, she held in that case that the second amendment did not apply to the states and local jurisdictions that might impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. and then based on her decision in the didden v. village of port chester case, she apparently does not believe that the takings clause of the fifth amendment protects private property owners when that private property is taken by government for the purpose of giving it to another private property owner, in this case, a private developer. i'm very concerned when the government -- the government's power to condemn properly -- condemn property for a private purpose conflicts with the stated intention of the framers

of the constitution that the right of condemnation of private property only extendo public uses and then and only then when just compensation is paid. and then based upon her decision in the ricci case -- this is the new haven firefighter case -- which calls into question her commitment to ensure that equal treatment applies to all of us when it comes to our jobs or promotions without regard to the color of our skin. indeed, in that case, because of her failure to even acknowledge the seriousness and novelty of the claims being made by the new haven firefighters, she gave short stloift those claims -- short shrift to those claims in an unpublished -- unpublished order and denied frank ricci, ben vargus and other new haven firefighters an opportunity for a promotion even though they excelled in a competitive race-neutral examination because of the color of their

skin. fortunately the supreme court of the united states saw fit to overrule judge sotomayor's judgment in the firefighter case and millions of americans became aware, perhaps for the first time, of this notorious decision and what a morass some of our laws have created when, in fact, distinguished judges like judge sotomayor think they have no choice but to allow people to be denied a promotion based upon the color of their skin for fear of a disparate impact lawsuit even when substantial evidence is missing that such a disparate impact lawsuit would, in fact, have any merit or likely be successful th. mr. president, i cannot vote to confirm a nominee who has publicly expressed some very radical legal theories percolating in the faculty lounges of our nation's law schools. we all heard this during the confirmation hearings. frankly, judge sotomayor's explanations were unconvincing.

previously she has said there is no such thing as neutrality or objectivity in the law. merely a series of perspectives. thus, i think under mining the very concept of equal justice under the law. if the law is not neutral, if the law is not objective, then apparently according to her at least at that time the law is purely subjective and outcomes will be determined on which judge you get regard than what the law says. she has said in one notorious youtube video that it is the role of judges to make policy on the court of appeals. she has said that foreign law can get the creative juices flowing as judges interpret the united states constitution. and she has said that ethnicity and gender can influence a judge's decision and judges of a

particular ethnicity or gender can actually make better decisions than individuals of a different gender and ethnicity. third, i cannot vote to confirm a judicial nominee who testified before the judiciary committee that her most controversial decisions were guided by precedent when her colleagues on the second circuit and, indeed, the justices of the united states supreme court who reversed her, said just the opposite. or who testified that she meant the exact office of what she said when she said something controversial and was trying to explain that. or a person who testified that she had no idea what legal positions the puerto rican legal defense fund was taking even though she chaired the litigation committee of its border of drs. of -- its board of directors. the hearings before the senate judiciary committee have a very

important purpose. and that purpose is informed by article 2 of the united states constitution to provide advice and consent on nominations. it's not to serve as a rubber stamp. i heard colleagues say elections have consequences and the president won. well, that's obvious. that's evident. the elections have consequences and that the president obama won. but that does not negate or erase the obligation each united states senator has under the same clause and article of the constitution to provide advice and consent based on our best judgment and good conscience. in the case of judge sotomayor the question becomes, what will she do with the immense power given to a member of the united states supreme court? what impact will she have on rights and liberties over the course of a lifetime -- which, of course, this appointment is for life. in short, the question is, what

kind of judge will she be on the supreme court where her decisions are no longer reviewed by a higher court as they were as a federal district court or court of appeals justice. the question is, will she be the judge she has been as a lower court judge making decisions which, by and large, have been in the mainstream with some notable exceptions and i've talked about? or will she be untethered? will she be judge sotomayor of some of her more radical speeches and writings which cause me concern? the answers to these questions, i regret, are no clearer after the hearings than they were before. the stakes, i believe, are simply too high to confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from a liberal perspective. mr. president, i respect different views of different senators on this nomination and i have no doubt that judge sotomayor will be confirmed. but i am unwilling to abdicate

the responsibility i believe i have as united states senator when it comes to voting my conscience and expressing my reservations. the united states senate developed our confirmation process for a very important purpose: to learn more about the individual nominees. but over the last several weeks we've also learned more, i think, about a rising consensus with regard to what we should expect from a judge. i'd like to highlight two important lessons that we've learned this summer. one this i encouraging to me and one that is worrisome. let's start with the good news. i believe that republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee -- indeed judge sotomayor herself -- seemed to say the appropriate judicial philosophy for nominees to the federal bench is one that expresses fidelity to the law and nothing else. over years we have been debating whether we have an only

understanding of the constitution or some evolving constitution even though that can be interpreted in different ways even though the words on the pain read exactlonthe papere went bk and forth on the merits and judicial activism, judges imposing their views as opposed to interpreting the law passed by congress or in a written constitution. on many occasions our disagreements over judicial philosophy were anything but sill. and dignifyd. i think of the nomination of miguel estrada, to the second highest court in the land. although an immigrant himself from honduras who did not speak english when he came to the united states but who graduated there the top universities and law schools in this country, he was filibustered seven times and

denied an up-or-down vote. one member of the judiciary committee, disparaging mr. estrada emphasis character called him a stealth missile with a nose cone out of the right wing deep silo. and samuel alito, an italian american, proud of his heritage who had to defend himself before the judiciary committee against false charges of bigotry, accusations which left his wife in tears. and then clarence thomas, perhaps the one we all remember the best, an african-american nominee to the united states supreme court who described his experience before the judiciary committee this way: this is a circus, a national disgrace. and from my standpoint as a black american, it's a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks. now, these nominees, mr. president, were accused at

various times of certain offenses even though the real crime as we all know was a crime of conscience. they dared to be judicial conservatives, a philosophy that the nominee that we're talking about here today and senate democrats now appear to embrace. i hope these days of the unfair and uncivil and undignified scwk scwk hearings are behind us. i hope our hearings are more respectful of the nominees, as was this hearing for judge sotomayor. she, herself, proclaimed she could not have received fairer treatment. and i appreciated her acknowledging the fairness and dignity of the process. i hope the thought crimes of yesterday have now become the foundation for a new bipartisan consensus; that the views that judge sotomayor affirmed at her hearing that we affirm both as

republicans and democrats and the views judge sotomayor rejected, we rejected as both republicans and democrats. let me give an example of this new what appears to be a bipartisan consensus on appropriate judicial misany for philosophy.judge sotomayor saidt of the founders was set forth in the constitution. it is their words that are the most important aspect of judging. you follow what they said in their words and you apply it to the facts you are looking at. i can't think of a better expression of a modest and judicially restrained philosophy that i embrace that what judge sotomayor said at the hearing and both republicans and democrats appeared to be pleased with that statement. we agreed that foreign law has no place in constitutional interpretation.

notwithstanding we are earlier statements judge sotomayor said at the hearing "foreign law cannot be used as a holding or precedent or to bind or influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law." now, as i said, notwithstanding her earlier statements, i agree with that estimate that she made at the hearing and i believe both republicans and democrats were satisfied with that statement, as well. we agreed that empathy or what's in a person's heart, to borrow a phrase from then senator oh bomb, should not influence the decision -- senator oh bomb, should not influence the decisions of a judge. we were surprised when judge sotomayor rejected president obama's standard and said she wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does. judges can't rely on what's in their heart, she said, they don't determine the law; congress makes the law. the job of a judge is to apply the law so it's not the heart that compels conclusion of cases

but the law. i agree with that statement and republicans and democrats alike appear to embrace that statement of an appropriate judicial philophy. no one defended the statement that then senator obama regarding empathy or what was in a person's heart. i was encouraged to see that. supporters of judge sotomayor appear willing to accept her statements that i've just quoted at the judiciary committee at face value. i hope they're right. i really do. i certainly intend to take my colleagues' agreement with these statements at face value and i expect future nominees to the federal judiciary will conform to this new consensus articulated by judge sotomayor at her hague. her -- at her hearings and embraced in a bipartisan fashion by members of the judiciary

committee. i have no question about the outcome of this vote on judge sotomayor but i regret for the reasons i stated because i cannot reconcile her previous statements with her testimony at the judiciary committee that i wish judge sotomayor well as she serves on the united states supreme court. i hope my concerns i have raised here and the uncertainty i have about what kind of justice she will be, she will prove those concerns unjustified by the way she distinguishes herself as a pen of the united states supreme court. i hope her tenure will strengthen the court and fidelity to the constitution. i congratulate her and loved ones on her historic achievement. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note >> the full senate will vote on supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. for more information on judge sotomayor, video of her

confirmation hearing, and a list of senators who send how they'll vote, visit our web page, c-span.org. >> a federal jury yesterday convicted former louisiana congressman william jefferson of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering. mr. jefferson, a democrat who represented parts of new orleans, was accused of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes. we'll hear from the prosecution and then defense attorney william trout outside the courthouse in alexandria, virginia. this comes courtesy of wwl-tv. >> i want to begin we thanking the prosecutors in this case, mark, rebecca, and chuck, and also the special agents from the federal bureau of investigation who worked tirelessly and with dedication to bring this case to justice. i also would, i guess -- i

think it's important to note the importance of this prosecution in that congressman jefferson had a compact with the citizens of louisiana and the people of the united states, and he owed them his honest services, and he violated that trust. he sold his office, and therefore, you know, that's what brought us here today. the citizens were owed honesty and integrity, and he used his influence and power to enrich himself and his family. this case, i think, once again shows us that we're a nation of laws, and no person, not even a congressman, is above the law. the prosecution was important from our perspective because public corruption is corrosive. the citizens need have confidence in their government, and when someone sells their office, it replaces that confidence in their public officials with cynicism.

$90,000 in a freezer is not a gray area. it's a violation. and today a jury of the congressman's peers held him guilty. thank you. >> thanks, dana. two years ago we stood here in front of you and talked about this unbelievable team of career prosecutors, agents, analysts, and they never gave up. they were relentless. and today the jury confirmed their energy and their professionalism. we also said that this case was about power, greed, and money, and the jury agreed with that. it showed congressman jefferson that he sold his office, and now he will face the price of that. the public needs to know that we are committed as an agency, as a department, as public servants. these career prosecutors and agents, i think they did a herculean job, and they allowed every possible avenue of

appeal. they went through the legal process. and today they prevailed. i thank the jury foretheir work. i thank the court system. the people of new orleans need to know that they gave congressman jefferson his power, and he used his greed to attain money. he sold his office for the least common denominator behalf public service is about, and that's personal wealth and greed. so again, to the public, you should be reassured that we will continue to place our emphasis not just in new orleans or in d.c., but across the country, the rule of law is our most important aspect. thank you. >> could you give us your comments? you were a chief prosecutor in this case. you worked on it for years. can you give us your reaction to all this? >> i defer to my colleagues. a ought you asked that congressman jefferson be remanded. you thought he was a flight risk. can you address that? >> well, a lot of things go

into, you know, why we think that. but, you know, that was the decision of the prosecution team, and we really aren't going to get into our deliberations. >> mr. u.s. attorney, the wording he used is some of those nations are cozy with him, they consider him a rock star. yet the judge wasn't buying it. did you overplay your hand? >> i don't think we overplayed our hand. we argued the facts as we saw them to the court, and the court made a decision. >> what was the reason lori was never called to the stand? many people thought she was going to be the star witness in this case. what was the reason? >> in the trial of any case, there are many decisions made on how to present evidence and what goes, you know, really, hundreds, sometimes thousands of decisions. and, you know, i'm not going to get into the kind of internal deliberations of, you know, why we did something and did not do something in the trial of the case. what i will say is we analyzed the case, how we think we need to prove the case that we have in court, and the jury in this case, you know, accepted our evidence. >> you had $90,000 in a freezer. why do you think the jury

rejected the violation -- >> i think it's really difficult to speculate on why a jury reaches a decision, but we're pleased with the work that they did in this case. >> what about sentencing guidelines? doing the math, the max would be about 180 years in jim. will you all ask for the max on all 11 counts of the he was found guilty on? >> what we'll do is wait until we get a presentence report, and then we'll study that and consider what we consider to be a just and appropriate sentence, but i'm not willing to speak further than that right now. tape what you do you think the defining moment was for this case that eventually led to the 11 convictions? >> the defining moment of the trial of the case? >> yes. >> i don't think that i would say that the case had a defining moment, and i don't think most trials do. i think a jury reaches a decision, a collective decision between 12 people, and that's why the system works so well. >> what was the most powerful evidence you think the jury took to lead to those convictions? >> well, again, i would have to

speculate on what the jury thought. we always thought that a powerful piece of evidence in this case was $90,000 in a freezer. >> do you think those images stuck with the jury? i mean, obviously everybody saw mower of why people had been hearing about it for four years and they finally got a chance to see those pictures. do you think that is really something that played with the jury? >> again, i can only speculate on what, you know, worked for the jury, but obviously they accepted the evidence on a number of counts. ought a this is also a test, and that failed. -- >> he's asking about the foreign corrupt practices sexact why it failed. >> the department achieved many, many convictions of the foreign corrupt practices act. it's become nearly a cottage industry in the last five or six years. >> but not of a public official. >> in this case, obviously the jury did not accept our evidence on those counts. >> could face 20 years or more under the sentencing guidelines.

how complicated is it going to be to calculate sentencing guidelines given how complex the schemes were in terms of what he was expecting to get and shares of stock and all those kind of things? >> well, sentencing guidelines are now advisory, but the calculations are not extraordinarily complicated. >> can you talk about some of what he stands to profit now? >> the question was about the forfeiture and what they're going to discuss tomorrow. >> no, thank you. >> mr. jefferson curks give us your reaction to the news today? >> a lot of people in new orleans said there will be an honorable explanation for the money in the freezer. >> address mr. trout. >> yeah, they obviously did not accept the government's view that count, and we always thought that that was the evidence, we always thought it was innocent of that charge.

and we're disappointed that they didn't seep our way, see it our way on the other counts. >> the prosecution has long tried to paint mr. jefferson has a greed sexie corrupt politician who tried to sell his influence as a congressman. i know you argued -- you even called his actions stupid at one point, but not illegal. explain what you felt the central crux of this argument was for the defense. >> well, we've always contended that they did not prove the crimes that they charged. and are as i say, we're very disappointed that the jury disagreed with us on the counts where they found him guilty. >> question back here, please. >> can you show your hand at all tooze where the weak spots are in the government's case to file your appeal on? >> no, i think we'll be evaluating, you know, the verdict and looking at all of the legal issues, the jury instructions, legal issues that we see. >> do you plan to file an appeal? >> yes, we will be appealing. >> the arg superintendents you had to make about what technically constitutes

bribery, do you feel like your sort of defense is better suited to appellate courts than it is to a jury who might not get right and wrong more than legal or illegal? >> well, i mean, we certainly believe that we have very strong legal issues to appeal on. we've been fighting these issues since the day of the indictment. we feel very strongly about them. and we're going to continue to pursue them. >> mr. trout, up let the prosecution go for over five weeks, they called 40 witnesses. up went about two hours and called two witnesses. explain your strategy there. >> we just didn't think they had proovepb their case. we thought that their witnesses were discredited. you know, the jury disagreed with us, but we felt that they really hadn't proven their case. that's why we handled the defense the way we d. >> in hindsight, would you have changed your strategy at all? >> no, i just think that, you

know, it's not i don't know that it does any good to, you know, republican play what might have been. i think our judgments were sound. we're just disappointed in the verdict. >> congressman, can you tell us how you're holding up at this point? >> i'm holding up. >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> maybe some government grants. >> i would say donations. >> advertising for products t. >> public money, i'm sure. >> my taxes? >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. .

>> coming up in a moment, john solomon, executive editor of "the washington times" joins us. then andrew jakabovics from the center for american progress. then european parliament member daniel hannan gives his perspective on europe's health- care systems and the economy. we will also get an u