[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 117 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S8541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak on the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Associate Justice of 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  We all know elections have consequences. Because of this, I have 
tried to give deference to the various nominees submitted by President 
Obama. I have not voted for all of his nominees, but I have voted for 
some even though I did not necessarily believe they were the best 
people he might have nominated.
  The case of a nominee to the Supreme Court is unique. This is not a 
Cabinet member who will rotate out or leave at the end of the 
President's term. Supreme Court Justices are there for life and decide 
cases that will affect present and future generations of Americans.
  With this in mind, I have reviewed opinions written or concurred in 
by Judge Sotomayor, reviewed speeches and writings of Judge Sotomayor, 
talked with lawyers who practice in New York, lawyers who have tried or 
argued cases before Judge Sotomayor, and others who know her by 
reputation, and also listened to and reviewed testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee in her confirmation proceeding. In addition, I 
spent the better part of an hour in a one-on-one conversation with the 
judge. Certainly, she has all the education and judicial background to 
be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. Her judicial temperament is 
not in question. Some lawyers felt she was not qualified for the 
Supreme Court, and others felt she is.
  Judge Sotomayor has a very compelling personal story, and being 
Hispanic and being female and being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court 
adds more credibility to that saga of living the American dream. As 
Americans, we should be proud she has been nominated. But the role of 
the Senate is to give the President advice and consent, and we are 
required to go beyond the personal side of the nominee.
  After reviewing the information I have collected over and over again, 
I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. My 
reasoning is as follows:
  First, lawyers nominated to the Supreme Court should be in a class by 
themselves.
  My only experience as a Member of the Senate with this process is 
with the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. 
Clearly, they are lawyers who are in a premier class. Lawyers with whom 
I spoke who know Judge Sotomayor do not put her in that category. Even 
those who say she should be confirmed do so in a less than enthusiastic 
way.
  Second, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and I am 
concerned about the reasoning of Judge Sotomayor in cases where she has 
considered this issue.
  In DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court left unanswered the issue of 
application of the second amendment to the States. This issue is likely 
to be decided by the Supreme Court in the next year or so. As a member 
of the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor ruled in the negative on this 
issue in the Maloney case without an explanation, simply citing an old 
Supreme Court case that is not really directly on point and is 
certainly outdated. This is too important an issue to give it no more 
than a cursory review.
  Third, I am concerned about the apparent leaning of Judge Sotomayor 
to use foreign law to interpret U.S. laws and our Constitution.
  In her April 28, 2009, speech to the Puerto Rican ACLU, Judge 
Sotomayor said that while foreign law should not be used as a 
precedent, she stated it should be ``considered.'' My question is, Why? 
Judge Sotomayor's answer in that same speech to that question was to 
align herself with Justice Ginsburg, who supports the use of foreign 
law and recently stated that ``foreign opinions . . . can add to the 
story of knowledge relevant to the solution of a question.'' Judge 
Sotomayor went on to say that unless American courts are more open to 
ideas in foreign cases, ``we are going to lose influence in the 
world.'' From an American jurisprudence standpoint, that line of 
thinking is certainly scary to me.
  Lastly, the highly publicized Ricci case is very puzzling. A per 
curium opinion is unusual for such a complex and precedent-setting 
case. No analysis for the decision is very troubling to the lawyer in 
me.
  In my conversation with Judge Sotomayor, she stated that the Second 
Circuit panel was simply following precedent and if the Supreme Court 
reversed the Second Circuit opinion, it would be establishing a new 
precedent. The Supreme Court, of course, did reverse the Second Circuit 
and clearly stated that no precedent was being followed by the lower 
court.
  Judge Sotomayor did not adequately explain what precedent she was 
talking about and, in fact, did not answer this question when directly 
asked the question by Senator Kyl at her confirmation hearing. Being 
less than forthcoming in every respect is very disturbing.
  Mr. President, for all of the above reasons, I will cast a ``no'' 
vote on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor next week.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire, we are in morning business, am I 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, but we have 10-minute 
grants.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate that.

                          ____________________