[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 80 (Monday, June 1, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5892-S5893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NOMINATION OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the matter of the Supreme Court, I 
note that I spoke with the President's nominee, Judge Sotomayor, over 
the recess, and I assured her she would be treated fairly and 
respectfully during the confirmation process. I will deliver the same 
message when the two of us have a chance to sit down and talk later 
this week.
  Republicans take very seriously our obligation to review anyone who 
is nominated to a lifetime position on our Nation's highest Court. The 
Senate will therefore thoroughly review Judge Sotomayor's judicial 
record to ensure a full and informed debate over her qualifications to 
become one of the chief guardians of our Nation's Constitution and its 
laws. We believe the American people expect nothing less.
  Judge Sotomayor is no stranger to the process. This will be the third 
time she has come before the Senate for confirmation to the Federal 
bench. In considering her for a seat on the Supreme Court, the 
standards for review become understandably more rigorous, as the Vice 
President observed when he chaired the Judiciary Committee. Yet the 
basic qualities we look for in our justices are the same qualities we 
look for in any Federal judge: superb legal ability, personal 
integrity, sound temperament, and, most importantly, a commitment to 
read the law evenhandedly.
  In this last respect, some of Judge Sotomayor's past statements and 
decisions have raised some understandable questions and concerns. One 
of these is a statement she made a few years back that the Court of 
Appeals is, ``Where policy is made.'' I think that is a tough statement 
to square with Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly 
contemplates a far more limited role for Federal judges, and I suspect 
that a number of us over here in the legislative branch will want to 
ask Judge Sotomayor questions about that statement.
  The reason is simple. I think most Americans would agree that the 
courtroom is not an appropriate place to exercise one's political 
beliefs or personal preferences. As far as most of us are concerned, 
politics ends at the courthouse door. The courtroom is where you go to 
get a fair and evenhanded reading of the law, regardless of who you are 
or where you came from or who you voted for. Legislators make the laws, 
not judges. Most people understand that and place a high value on it. 
And the last time Judge Sotomayor came before the Senate for 
confirmation, I voted against her nomination precisely out of a concern 
that she would bring pre-existing personal and political beliefs into 
the courtroom.
  Many of the same concerns I had about Judge Sotomayor 11 years ago 
persist. But a fresh review of her record has now begun and, as I said, 
Republicans will insist that the confirmation process for Judge 
Sotomayor is conducted in a fair and professional manner. This is the 
way Republicans have treated judicial nominees in the past, and this is 
the way we will continue to treat them: with respect.
  But respectful doesn't mean rushed. Judge Sotomayor has a long 
record, and it will take a long time to get through it. She has served 
17 years on both the trial and the appellate court. She has been 
involved in more than 3,600 cases since becoming a judge. In order to 
conduct a thorough examination of all these cases, it is vital that the 
Senate have sufficient time to do so.
  During the last three Supreme Court confirmations, the average amount 
of time the Senate had to prepare for a hearing was more than 60 days. 
For Justice Alito, the Senate had 70 days to prepare for an informed 
hearing. And like Judge Sotomayor, Justice Alito had thousands of cases 
for Senators to review. Our Democrat colleagues who were in the 
minority during the Alito nomination appreciated the fairness they were 
afforded; both the senior Senator from Vermont and the senior Senator 
from New York noted at the time that in handling the Alito nomination 
it was important to do it right, not quick.
  This time around, our friend Senator Schumer notes that Judge 
Sotomayor has a very ``extensive'' record, and we certainly have a 
``right'' to ``scrutinize'' it. So in considering this nomination I am 
confident our Democratic colleagues will treat us fairly and allow us 
to do it ``right.''
  Throughout this process, Republicans will be guided by a few simple 
principles. But perhaps the most important ones are these: Americans 
expect and should receive equal treatment under the law, and Americans 
want judges who understand their role is to interpret the law, not 
write it. As Chief Justice Roberts put it during his confirmation 
hearing, the American people expect a judge to be like an umpire--
someone who applies the rules but doesn't make them. No one ever went 
to a ballgame, as he put it, to watch the umpire.
  Lawmakers make law, and they have to answer for those laws every 2 or 
6 years to the voters. Federal judges, on the other hand, never have to 
face the voters, and thus aren't supposed to

[[Page S5893]]

make policy. Lifetime appointments are a serious matter, and voting on 
a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important decisions a 
Senator will ever make. Republicans approach this nomination with a 
clear set of guiding principles, and we will make every effort to 
determine whether Judge Sotomayor shares them.

                          ____________________