[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6907-S6911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this morning I would like to turn my 
attention to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme 
Court and more specifically to the so-called empathy standard that 
President Obama employed in selecting her for the highest Court in the 
land.
  The President has said repeatedly that his criterion for Federal 
judges is their ability to empathize with specific groups. He said it 
as a Senator, as a candidate for President, and again as President. I 
think we can take the President at his word about wanting a judge who 
exhibits this trait on the bench. Based on a review of Judge 
Sotomayor's record, it is becoming clear to many that this is a trait 
he has found in this particular nominee.
  Judge Sotomayor's writings offer a window into what she believes 
having empathy for certain groups means when it comes to judging, and I 
believe once Americans come to appreciate the real-world consequences 
of this view, they will find the empathy standard extremely troubling 
as a criterion for selecting men and women for the Federal bench.
  A review of Judge Sotomayor's writings and rulings illustrates the 
point. Judge Sotomayor's 2002 article in the Berkeley La Raza Law 
Journal has received a good deal of attention already for her troubling 
assertion that her gender and ethnicity would enable her to reach a 
better result than a man of different ethnicity. Her advocates say her 
assertion was inartful, that it was taken out of context. We have since 
learned, however, that she has repeatedly made this or similar 
assertions.
  Other comments Judge Sotomayor made in the same Law Review article 
underscore rather than alleviate concerns with this particular approach 
to judging. She questioned the principle that judges should be neutral, 
and she said the principle of impartiality is a

[[Page S6908]]

mere aspiration that she is skeptical judges can achieve in all or even 
in most cases--or even in most cases. I find it extremely troubling 
that Judge Sotomayor would question whether judges have the capacity to 
be neutral ``even in most cases.''
  There is more. A few years after the publication of this particular 
Law Review article, Judge Sotomayor said the ``Court of Appeals is 
where policy is made.'' Some might excuse this comment as an off-the-
cuff remark. Yet it is also arguable that it reflects a deeply held 
view about the role of a judge--a view I believe most Americans would 
find very worrisome.
  I would like to talk today about one of Judge Sotomayor's cases that 
the Supreme Court is currently reviewing. In looking at how she handled 
it, I am concerned that some of her own personal preferences and 
beliefs about policy may have influenced her decision.
  For more than a decade, Judge Sotomayor was a leader in the Puerto 
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. In this capacity, she was an 
advocate for many causes, such as eliminating the death penalty. She 
was responsible for monitoring all litigation the group filed and was 
described as an ardent supporter of its legal efforts. It has been 
reported that her involvement in these projects stood out and that she 
frequently met with the legal staff to review the status of cases.
  One of the group's most important projects was filing lawsuits 
against the city of New York based on its use of civil service exams. 
Judge Sotomayor, in fact, has been credited with helping develop the 
group's policy of challenging those exams.
  In one of these cases, the group sued the New York City Police 
Department on the grounds that its test for promotion discriminated 
against certain groups. The suit alleged that too many Caucasian 
officers were doing well on the exam and not enough Hispanic and 
African-American officers were performing as well. The city settled a 
lawsuit by promoting some African Americans and Hispanics who had not 
passed the test, while passing over some White officers who had.
  Some of these White officers turned around and sued the city. They 
alleged that even though they performed well on the exam, the city 
discriminated against them based on race under the settlement agreement 
and refused to promote them because of quotas. Their case reached the 
Supreme Court with the High Court splitting 4 to 4, which allowed the 
settlement to stand.
  More recently, another group of public safety officers made a similar 
claim. A group of mostly White New Haven, CT, firefighters performed 
well on a standardized test which denied promotions for lieutenant and 
for captain. Other racial and ethnic groups passed the test, too, but 
their scores were not as high as this group of mostly White 
firefighters. So under this standardized test, individuals from these 
other groups would not have been promoted. To avoid this result, the 
city threw out the test and announced that no one who took it would be 
eligible for promotion, regardless of how well they performed. The 
firefighters who scored highly sued the city under Federal law on the 
grounds of employment discrimination. The trial court ruled against 
them on summary judgment. When their case reached the Second Circuit, 
Judge Sotomayor sat on the panel that decided it.

  It was, and is, a major case. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court has 
taken that case, and its decision is expected soon. The Second Circuit 
recognized it was a major case too. Amicus briefs were submitted. The 
court allotted extra time for oral argument. But unlike the trial judge 
who rendered a 48-page opinion, Judge Sotomayor's panel dismissed the 
firefighters' appeal in just a few sentences. So not only did Judge 
Sotomayor's panel dismiss the firefighters' claims, thereby depriving 
them of a trial on the merits, it didn't even explain why they 
shouldn't have their day in court on their very significant claims.
  I don't believe a judge should rule based on empathy, personal 
preferences, or political beliefs, but if any case cried out for 
empathy--if any case cried out for empathy--it would be this one. The 
plaintiff in that case, Frank Ricci, has dyslexia. As a result, he had 
to study extra hard for the test--up to 13 hours each day. To do so, he 
had to give up his second job, while at the same time spending $1,000 
to buy textbooks and to pay someone to record those textbooks on tape 
so he could overcome his disability. His hard work paid off. Of 77 
applicants for 8 slots, he had the sixth best score. But despite his 
hard work and high performance, the city deprived him of a promotion he 
had clearly earned.
  Is this what the President means by ``empathy''--where he says he 
wants judges to empathize with certain groups but, implicitly, not with 
others? If so, what if you are not in one of those groups? What if you 
are Frank Ricci?
  This is not a partisan issue. It is not just conservatives or 
Republicans who have criticized Judge Sotomayor's handling of the Ricci 
case. Self-described Democrats and political independents have done so 
as well.
  President Clinton's appointee to the Second Circuit and Judge 
Sotomayor's colleague, Jose Cabranes, has criticized the handling of 
the case. He wrote a stinging dissent, terming the handling of the case 
``perfunctory'' and saying that the way her panel handled the case did 
a disservice to the weighty issues involved.
  Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was similarly offended by the 
way the matter was handled. Last month, before the President made his 
nomination, Mr. Cohen concluded his piece on the subject as follows:

       Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been 
     deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of his race. 
     Obama's Supreme Court nominee ought to be able to look the 
     New Haven fireman in the eye and tell him whether he has been 
     treated fairly or not. There's a litmus test for you.

  Legal journalist Stuart Taylor, with the National Journal, has been 
highly critical of how the case was handled, calling it peculiar.
  Even the Obama Justice Department has weighed in. It filed a brief in 
the Supreme Court arguing that Judge Sotomayor's panel was wrong to 
simply dismiss the case.
  So it is an admirable quality to be a zealous advocate for your 
clients and the causes in which you believe. But judges are supposed to 
be passionate advocates for the evenhanded reading and fair application 
of the law, not their own policies and preferences. In reviewing the 
Ricci case, I am concerned Judge Sotomayor may have lost sight of that.
  As we consider this nomination, I will continue to examine her record 
to see if personal or political views have influenced her judgment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator McConnell for his 
thoughtful comments. He is a former member of the Judiciary Committee, 
a lawyer who has studied these issues and cares about them deeply, and 
I value his comments. I do think that, as Senator McConnell knows, and 
while he is here, once a nominee achieves the Supreme Court, they do 
have a lifetime appointment and these values and preferences and 
principles on which they operate go with them. So it is up to us, I 
think my colleague would agree, to make sure the values and principles 
they bring to the Supreme Court would be consistent with the rule of 
law. So I appreciate the Senator's comments.

  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from Alabama will yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I commend Senator Sessions for his outstanding 
leadership on this nomination and his insistence that we be able to 
have enough time to do the job--to read the cases, read the Law Review 
articles, and to get ready for a meaningful hearing for one of the most 
important jobs in America. I think he has done a superb job, and I 
thank him for his efforts.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. I would note that there are only 
nine legislative days between now and the time the hearing starts, so 
we are definitely in a position where it is going to be difficult to be 
as prepared as we would like to be when this hearing starts. We still 
don't have some of the materials we need.
  My staff and I have been working hard to survey the writings and 
records of Judge Sotomayor.
  Certainly, the constitutional duty of the Senate to consent to the 
President's nomination is a very serious one. In recent years, we have 
seen judicial opinions that seem more attuned

[[Page S6909]]

to the judge's personal preferences than to the law, and it has caused 
quite a bit of heartburn throughout the country. We have seen judges 
who have failed to understand that their role, while very important, is 
a limited one. The judge's role is not policy, politics, ethnicity, 
feelings, religion, or personal preference because whatever those 
things are, they are not law, and first and foremost a judge 
personifies law. That is why lawyers and judges, during court 
sessions--and I practiced hard in Federal court for all of 15 years, so 
I have been in court a lot--when they go to court, they do not say even 
the judge's name and usually don't even say ``judge.'' They refer to 
the judge as ``the Court.'' They say, ``If the Court please, I would 
like to show the witness a statement,'' or a judge may write, ``This 
Court has held,'' and it may be what he has written himself, or she. 
All of this is to depersonalize, to objectify the process, to clearly 
establish that the deciding entity has put on a robe--a blindfold, 
according to our image--and is objective, honest, fair, and will not 
allow personal feelings or biases to enter into the process.
  So the confirmation process rightly should require careful evaluation 
to ensure that a nominee--even one who has as fine a career of 
experience as Judge Sotomayor--meets all the qualities required of one 
who would be situated on the highest Court. As this process unfolds, it 
is important that the Senate conduct its evaluation in a way that is 
honest and fair and remember that a nominee often is limited in his or 
her ability to answer complaints against them.
  So the time is rapidly approaching for the hearings--only nine 
legislative days between now and July 13--and there are still many 
records, documents, and videos not produced that are important to this 
process.
  My colleagues and friends are asking: What have you found? What 
evaluations have you formed? What are your preliminary thoughts? And I 
have been somewhat reluctant to discuss these matters at this point in 
time, as we continue to review the record. In truth, the confirmation 
process certainly must be conducted with integrity and care, but it is 
not a judicial process, it is a political process. The Senate is a 
political, legislative body, not a judicial body, and it works its 
will. Its Members must decide issues based on what each Member may 
conclude is the right standard or the right beliefs.
  I have certainly not formed hard opinions on this nominee, but I have 
developed some observations and have found some relevant facts and have 
some questions and concerns. It is clear to me that several matters and 
cases must be carefully examined because they could reveal an approach 
to judging that is not acceptable for a nominee, in my opinion. I see 
no need not to raise those concerns now. Discussing them openly can 
help our Senate colleagues get a better idea of what the issues are, 
and the public, and the nominee can see what the questions are now, 
before the hearings start. Unfortunately, the record we have is 
incomplete in key respects, and it makes it difficult for us to 
prepare.
  As I review the record, I am looking to try to find out whether this 
nominee understands the proper role of a judge, one who is not looking 
to impose personal preferences from the bench. Frankly, I have to say--
to follow up on Senator McConnell's remarks--I don't think I look for 
the same qualities in a judge that the person who nominated her does--
President Obama. He says he wants someone who will use empathy--empathy 
to certain groups to decide cases. That may sound nice, but empathy 
toward one is prejudice toward the other, is it not? There are always 
litigants on the other side, and they deserve to have their cases 
decided on the law. And whatever else empathy might be, it is not law. 
So I think empathy as a standard, preference as a standard is contrary 
to the judicial oath. This is what a judge declares when they take the 
office:

       I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without 
     respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the 
     rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge 
     and perform all the duties incumbent upon me.

  So I think that is the impartial ideal. That is the ideal of the lady 
of justice with the scales and the blindfold, which we have always 
believed in in this country and which has been the cornerstone of 
American jurisprudence.
  So what I have seen thus far in Judge Sotomayor's record--and 
presumably some of her views are the reason President Obama selected 
her--cause me concern that the nominee will look outside the law and 
the evidence in judging and that her policy preferences could influence 
her decisionmaking. Her speeches and writings outside the court are 
certainly of concern, some of which Senator McConnell mentioned.
  I wish to discuss some other areas that I think are significant also. 
She has had extensive work with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and 
Education Fund and been a supporter, presumably, of what it stands for. 
So that is one of the matters I will discuss a bit here. Also, I will 
discuss her decision to allow felons, even those convicted and in jail, 
the right to vote, overruling a long-established State law. Some other 
matters I will discuss include the New Haven firefighters case.
  Looking at the long association the nominee has had with the Puerto 
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund--an organization that I have to 
say, I believe, is clearly outside the mainstream of the American 
approach to matters--this is a group that has taken some very shocking 
positions with respect to terrorism. When New York Mayor David Dinkins 
criticized members of the radical Puerto Rican nationalist group and 
called them ``assassins'' because they had shot at Members of Congress 
and been involved in, I guess, other violence, the fund, of which judge 
Sotomayor was a part, criticized the mayor and said they were not 
assassins and said that the comments were ``insensitive.''
  The President of the organization continued, explaining that for many 
people in Puerto Rico, these men were fighters for freedom and justice.
  I wonder if she agreed with that statement and that the statements of 
the mayor of New York were insensitive. These Puerto Rican nationalists 
reconstituted into groups such as the FALN, which we have recently had 
occasion to discuss in depth. The FALN itself was responsible for more 
than 100 violent attacks resulting in at least 6 deaths. I find it 
ironic that once again we find ourselves discussing these murderous 
members of FALN, when not long ago we were considering whether to 
confirm Attorney General Eric Holder, who was advocating pardoning them 
and President Clinton did. Now we find ourselves wondering about this 
nominee to the Court and what her views are on these matters and how 
her mind works as she thinks about these kinds of issues.
  We do not have enough information, unfortunately, to assess these 
concerns effectively. We requested information relating to Judge 
Sotomayor's involvement with the fund, a typical question of all 
nominees but critically important for a Supreme Court nominee. But we 
have not received information. Indeed, we have received 9 documents 
totaling fewer than 30 pages relating to her 12 years with the 
organization. So it is not possible for us to make an informed decision 
at this point on her relationship with an organization that seems to be 
outside the mainstream.
  What we know, basically, is from publicly available information, and 
what has been provided this committee, is that this is a group that 
has, time and again, taken extreme positions on vitally important 
issues such as abortion. In one brief, which was in support of a 
rehearing petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, a brief to the Supreme 
Court, the Fund criticized the Supreme Court's decision in two cases 
that both the State and Federal Government should restrict the use of 
public funds for abortion--the question of public funding of abortion.
  Incredibly, the Fund joined other groups in comparing these types of 
funding restrictions to slavery, stating:

       Just as Dred Scott v. Sanford refused citizenship to Black 
     people, these opinions strip the poor of meaningful 
     citizenship under the fundamental law.

  In their view, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution 
prohibited restrictions on either Federal or State Government provision 
of funding abortions.
  I think this is an indefensible position. We do not know how much 
Judge Sotomayor had to do with developing these positions of the Fund--
but certainly she was an officer of it, involved

[[Page S6910]]

in the litigation committee during most of this time--because we do not 
have the information we requested.
  We do know the Fund and Judge Sotomayor opposed reinstatement of the 
death penalty in New York based not on the law but on what they found 
to be the inhuman psychological burden it places on criminals, based on 
world opinion, and based on evident racism in our society. What does 
this mean about how Judge Sotomayor would approach death penalty cases? 
I think she has affirmed death penalty cases, but on the Supreme Court, 
there is a different ability to redefine cases. These personal views of 
hers could very well affect that.
  Recently, five Justices of the Supreme Court decided, based in part 
on their review of rulings of courts of foreign countries, that the 
Constitution says the United States cannot execute a violent criminal 
if he is 17 years and 364 days old when he willfully, premeditatedly 
kills someone. They say the Constitution says the State that has a law 
to that effect cannot do it.
  Looking to ``evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of 
a maturing society''--this is what the Court said, as they set about 
their duty to define the U.S. Constitution; this is five Members of the 
Supreme Court, with four strong dissents: looking to ``evolving 
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,'' we 
conclude the death penalty in this case violated the eighth amendment.
  There are at least six or eight references in the Constitution to a 
death penalty. If States don't believe 18-year-olds should be executed, 
or 17, they should prohibit it and many States do. But it is not 
answered by the Constitution. But five judges did not like it. They 
consulted with world opinion and what they considered to be evolving 
standards of decency and said the Constitution prohibited the 
imposition of a death penalty in this case, when it had never been 
considered to be so since the founding of our Republic. I don't think 
that is a principled approach to jurisprudence. That is the kind of 
thing I am worried about if we had another judge who will think like 
that on the bench.
  I will ask about some other cases, too, that give me pause. For 
centuries States and colonies, even before we became a nation, have 
concluded that individuals who commit serious crimes, felonies, forfeit 
their right to vote, particularly while they are in jail. It is a 
choice that States can make and have made between 1776 and 1821. Eleven 
State constitutions contemplated preventing felons from voting. New 
York passed its first felon disenfranchisement law in 1821. When the 
14th amendment was adopted in 1868, 29 States had such provisions. By 
2002, all States except Maine and Vermont disenfranchised felons. For 
years, these types of laws have been upheld by the courts against a 
range of challenges. But in Hayden v. Pataki, in 2006, Justice 
Sotomayor stated her belief that these types of laws violate the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, even though that act makes no reference to these 
longstanding and common State laws and even though they are 
specifically referenced in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution 
itself.
  In her view, with analysis of a few short paragraphs only, the New 
York law was found--or she found--she concluded that the New York law 
was ``on account of race,'' and therefore it violated the Voting Rights 
Act.
  It was ``on account of race'' because of its impact and nothing more. 
Statistically, it seems that in New York, as a percentage of the 
population, more minorities are in jail than nonminorities. Therefore, 
it was concluded that this act was unconstitutional. I think this is a 
bridge too far. It would mean that State laws setting a voting age of 
18 would also violate Federal law because, within the society or in 
most of our country, minorities would have more children under 18 so 
that would have a disparate impact on them.
  I do not think this can be the law, as a majority of the colleagues 
on that Court explained, and did not accept her logic. Actually, her 
opinion was not upheld.
  I look forward to asking her about that. I am aware that Judge 
Sotomayor would say she is acting as a strict constructionist by simply 
applying literally the 40-year-old Voting Rights Act of 1965. I do not 
think so. I remember when Miguel Estrada, that brilliant Hispanic 
lawyer whom President Bush nominated to the appellate courts and who 
was defeated after we had seven attempts to shut off a filibuster on 
the floor of the Senate but could never do so, said during his hearings 
that he didn't like the term ``strict construction.'' He preferred the 
term ``fair construction.''
  He was correct. So the question is, Is this a fair construction of 
the Voting Rights Act, that it would overturn these long-established 
laws when no such thing was considered in the debate on the 
legislation? That historic laws, which limit felons voting, are to be 
wiped out, even allowing felons still in jail to vote? I do not think 
so and neither did most of the judges who have heard these cases.
  With regard to the New Haven firefighters case, I will say we will be 
looking into that case in some length. Stuart Taylor did a very fine 
analysis of it when he was writing, I believe, at the National Journal. 
He recognized that no one ever found that the examination these 
firefighters took was invalid or unfair. As he has explained, if the 
``belated, weak, and speculative criticisms--obviously tailored to 
impugn the outcome of the tests--are sufficient to disprove an exam's 
validity or fairness, no test will ever withstand a disparate-impact 
lawsuit. That may or may not be Judge Sotomayor's objective. But it 
cannot be the law,'' says Mr. Stuart Taylor in his thoughtful piece. 
The firefighters, you see, were told there was going to be a test that 
would determine promotion, that it would determine eligibility for 
promotion. The tests were given at the time stated and the rules had 
been set forth. But the rules were changed and promotions did not occur 
because the Sotomayor court, in a perfunctory decision, concluded that 
too many minorities did not pass the test, and no finding was made that 
the test was unfair. We will be looking at that and quite a number of 
other matters as we go forward.

  I will be talking about the question of foreign law and the question 
of this nominee's commitment to the second amendment, the right to keep 
and bear arms. The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed. We will talk about that and some other matters 
because, once on the Court, each Justice has one vote. It only takes 
five votes to declare what the Constitution says. That is an awesome 
power and the judges must show restraint, they must respect the 
legislative body, they must understand that world opinion has no role 
in how to define the U.S. Constitution, for heaven's sake. Neither does 
foreign law. How can that help us interpret the meaning of words passed 
by an American legislature?
  Oftentimes, world opinion is defined in no objective way, just how 
the judge might feel world opinion is. I am not sure they conduct a 
world poll, or what court's law do they examine around the world to 
help that influence their opinion on an American case?
  This is a dangerous philosophy is all I am saying. It is a very 
serious debate. There are many in law schools who have a different 
view: there is an intellectual case out there for an activist judiciary 
or a judiciary that should not be tethered to dictionary definitions of 
words. Judges should be willing and bold and take steps to advance the 
law they would set and to protect this or that group that is favored at 
this or that time.
  I think that is dangerous. I think it is contrary to our heritage of 
law. I am not in favor of that approach to it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, today on the floor some of my 
colleagues have begun their attacks on President Obama's historic and 
incredibly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor. They clearly decided, for ideological reasons, that they 
were going to oppose whoever President Obama appointed before

[[Page S6911]]

the hearings even started. We have heard people try to attach a lot of 
labels to Judge Sotomayor over the past few weeks, but it has become 
clearer and clearer as we look hard at Judge Sotomayor's record and 
vast experience that attacking this nominee is like throwing rocks at a 
library. It is uncalled for and it doesn't accomplish anything. Her 
opponents are grasping at straws, because it turns out we have before 
us one of the most qualified, exceptional nominees to come before this 
Senate in recent history.
  Let there be no doubt: Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be a Justice 
to the Supreme Court is a proud moment for America. It is proof that 
the American dream is in reach for everyone willing to work hard, play 
by the rules, and give back to their communities, regardless of their 
ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background. It is further proof of 
the deep roots the Hispanic community has in this country.
  But let's be clear: We get to be proud of this nominee because she is 
exceptionally qualified. We get to be proud because of her vast 
knowledge of the law, her practical experience fighting crime, and her 
proven record of dedication to equal justice under the law. Those are 
the reasons we are proud. Those are the reasons she should be confirmed 
without delay.
  We should not be hearing any suggestions that we need infinitely more 
time to discuss this nomination. It should move as promptly as the 
nomination of John Roberts, and that is exactly what we are going to 
do.
  A little while ago at a press conference, we heard from prominent 
legal and law enforcement organizations that explained how the people 
who have actually seen her work know her best: as an exemplary, fair, 
and highly qualified judge. They came from across our country, from 
Florida to Texas, Nebraska, and my home State of New Jersey. They shed 
light on how important her work has been in the fight against crime, 
how her work as a prosecutor put the ``Tarzan murderer'' behind bars, 
how as a judge she upheld the convictions of drug dealers, sexual 
predators, and other violent criminals. And they made it clear how much 
they admire her strong respect for the liberties and protections 
granted by our Constitution, including the first amendment rights of 
people she strongly disagreed with.
  Judge Sotomayor's credentials are undeniable. After graduating at the 
top of her class at Princeton, she became an editor of the law journal 
at Yale Law School, which many consider to be the Nation's best. She 
went to work in the Manhattan district attorney's office, prosecuting 
crimes from murder to child abuse to fraud, winning convictions all 
along the way.
  A Republican President, George H.W. Bush, appointed her to the U.S. 
District Court in New York, and a Democrat, Bill Clinton, appointed her 
to the U.S. Court of Appeals. She was confirmed by a Democratic 
majority Senate and then a Republican majority Senate. Her record as a 
judge is as clear and publicly accessible as any recent nominee and 
clearly shows modesty and restraint on the bench.
  She would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than 
any Justice in 70 years, and more Federal judicial experience than 
anyone in the past century. Her record and her adherence to precedent 
leave no doubt whatsoever that she respects the Constitution and the 
rule of law.
  Judge Sotomayor's record has made it clear that she believes what 
determines a case is not her personal preferences but the law. Her 
hundreds of decisions prove very conclusively that she looks at what 
the law says, she looks at what Congress has said, and she looks above 
all at what precedent says. She is meticulous about looking at the 
facts and then decides the outcome in accordance with the Constitution.
  On top of that, Judge Sotomayor's personal background is rich with 
the joys and hardships that millions of American families share. Her 
record is proof that someone can be both an impartial arbiter of the 
law and still recognize how her decisions will affect people's everyday 
lives.
  I think it says something that the worst her ideological opponents 
can accuse her of is being able to understand the perspective of a wide 
range of people whose cases will come before her.
  Judge Sotomayor deserves nothing less than a prompt hearing and a 
prompt confirmation. As the process moves forward, I plan to come back 
to the floor as often as is necessary to rebut any baseless attacks 
leveled at this judge.
  It fills me with pride to have the opportunity to support President 
Obama's groundbreaking nominee, someone who is clearly the right person 
for a seat on the highest Court of the land.
  It is an enormous joy to be reminded once again that in the United 
States of America, if you work hard, play by the rules, and give back 
to your community, anything is possible.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________