just yet. maybe i can tell you that later today after i meet with the chairman. >> do you see the february 17 date holding? >> it is not just a good idea, it is the law. i think we will have to stick to that and presented to congress later than the 17th. commissioner robert dole -- robert mcdowell and amy schatz of local wall street journal." >> thank you for having me. . .

>> this is c-span's "america and the courts." thursday, the u.s. senate voted to confirm the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court 68-31 with nine republicans joining the democrats. next, highlights from the senate floor debate. sotomayor's

nomination, but first i'm going to be joined by several of my esteemed fellow women senators, including senator shaheen of new hampshire, who is here already. senator stabenow of michigan. senator gillibrand from new york. and senator murray of washington state. we all know that this nomination is history-making for several reasons, but one of them, of course, is that judge sotomayor will be only the third woman to ever join the supreme court of the united states of america. we know she's incredibly well-qualified. she's got more federal judicial experience than any nominee for the past 100 years. that's something that's remarkable. but i do think it's worth remembering what it was like to be a nominee for this court as a woman even just a few years ago. it's worth remembering, for example, that when justice o'connor graduateed from law school, the only offer she got from law firms -- after graduating from stanford law school -- were for legal

secretary positions. justice o'connor who graduated third in her class of law school saw her accomplishments reduced to one question: can she type. justice ginsburg, when she entered harvard law school, she was one of nine women in a class of more than 500. the dean of the law school demanded she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. later she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. nonetheless, both of these women persevered and they certainly prevailed much their undeniable merits triumph those who sought to deny them opportunity. the women who came before judge sotomayor, all those women judges, helped blaze a trail. and although judge sotomayor's record stands on her own, mr. president, she is also standing on tominee. 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 have consequences. 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 lo 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 extend to 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 gin 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 is 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 back 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 philosophy. 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 le. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. president. when president obama nominated judge sotomayor to the supreme court i pledged we would treat her with respect and our questions would be tough but always fair. it's an important office. i believe we have lived up to that obligation. again, i would like to thank chairman leahy and the members of the judiciary committee for their efforts. i think we it did help provide a basis for full debate in the senate. and i would like to thank judge sotomayor for her kind words regarding how the process has been conducted and the way she

conducted herself. we've had a robust debate in the senate floor over these past few days and we've addressed many important questions and issues. the debate over judge sotomayor's nomination began with president obama's radical new vision for the american court system. according to the president, all nominees to the federal bench would now have to meet an "empathy" standard which requires judges to reach their most difficult and important decisions through "the depth and breadth of their empathy," and "their billio billion"their brot america should be." this is a stunning ideology and turns law into politics. the president of the united states is breaking with centuries of american legal tradition to enter a new era where a judge's personal feel, about a case are as important as the constitution itself. the president's empathy standard

is much more than a rhetorical flourish. it's a dangerous judicial philosophy where judges would base their rulings on social, personal, political, views. it's an attempt to sell, really, an old discredited activist philosophy by marketing it under a new label. it is this activist philosophy now under the guise of empathy that has led judges to ban the pledge of a becaus of allegianct contains "under god," and to create a new right for terrorists who attack the united states -- rights never before found in our country or any other country, while robbing american citizens of their own rights to engage in activities like even a silent prayer. that philosophy also helps explain request judge sotomayor's panel on federal

judges allowed the city of new haven to strip 18 firefighters of their elgibility for promotion on the basis of race and explains why judges have permitted cities and states to ban guns despite the constitution's clear language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and it explains why judges have allowed governments to seize private property for private commercial development despite the constitution pos guarantee'e that private property may not be taken but for public use. the standard may sound nice but it's cruel, it is, in truth, a bias standard. the power to rule on empathy is the power to rule on religion disasand thprejudiceand the powf any or all and embraces empathy

at the expense of objectivity and equality and fairness. 18 firefighters in new haven worked, studied and sacrificed to pass the city's promotion exam but when the results did not fit a certain racial quota the city leaders just scrapped the results. the firefighters put their faith in the system and the system let them down so they took their case to court. but judge sotomayor summarily dismissed their case in a one-paragraph order that did not even consider their civil rights claims. but the judge sotomayor who testified before the committee did thought effectively explain her ruling to deny the firefighters their day in court. she also did her best to distance herself from the activists philosophy she has so long spoken and championed. but it was an unconvincing effort. i believe she failed to offer a

crical explanation for her critically important rule uniteo eviscerate gun and property rights. she failed to offer a credit build explanation of her policy role in a group that took extreme positions while, when pursuing racial quotas advocating that the constitution requires that the government fund abortions and opposing reinstatement of the death penalty. her effort to rebrand her judicial approach stretched the limits of credulity. nevertheless, i believe we have had a deeply valuable public discussion. by the end of the hearing not only republicans and not only democrats but the nominee herself ended up rejecting the

very empathy standard the president has used when selecting her and this process reflected a broad public consensus that judges should be impartial, restrainted, and faithfully tethered to the law and the constitution. it will now be harder, i think, to nominate activist judges. this is not a question of left v. right or republican v. democrat. this is a question of the true role of a judge v. the false role of a judge. it is a question of whether a judge follows the law as haven't or as they might wish it to be. it is a question of whether we live up to our great legal heritage or whether or not it is abandoned. empathy-based rulings no matter how well-intentioned do not help society but imperil the legal system so circumstantial to our

freedoms and so fundamental to our way of life. we need judges who uphold the rights of all, not just some, whether they are new haven firefighters, law-abiding gun owners or americans looking for their fair day in court. we need judges who put the constitution before politics and the right legal outcome before their desired personal, political, social outcome. we need judges who understand that if they truly care about society and want it to be strong and healthy, then they must help ensure that our legal system is fair, objective, and firmly rooted in the constitution. our 30th president coolidge said of the constitution "no other document devised by the hand of man has ever brought so much progress and happenness to humanity, the good it has brought can never be measured." i certainly believe he is correct.

that document has given us blessings no people of any country has ever known which is why real compassion is not found in the empathy standard but in following the constitution. judge sotomayor, however, has embraced the opposite view. for many years before her hearings she has bluntly advocated a judicial philosophy where judges ground their decisions not in the objective rule of law but in the subjective realm of personal "opinions, sympathies and prejudices." a supreme court justice wields enormous power over every man, woman and child in our country, the primary guardian of our magnificent legal system because, i believe, judge sotomayor's philosophy of law and her approach to judging fail to demonstrate the kind of firm,

inflexible commitment to these ideals, i must withhold my consent. mr. president, i see my colleague, senator leahy, is here. he has handled many of these cases over quite a few years. we didn't agree on a lot of the things that came up in the hearings but he committed to giving the opportunity to the minority party to have a full opportunity to ask questions and to raise issues and speak out. thank you for that. i think you did credit to the in our hearings. some critics have attacked president obama's nomination of judge sotomayor by contending the picture for the supreme court to substitute "empathy" for the rule of law. these kittic critics are wrong t the president, they are wrong about sonia sotomayor.

let's leave off the rhetoric and go to the facts. when the president announced choice of judge sotomayor ten weeks ago he focused on the qualities he sought in a nominee. he started with rigorous intellect, mastery of the law. we should all agree with that. he then referred to recognition of the limits of the judicial role when he talked about an understanding that a judge's job was to interpret not make laws; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda. but, rather, a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedents, a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand. that's what president obama said. and then he went on to mention experience. he said "experience being tested

by those suffering barriers and hardship and misfortune, experience in persisting and ultimately overcoming the barriers." it is the experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion and understanding how the world works and now ordinary people live. that is request it's a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the supreme court. and then the president concluded by discussing how judge sotomayor has all these qualities. the president was looking not just for lawyerly ability but for wisdom, for an understanding of how the law and justice work in the every day lives of americans. in a subsequent radio and internet address the president reiterated the point when he said -- and i quote -- "as a

justice of the supreme court she will bring not only the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey, a journey defined by hard work and fierce intelligence and the enduring faith that in america all things are possible." now, president obama did not say that he viewed compassion or empathy as a substitute for the rule of law. in fact, he has never said he would substitute empathy for the rule of law. that's a false choice. in that opposition -- and that opposition to this nomination is based on a false premise. when she was first named, judge sotomayor said, "i firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all our basic

rights." judge sotomayor reiterated time and time again during her confirmation hearing her fidelity to the rule of law. she said, "judges can't rely on what's in their heart. they don't determine the law. congress makes the law. the job of the yuj is to apply b of the judge is to apply the law. it is not the heart that compels in cases. it is the law enforcement the judge applies the law to the facts -- the judge applies the law to the facts of the case." those who ignored her testimony should at least take heed of her record as a judge. judge sotomayor has demonstrated her fairness and impartiality during her 17 years as a judge. she has followed the law. there is no record of her substituting her personal views for the law. the many independent studies that have closely examined judge sotomayor's record have

concluded that it is a record of applying the law, not of bias. what she has said and what we should all acknowledge is the value of her background shall the value her background brings to her as a judge and would bring to her as a justice, our first latina justice. judge sotomayor is certainly not the first nominee to discuss how her background has shaped her character. justice o'connor has acknowledged we're all creatures of our upbringing. we bring whatever we are as femme a jobpeople to a job, liee suprem-- like thesupreme court. everybody knows that. all 100 of us bring what we are to the united states senate. many recent justices have spoken of her life experiences as influential factors in how they approach the bench.

justice alito and justice thomas nominated by republican presidents did so famously at their confirmation hearings, and then they were praised by the republican side of the aisle for doing so. indeed, when the first president bush nominated justice thomas to the supreme court, he touted him as an intelligent person who has great empathy. some of those choosing to oppose this historic nomination have tried to justify their opposition by falsely contending that president obama is pitting empathy against the rule of law. not so. not so. this president and this nominee are committed to the rule of law. they have recognized the role of life experience not has a substitute for the law or in conflict wits mandates but as -- with its mandated but as

informing judgments. the question is whether there is a double standard being applied by those who supported the nomination of justice alito and justice tom moss but choose to oppose the historic nomination of judge sonia sotomayor. judge sotomayor's career and judicial record demonstrate that she has always followed the rule of law. the point is, mr. president, we don't have to guess what kind of a judge she's been. she's had more experience on the federal court, both trial level and appellate level, than any nominee in decades. she will be the only member of the u.s. supreme court with experience as a trial judge. we don't have to guess. there are well over 3,000 cases. we don't have to guess. attempts at destroying that record by suggest that is her

eth nighs tirks her heritage will be the driving force in her decisions as a justice of the supreme court are demeaning to women and all communities of color. i have spoken over the last several years about urging presidents from both political parties to nominate someone from outside the judicial monastery. i believe that experience, respect, and understanding of how the world works and people live and the affect decisions will have on the lives of people are very important qualifications. by striving for more diverse bench, drawing from judges a wider set of backgrounds and experiences, we can better ensure there will be no prejudices and biases controlling our courts of justice. all nominees have talked about the value they will draw on the bench from their backgrounds. that diversity of experience is a strength. it is not a weakness in

achieving an impartial judiciary. mr. president, i have voted on every member of the united states scosht. i've been on the hearings of all but one. and that one i voted on the nomination. i sat in the hearings of judges -- justices no longer there either because of retirement or death. i have conducted thousands of nomination hearings, everything from courts of appeals judges, federal district court judges, members of the department of justice, the rank and member of supreme court nominations and conducted this one. i mention that to thank the senator from alabama for his

cooperation during it. you know, after those thousands of hearings, you get a sense of the person you are listening to. now, i met for hours with judge sotomayor either in the hearing room or privately. you learn who a person is. you really do. you really do in asking these kinds of questions. you have to bring your own experience and your own knowledge to what you're hearing. there's only 101 people in this great nation of 300 million people who get a say who's going to be one of the nine members of the u.s. supreme court. first and foremost, of course, the president, who makes the nomination. but then the 100 of us who must follow our own conscience, our own experience, our own abilities in deciding whether

we'll advise and consent to that nomination. mr. president, it's an awesome responsibility, and we should do it not because we are swayed by any special interest group of either the right or the left. in fact, i have a rule -- my office knows this very well -- that in supreme court confirmations, i will not meet with groups of either the right or the left about it. i'll make up my mind signature through hours and days -- sitting through hours and days of the transcripts and hearings. i would urge all senators to do that. i think it is unfortunate if any senator of either party made up their mind on a supreme court nominee based on the whims or the ideas of special interest

groups or special pressure groups from either the right or the left. that's a disfavor to those hundreds of millions of americans who don't belong to pressure groups of either the right or the left. they expect us to stand up. that is what we should do. that is what we should do on judge sotomayor. this is an extraordinary nominee. i remember when president obama called me a few hours before he nominated her. i was out with our troops in the fields in afghanistan. and he explained what he was going to do in just a few hours. he talked about that. we talked about asmg we talked especially about-- --we talked about afghanistan. we talked especially about her. he said, they are web sites already developing opposed to her. within hours we had leaders calling her the head of the ku

klux klan or being bigoted, senators on neither side joined with that. it would be unfortunate. mr. president, we're almost at a time for the vote. i would hope every senator would search his or her conscience and say, are they voting for this based on their oath of office, based on their conscience? or are they reflecting a special interest group? when the judiciary committee began the confirmation hearings on this supreme court nomination and when the senate this week began its debate, i recounted an insight from dr. martin luther king jr. which is often quoted by president obama, "let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

it is distinctly american to continually refine our union, moving closer to our ideals. our union is not yet perfected, bu"but with this confirmation we will be making progress. years from now, mr. president, we will remember this time when we crossed paths with the quintessentially is american journey of sotomayor seentdz when our nation took another step forward through this historic confirmation process. i urge each senator to honor our oath, our constitution, and our national promise by voting his or her conscience on the nomination of sonia sotomayor to serve as a justice of the united states supreme court. i will proudly for for her. i see the republican leader, and i see the republican leader, and

>> shortly after the vote, president obama commented on the vote. i want to thank the senate judiciary committee, particularly its chairman, senator leahy as well as its ranking member, senator sessions, for giving judge sotomayor a thorough and civil hearing, and i thank them for doing so in a timely manner so that he she can be fully prepared to take her seat when the court's work begins this september. the members of our supreme court are granted life tenure and are charged with the vital and difficult task of applying principles set forth and are founding to the questions and controversies of our time. over the past ten weeks, members of the senate judiciary committee and the full senate have assessed judge sotomayor's fitness for this work.

they've scrutinized her record as a prosecutor, as a litigator, and as a judge. they've gauged her respect for the proper role of each branch of our government, her commitment to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand and her determination to protect our core constitutional rights and freedoms. and with this historic vote, the senate has affirmed that judge sotomayor has the intellect, the temperament, the history, the integrity, and the independence of mind to ably serve on our nation's highest court. this is a role that the senate has played for more than two centuries, helping to ensure that equal justice under the law is not merely a phrase inscribed above our courthouse door but a description of what happens every single day inside the courtroom. it's a promise that whether you're a mighty corporation or an ordinary american, you will receive a full and fair hearing.

and in the end, the outcome of your case will be determined by nothing more or less than the strength of your argument and the dictates of the law. these core american ideals -- justice, equality, and opportunity -- are the very ideal as that have made judge sotomayor's own uniquely american journey possible. they're ideals she's fought for throughout her career and the ideals the senate has upheld today in breaking yet another barrier in moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union. like so many other aspects of this nation, i'm filled with pride in this achievement and great confidence that judge sotomayor will make an outstanding supreme court justice. this is a wonderful day for judge sotomayor and her family, but i also think it's a wonderful day for america. thank you very much, everybody. >> are you happy with the 68 votes, sir? >> i'm very happy. >> and now to the u.s. supreme court, where judge sonia

sotomayor was sworn in as its 11 1th associate justice. she replaces judge david souter, who he retired this summer after nearly 19 years on the court. she also becomes the court's third female justice and its first hispanic justice. chief justice john roberts administered the oath. >> good morning and welcome to the court. judge sotomayor will be invested as a member of the court on september 8 in a special session of the court. we are administering the oath this morning simply so that she can begin work as an associate justice without delay. and now i'd like to invite mrs. sotomayor, the judge's mother, and her brother, dr. sotomayor, to come forward. >> judge sotomayor, are you prepared to take the oath? >> i am. >> please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, sonia sotomayor do solemnly swear.

>> i, sonia sotomayor do solemnly swear. >> that i will administer justice without respect to persons. >> that i will administer justice without respect to persons. >> and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. >> and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. >> and that i will faithfully and impartially. >> and that i will faithfully and impartially. >> discharge and perform. >> discharge and perform. >> all the duties incumbent upon me. >> all of the duties incumbent upon me. >> as associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. >> as an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. >> under the constitution and laws of the united states. >> under the constitution and laws of the united states. >> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> congratulations, and welcome to the court. [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> for more information on the confirmation of justice sotomayor, go to our web site at crspan.org. among the items you'll find there: her testimony before the senate