[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 102 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S7280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Senator McConnell spoke previously about 
the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. This is a rare, 
historic opportunity for the Senate to consider a nomination sent to us 
by the President. It doesn't happen very often. In my career, my 13th 
year in the Senate, this will be my third opportunity in the Judiciary 
Committee to actually ask questions of someone who aspires to serve on 
the highest Court of the land, a lifetime appointment and a very 
important appointment in terms of our Nation's history.
  The question raised by Senator McConnell is entirely appropriate. I 
commend him because his statement really goes to the heart of what this 
process should be about. It wasn't about the personality of the judge 
or any personal trait, it was about her beliefs and whether they are 
the kinds of beliefs we would like to see enshrined in her service as a 
Supreme Court Justice.
  Particularly, Senator McConnell raised an issue which is very 
important to him. It is the issue of free speech in relation to 
political campaigns. I know this is important because Senator McConnell 
took an exceptional position in being in opposition to McCain-Feingold 
campaign finance reform. This was a reform which these two Senators--
one Republican and the other Democrat--brought to the Senate in an 
effort to reduce the impact of corporate contributions and large 
contributions in our political campaigns. It was their belief that the 
so-called soft money which avoided some of the restrictions that are 
applied to other contributions had gone too far in the extreme. Senator 
McConnell was not alone, but he really was in the minority in opposing 
the McCain-Feingold position. He even went so far as to file documents 
before the courts arguing that this was a violation of free speech. The 
courts did not find in his favor and ruled that McCain-Feingold was, in 
fact, permissible and constitutional.
  Now Senator McConnell comes to the floor and argues that Judge 
Sotomayor apparently doesn't agree with his point of view either. That 
is certainly Senator McConnell's right to do. But to question whether 
she should be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court because she 
disagrees with Senator McConnell's minority views on McCain-Feingold 
and the use of money in political campaigns is an unfair 
characterization of her position. Keep in mind that Judge Sotomayor 
comes to this nomination with an extraordinary background. She brings 
more Federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court, if approved, 
than any Justice nominated in over 100 years and more overall judicial 
experience than anyone confirmed to the Court in the past 70 years.
  She was first nominated by a Republican President to serve on the 
Federal court, President George Herbert Walker Bush. Then she was 
promoted to the next level court, the circuit court, by President 
Clinton, a Democratic President--bipartisan support, approval of the 
Senate both times, and no one suggested her views were radical or not 
in the mainstream of judicial thinking in America.
  So when Senator McConnell raises this point, it reflects the fact 
that his view of campaign finance, his view of restrictions on 
contributions is, in fact, a minority position, one that the court has 
not approved of and most Americans may not agree with. Most Americans 
believe we should keep a close eye on political contributions to make 
sure they don't corrupt our political process. We want to honor free 
speech. Some of us believe the Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo went 
to an extreme and basically argued that the expenditure of money in a 
political campaign was an exercise of free speech. That argument leads 
to the conclusion that a millionaire is entitled to more free speech 
than the common person who couldn't spend that kind of money on a 
political campaign.
  I might also add, we have been trying to move forward a piece of 
legislation that will give even more disclosure on political campaign 
financing. It would require the electronic filing of campaign finance 
reports. We have been trying to move this forward. There has been 
resistance on the other side of the aisle.
  I think it is bipartisan and consistent with the goals of this 
Congress for us to have this kind of disclosure, for us to recognize 
that freedom of speech brings with it certain obligations, and that 
Judge Sotomayor's rulings in cases relating to free speech have been 
entirely consistent with the values of our country and in the 
mainstream of this Nation.
  Next Monday, her nomination comes before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it will go on for several days, and I 
will have a chance to speak then. I will yield the floor now. Thank 
you.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam President.

                          ____________________