[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20826-20878]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF SONIA SOTOMAYOR TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME 
                       COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, 
to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 2 p.m. will be equally divided in 1-hour alternating blocks of 
time, with the Republicans controlling the first hour.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I do want to talk about the President's 
nominee to the Supreme Court, but first I wish to give a couple of 
comments in response to the Senator about health care because if the 
record be known to Americans, the preponderance of health reform 
legislation that has been presented over the last 5 years in the Senate 
has come from Republicans. The Democrats have consistently blocked any 
reform that would make health insurance more affordable and available 
to Americans. Their goal appears to be not patient-centered care but 
government-controlled care.
  If we look back a few years, the President, along with all the 
Democrats, voted against interstate competition among insurance 
companies. It is hard to say they are not on the side of insurance 
companies when they vote to prevent a national market, a national 
competitive market that people all over the country could buy policies 
that are more affordable and perhaps match their needs much better than 
the ones they can get in their own States.
  Today Americans can only buy health insurance in the States where 
they live. That means a few insurance companies can dominate the 
market. This is something we have tried to change, we have introduced, 
and the President has voted against it.
  We have also proposed tax fairness for Americans who do not get their 
health insurance at work. The other side seldom discusses the fact that 
when you get your insurance at work, you get pretty big tax breaks. The 
companies that provide that health insurance do not have to pay taxes 
on it. They can deduct it. It is a business expense. And the employees 
do not have to pay income tax on the benefits. It is an equivalent 
benefit over $3,000.
  The bills we Republicans have introduced will give health care 
vouchers to every American. Every family would get $5,000 a year to buy 
health insurance if they do not get their health insurance at work. 
Every individual would get $2,000.
  In addition, there would be some lawsuit abuse reform and some block 
grants to States to make sure people who are uninsurable, who have 
preexisting conditions, can buy affordable insurance.
  The Heritage Foundation says one of the Republican plans would have 
22 million Americans insured within 5 years. They are plans that work. 
But, unfortunately, the other side will not even discuss plans that do 
not have more government control involved with them.
  What we can do is make what is working work better. We do not need to 
replace it with what is not working. One of the reasons health 
insurance is more expensive today--a third more expensive--is that the 
government programs of Medicare and Medicaid do not pay their fair 
share, and those costs are shifted on to employers and individuals who 
have private insurance.
  We do not need to expand the part that is broken in health care. We 
certainly do not need to expand a cash-for-clunkers type of health care 
system for America.
  I am here today to talk about the President's nominee to the Supreme 
Court, Sonia Sotomayor. I commend my Republican colleagues, 
particularly Senator Jeff Sessions, for conducting a very respectful 
and civil hearing process for the nominee. This is something we have 
not seen in a number of years here. They were respectful toward her. 
Even those who disagree with her judicial philosophy showed courtesy 
and respect during the hearings, and it is something I very much 
appreciate.
  Our goal through this process has not been to block this nomination 
and to stop her from going to the Supreme Court. The votes have never 
been there to do that. What we have been trying to show is a pattern by 
the Obama administration and the Democratic majority of moving toward 
more and more government control in all areas of our lives. We see it 
in the stimulus plan, that instead of leaving money in the private 
sector, we take it away and spend it on programs such as turtle tunnels 
and other kinds of wasteful spending all across the country--government 
spending.
  We are trying to manage the private economy. We see it in cash for 
clunkers where we create an economic earmark for one sliver of our 
economy. At the same time, in this health care legislation, we are 
talking about adding taxes to the small businesses that create 70 
percent of the jobs in this country.
  We are benefiting a few at the expense of many. This is economic 
central planning. It is a concept that has failed throughout history. 
Yet we are trying again.
  What we see in the President's nominee to the Supreme Court is this 
belief that our Constitution is inadequate, that we need to have judges 
on our courts, Justices on the Supreme Court, who add to it.
  The President has said that our Constitution is a charter of negative 
liberties. It tells the government what it cannot do, but it does not 
tell us what we have to do. The whole point of the Constitution is to 
limit what we can do. But the President considers it inadequate, and he 
is nominating people to the courts who will be activists, who will 
expand what the Federal Government does and make arbitrary decisions 
rather than those based on the Constitution.
  Unfortunately, I do rise today in opposition to the confirmation of 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. I met with her 
personally, and I watched the hearings. I believe she is a very smart 
and gracious person with an inspiring personal story. But I also found 
her evasive and contradictory in her answers.
  On several issues ranging from judicial temperament to her infamous 
``wise Latina'' speeches, Judge Sotomayor experienced what we call 
confirmation conversion on many of her issues and simply walked away 
from a lot of her past statements and positions.

[[Page 20827]]

  Now seeing her willingness to tell us what we want to hear, neither 
her testimony nor her long record on the judicial bench can give the 
American people any confidence that she will rule according to the 
clear language and intent of the Constitution.
  Let me talk for a second about the Constitution versus precedent. I 
am very concerned with Judge Sotomayor's repeated efforts to deflect 
questions by stating she relied on precedent to guide her decisions. I 
understand circuit court judges are guided and even bound by Supreme 
Court precedent, but precedent is not the same thing as the 
Constitution, particularly on the Supreme Court. A judicial 
confirmation process that puts the constitutional interpretation 
outside the bounds of discussion is a waste of time.
  On issue after issue during her hearings, Judge Sotomayor, rather 
than giving her own opinion, simply offered the opinions of many other 
judges. We have no idea what she thinks. In one sense, this is fitting. 
The Congress routinely passes legislation that none of us reads or 
understands. So perhaps it is consistent for us to nominate and confirm 
a Justice when we do not understand what she actually believes.
  Judge Sotomayor may be very learned in constitutional law, but we 
rarely heard her actually mention the Constitution itself. This is a 
big problem for our judiciary and our system of checks and balances.
  In 1825, Thomas Jefferson said that the Federal judiciary was at 
first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. 
But it has proved that the power of declaring what is law has allowed 
it to slyly, and without alarm, sap away the foundations of the 
Constitution.
  What concerns me, as Jefferson observed, is that there are many 
confusing and contradictory precedents that can be used by judges to 
justify whatever decision they want to make. Without the Constitution 
as the fixed standard, court decisions become very arbitrary, and we 
are ruled by the opinions of Justices rather than the rule of law.
  When the law is unmoored from the Constitution, it becomes like the 
old schoolroom game of telephone. Some may remember it. One student 
says something to her neighbor and on and on across the room until the 
secret reaches the other side of the class. What do you know--the final 
message no longer even resembles the original. That is how precedent 
has worked in our court system. Every time the Supreme Court bases a 
decision on a precedent rather than on the underlying Constitution, the 
original intent of the Founders is lost and becomes distorted.
  There is nothing stopping a determined judge from finding a precedent 
that suits whatever they want to decide in any case before the Court. 
Nor apparently is there anything that will stop Judge Sotomayor from 
unmooring her decisions, not only from the Constitution but from 
precedent itself, as she did in the Ricci racial discrimination case 
and with regard to the fundamental right of citizens to own firearms.
  In the Ricci case, she claimed she was following precedent, but her 
own colleagues on the circuit court refuted her claim.
  On the second amendment, she disregarded the Supreme Court's Heller 
decision and still refuses to acknowledge the right to bear arms for 
every American, that it is a fundamental right.
  Decisions such as these, understandably, undermine the credibility of 
our judicial system. Americans are led to suspect that some judges are 
more interested in their particular outcomes rather than objectivity.
  Let me conclude. Judge Sotomayor is obviously a talented jurist, but 
I believe her when she says that she chooses her words very carefully. 
And her words, both in her testimony and throughout her career, 
undermine her claims to objective and impartial justice.
  I realize my view is the minority view here, and if Judge Sotomayor 
is confirmed, she will have my best wishes on a long and distinguished 
career. Given the available evidence, however, I cannot support her 
confirmation, nor the judicial philosophy that she will carry with her 
to the Supreme Court.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, on Tuesday I explained some of the 
reasons I cannot support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
replace Justice David Souter, and I will mention a few others here 
today. These are important points. Her record simply creates too many 
conflicts with principles about the judiciary in which I deeply 
believe. I wish President Obama had chosen a Hispanic nominee whom all 
Senators could support.
  During the debate this week, many of my Democratic friends have spent 
time reading Judge Sotomayor's resume rather than reviewing her record. 
Nearly every speaker on the other side has repeated the talking point 
that she has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court 
nominee in a century. I believe she does, and I respect her for it. But 
Justice Samuel Alito had only 1 less year of Federal judicial 
experience and actually had 5 more years on the U.S. court of appeals 
when he was nominated. He, too, had been a prosecutor and he, too, had 
received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. Yet 19 
current Democratic Senators voted to filibuster his nomination, 
including the current President, and 35 voted against confirmation.
  Other Senators emphasize the importance of appointing someone with 
Judge Sotomayor's inspiring life story and ethnic heritage. Once again, 
I do not disagree. She has an inspiring life story and a great ethnic 
heritage. Yet she is being treated with far more dignity and respect 
than was Miguel Estrada, a highly qualified Hispanic nominee with an 
inspiring life story, who everybody knows is one of the best attorneys 
in the country. The Senate, for example, will actually vote on Judge 
Sotomayor's nomination today. In 2003, for the first time in American 
history, this body was prevented from voting at all on the Estrada 
nomination, even though he had majority support. Senators and 
grassroots groups, including Hispanic organizations that today say a 
good resume, rich life story, and ethnic heritage make a compelling 
confirmation case for Judge Sotomayor, opposed even holding an up-or-
down vote for Mr. Estrada. The treatment of Miguel Estrada was unfair 
and disgraceful toward the nominee and damaging to the traditions and 
practice of this body.
  My Democratic colleagues want people to believe the concerns about 
the Sotomayor nomination are limited to one speech and one case. Some 
of them have said as much. At the same time, they say our review should 
be limited to only certain parts of the nominee's record. As I have 
done with past nominees, however, I examined Judge Sotomayor's entire 
record for insight into her judicial philosophy.
  In addition to the controversial speeches I discussed on Tuesday, 
Judge Sotomayor gave a speech at Suffolk University Law School which 
was later published in that school's law review. She embraced the idea 
that the law is indefinite, impermanent, and experimental. She rejected 
what she called ``the public myth that law can be certain and stable.'' 
She said that judges may, in their decisions, develop novel approaches 
and legal frameworks that push the law in new directions.
  Judge Sotomayor's speeches and articles, then, present something of a 
perfect judicial storm in which her views of judging meet her views of 
the law. Combine partiality and subjectivity in judging with 
uncertainty and instability in the law, and the result is an activist 
judicial philosophy that I cannot support and that the American people 
reject.

[[Page 20828]]

  My Democratic colleagues will no doubt quickly say Judge Sotomayor's 
cases do not reflect that judicial philosophy. But remember that 
appeals court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent. On the 
Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor will help fashion the precedents that 
today bind Judge Sotomayor. That makes the rest of her views--
expressed, I might add, while she has been a sitting judge--much more 
relevant to her future on the Supreme Court than to her current 
position on the appeals court.
  Nonetheless, Judge Sotomayor has made plenty of troubling decisions 
on the appeals court. On Tuesday, for example, I discussed the case of 
Didden v. Village of Port Chester, in which Judge Sotomayor refused to 
give a man his day in court whose property was taken and given to a 
developer. She came to the bizarre conclusion that Mr. Didden should 
have sued before his property was even taken.
  In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held that general 
economic development can constitute the public use that the fifth 
amendment says justifies the taking of private property.
  We hear a lot these days that judges should appreciate how their 
decisions should affect people. When the Court in Kelo greatly expanded 
the government's power to take private property, the San Francisco 
Chronicle no less said that the decision might turn the American dream 
of home ownership on its head. And one Washington Post headline after 
the decision read: ``Court Ruling Leaves Poor at Greatest Risk.'' This 
decision was devastating not only for the right to private property in 
general but for individual homeowners in particular.
  The decision in Kelo was issued after the briefing and argument in 
Didden but before Judge Sotomayor had issued her decision. Even though 
Kelo was a hallmark--or should I say landmark--decision that 
dramatically changed the law of takings, she did not ask for a 
rebriefing or a reargument. Instead, it took her more than a year to 
issue a cursory, four-paragraph opinion that not only made it easier 
for the government to take property but also severely limited the 
ability of property owners to challenge the taking of their property in 
court.
  Other Senators and I have already discussed Judge Sotomayor's 
troubling decisions regarding the second amendment right to keep and 
bear arms. She has applied the wrong legal standard to conclude that 
the second amendment does not keep State and local government from 
restricting the right to bear arms, and she has gratuitously held that 
the right to bear arms is so insignificant that virtually any reason is 
sufficient to justify a weapons restriction. No Federal judge in 
America has expressed a more narrow, cramped, and limited view of the 
right to bear arms.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have made some creative 
attempts to downplay these troubling decisions. Perhaps the most 
curious is the claim that the second amendment right to keep and bear 
arms was created by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, I am baffled 
why this should bother those who believe in a flexible and shape-
shifting Constitution. The Supreme Court, after all, makes up rights 
all the time--the right to abortion comes immediately to mind--without 
a peep from most of my Democratic friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  But the Senator who offered this strange theory should simply read 
the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is right there, right 
in the Constitution, in black and white. Perhaps he is instead 
referring to the Supreme Court's recognition last year that the right 
to bear arms is an individual rather than a collective right. Perhaps 
that is why he believes the Supreme Court created these rights. But the 
second amendment said that the right to bear arms is the right of ``the 
people.''
  The fourth amendment says the same thing about the right against 
unreasonable searches and seizures. It, too, is a right ``of the 
people.'' Does any Senator doubt that the fourth amendment protects an 
individual right? Does a Senator who believes that the Supreme Court 
made up the individual right to bear arms believe that the Supreme 
Court made up the individual right to be free from unreasonable 
government searches?
  When I chaired the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution in 
1982, we published a report on the second amendment right to keep and 
bear arms. It thoroughly examined the long and rich history of this 
right, which predates the Constitution itself. Thus, anybody can see 
why I am very concerned about this. We went to the bother of really 
writing about it back in 1982.
  As the Supreme Court has recognized, it was a fundamental individual 
right of Englishmen at the time of America's founding, which the second 
amendment merely codified. Justice Joseph Story, in his classic 
``Commentaries on the Constitution,'' called this right ``the palladium 
of the liberties of the republic.'' Our report showed definitively that 
the right to bear arms is indeed both fundamental and individual. The 
Supreme Court may have taken a long time to recognize this 
constitutional fact, but it made up nothing in doing so.
  Madam President, I commend to my colleagues the subcommittee report 
to which I have referred.
  Madam President, finally, let me describe one other matter which 
arose during the hearing which I found very troubling. And before I say 
that, 8 of the 10 cases of Judge Sotomayor, heard by the Supreme Court, 
were reversed. On the ninth one, she was seriously criticized for her 
approach to the law, and that was a 5-to-4 decision. These are matters 
that bother a lot of people. I have mentioned a whole raft of other 
cases and a whole raft of other issues in my prior remarks here, so I 
will refer back to those remarks.
  Prior to her judicial service, Judge Sotomayor was closely associated 
with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a respected 
civil rights organization. From 1980 to 1992, Judge Sotomayor held at 
least 11 different leadership positions with the fund, including 
serving as a member of both its board of directors and executive 
committee and as both a member and chairman of its litigation 
committee. In a 1992 profile, the New York Times described Judge 
Sotomayor as a top policymaker with the fund. Other articles and 
profiles in the Times and Associated Press say that she met frequently 
with the legal staff, reviewed the status of pending cases and briefed 
the board about those cases, and was an involved and ardent supporter 
of the fund's legal efforts. These descriptions relied upon and quoted 
lawyers with whom she worked at the fund. Minutes from the fund's 
litigation committee specifically describe Judge Sotomayor reviewing 
the fund's litigation strategy and cases.
  At the hearing, I asked Judge Sotomayor whether she had been aware of 
the friend-of-the-court briefs--the amicus curiae briefs--that the fund 
filed in several high-profile Supreme Court abortion cases. I just 
wanted to know what the truth was. I asked her about that because those 
briefs made arguments that can only be described as extreme, even by 
some who are in the pro-abortion movement. The fund, for example, 
compared the previous refusal to pay for abortions with taxpayer 
Medicaid funds to oppression of Blacks symbolized by the Supreme 
Court's infamous Dred Scott decision. The fund opposed any and all 
abortion restrictions, including laws requiring that parents be 
informed before their young daughters have an abortion. The fund even 
argued that the first amendment right to freely exercise religion 
somehow undermines parental notification laws.
  When I asked Judge Sotomayor about these briefs and arguments, I made 
absolutely clear in my prefaced remarks that I was asking only about 
whether she knew about and agreed with them at the time the briefs were 
filed. I was not asking her even about her current views, let alone any 
position or approach she might take in the future. Judge Sotomayor told 
me that at the time she did not know the fund was filing those briefs 
or making those arguments. At times, she used what appeared to be the 
prepared talking point that she had not ``reviewed the briefs.''

[[Page 20829]]

  But in answering my question, she went much further than that and 
said:

       Obviously, [the Fund] was involved in litigation, so I knew 
     generally they were filing briefs. But I wouldn't know until 
     after the fact that the brief was actually filed.

  To be clear, Judge Sotomayor said she never knew until after a brief 
had already been filed what arguments were made in the brief or even 
that it had been filed at all. I was shocked at this response and 
frankly found this claim very difficult to believe. How can a leader at 
a legal defense fund, who is actively working with the legal staff, 
supervising the staff, directing some of the years, briefing a board 
about pending cases, and an involved supporter of the fund's legal 
efforts, be completely out of the loop about the briefs it has filed 
and the arguments the fund is making? Did her discussions with the 
legal team about the pending cases skip these high-profile Supreme 
Court cases? I have to tell you, I doubt it. Did she brief the board 
about everything but these abortion briefs? I doubt it.
  The six abortion cases in which the Fund filed briefs were among the 
most visible cases on the Supreme Court docket. The 1989 case of 
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, for example, attracted a 
record 78 different friend-of-the-court briefs, evidence that it was 
one of the most anticipated cases in decades. Virtually everyone in the 
public interest legal world, especially at civil rights groups, had it 
at the top of their watch list. And yet Judge Sotomayor would have us 
believe that, despite her leadership positions and active involvement 
with the Fund's cases and legal strategy, she was completely unaware 
that the Fund filed a brief in Webster until after the fact. In other 
words, she knew no more than an outsider reading the newspaper about 
the Fund's briefs and arguments in high-profile Supreme Court cases 
about hot-button social issues. I find that simply implausible.
  When I met with Hispanic leaders and groups during the confirmation 
process, their common message was that Senators should treat Judge 
Sotomayor seriously and respectfully. I believe we have done that. But 
they also insisted that our confirmation decision should be based on 
the merits, not on race. It was disturbing to hear, therefore, that 
some of these same groups appeared yesterday with the chairman of the 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee warning about political 
repercussions of voting against a Hispanic nominee. I ask unanimous 
consent that a column published yesterday in Politico by former Florida 
House Speaker Marco Rubio addressing this issue be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is or 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Let me once again return to where I began. One of America's oldest 
state constitutions opens by asserting what it identifies as essential 
and unquestionable rights and principles. In their charter, the people 
of Rhode Island State:

       ``In the words of the Father of his Country, we declare 
     that the basis of our political system is the right of the 
     people to make and alter their constitutions of government; 
     but that the constitution which at any time exists, till 
     changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, 
     is sacredly obligatory upon all.''

  The Constitution belongs to the people. The people established it, 
and only the people can change it. This essential and unquestionable 
principle would be a farce if the people could change the words, but 
judges could change the meaning of those words. Judges would still 
control the Constitution, and their oath to support and defend it would 
really be an oath to support and defend themselves. America needs 
judges who are guided and controlled not by subjective empathy that 
they find inside themselves, but by objective law that they find 
outside themselves.
  I take a generous approach to the confirmation process. I believe 
that the Senate owes some deference to a President's qualified nominees 
and that qualifications for judicial service include not only legal 
experience but, more importantly, judicial philosophy. A judicial 
nominee must understand and be committed to the proper role and power 
of judges in our system of government. Evidence for a nominee's 
judicial philosophy must come from her entire record.
  I hope that on the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor will take an 
objective, modest, and restrained approach to interpreting and applying 
written law. I hope that she actively defends her impartiality against 
subjective influences such as personal sympathies and prejudices. I 
hope that she sees the Constitution, both its words and its meaning, as 
something that she must follow rather than something she can change at 
will.
  I hope she will do all of that. I hope she proves me wrong in my 
negative vote against her.
  Because the record does not convince me she holds those views today, 
I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court.
  Finally, I refer those who are interested back to my remarks on 
Tuesday because I covered a number of other cases there that are 
equally important, but I believe, since I covered them there, I did not 
have to go through them here.
  I am very concerned about this nomination. I feel very bad that I 
have to vote negatively. It is not what I wanted to do when this 
process started, but I believe I am doing the honorable and right 
thing, even though I feel bad about it. As I have said, I like Judge 
Sotomayor, I like her family, I like her life story. I am hoping she 
will listen to some of the things we have said on the floor, and I do 
wish her the best once she is confirmed.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                     [From Politico, Aug. 5, 2009]

                 Not Anti-Hispanic To Oppose Sotomayor

                            (By Marco Rubio)

       Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court was a 
     truly historic moment in our nation's history. As an 
     accomplished jurist who rose from humble roots, she is an 
     inspiration to all who share her Hispanic heritage and all 
     Americans who believe hard work is key to success.
       Since that moment, however, I have considered it vital to 
     ensure that the historic nature of her nomination did not 
     interfere with the Senate's constitutional duty of evaluating 
     it and having a proper debate about the judiciary's proper 
     function in America. After all, the lifetime nature of her 
     appointment brandishes the post with enduring influence on 
     the nation's affairs long after the nominating president 
     vacates office. Whereas voters hold senators accountable 
     every six years, this is the nation's only chance to evaluate 
     Sotomayor before sending her to the Supreme Court for life.
       During the recent Judiciary Committee hearings, it became 
     clear that I could not in good conscience support Sotomayor's 
     confirmation and would vote against it if I were in the 
     Senate today. I reached this conclusion on the basis of a 
     fair and thorough analysis.
       As a whole, Sotomayor's record reflects a view that judges 
     can and should inject personal experiences and biases into 
     what should be the objective interpretation and application 
     of the law. While her comments about the ``better 
     conclusions'' a ``wise Latina woman'' would bring to the 
     bench are universally known, I have more specific concerns 
     about her case history and testimony regarding the Second 
     Amendment at the state level, eminent domain takings and the 
     so-called constitutional right to privacy that resulted in 
     the Roe v. Wade decision. Together, these and other cases 
     point to a nominee who would bring an activist approach to 
     the highest court in the land.
       Some have said my opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation 
     and that of Republican senators would incense Hispanic-
     American voters. Right on cue, many are now attempting to 
     brand Republicans as anti-Hispanic. It should be clear, 
     however, that our opposition to her judicial philosophy is in 
     no way a wholesale opposition to Hispanics.
       I believe the greatest disservice we could offer the 
     Hispanic community and the nation as a whole is to avoid a 
     serious, principled discussion about the role of the 
     judiciary. I reject the notion that judges should be 
     representative of their sex, race or class. For these 
     reasons, the suggestion that senators who have fundamental 
     concerns about Sotomayor's judicial philosophy should not 
     dare oppose her for fear of being branded anti-Hispanic is 
     disappointing.
       The true measure of our nation's progress on issues of race 
     and ethnicity is the freedom of people of conscience to 
     disagree with one another based on sound philosophical 
     reasoning, without fear of being negatively branded because 
     the person they oppose is of a different background or skin 
     color.
       Reasonable people can disagree, and, in fact, many do in 
     this case. This competition

[[Page 20830]]

      of ideas is healthy when properly centered on policy and 
     philosophy, as it has been. The debate is only poisoned when 
     the color of one's skin becomes a political football. 
     Unfortunately, some of Sotomayor's supporters have injected 
     race into the discussion, indicating that a vote against her 
     is a vote against Hispanics, even though I have not heard one 
     utterance from any senator opposing her that reflects a 
     hostility toward Sotomayor personally or to her roots.
       In evaluating judicial nominees, what matters most is 
     determining what kind of judges they will be. And nominees 
     who share Sotomayor's view that their role is to make law 
     rather than interpret it are individuals I cannot support and 
     would urge others not to, as well.
       As Florida's first Hispanic speaker of the House, I too 
     blazed a trail that has been a great source of pride for my 
     community, particularly for those of my parents' and 
     grandparents' generations. My experience, like Sotomayor's, 
     is a testament to the boundless promise that exists in our 
     great land, where the son of a bartender and housekeeper who 
     came from Cuba without even a grasp of the English language 
     could rise to such heights.
       Those of us of Hispanic descent don't expect special 
     treatment, only the same treatment and same opportunities 
     afforded to all Americans. I believe it would be wrong to 
     apply a higher or lower standard to Sotomayor than the one 
     applied to other Supreme Court nominees.
       In the final analysis, we are not worthy of Hispanics' 
     trust or the support of any other Americans if we abandon our 
     principles or cease articulating our philosophical 
     disagreements on the role of the judiciary. I would rather 
     lose an election than diminish the rights afforded by the 
     Constitution. By consenting to a judge whose record 
     demonstrates an inclination to set policy from the bench, we 
     would be undermining our governing document.

  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there are a number of letters from 
people and groups who have given great thought to this nomination and 
who have written to oppose it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have some of these letters printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Fidelis,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 10, 2009.
     Re Judge Sonia Sotomayor and abortion.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
     Hon. Amy Klobuchar,
     Hon. Edward E. Kaufman,
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     U.S. Senate
     Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator: During the confirmation hearing of Judge 
     Sonia Sotomayor, I urge you on behalf of thousands of Fidelis 
     members and the American public to carefully question her 
     about her judicial philosophy and her approach to abortion-
     related issues. During the period leading up to her hearing, 
     Sotomayor has repeatedly made apparent her view that a 
     judge's personal feelings and experiences should play a 
     prominent role in her application of the law.
       Our organization is concerned that this approach will lead 
     Judge Sotomayor, if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court, to 
     favor an interpretation of the Constitution that is even more 
     protective of abortion rights than Roe v. Wade. Such a 
     drastic reinterpretation of the Constitution, which would 
     establish abortion as a fundamental right, would frustrate 
     the will of the vast majority of Americans who oppose an 
     unlimited right to abortion and undermine the legitimacy of 
     the Constitution.
       Judge Sotomayor offered a glimpse of her disposition toward 
     these important issues in her recent conversation with 
     Senator Jim DeMint during which she expressed that she had 
     never thought about whether an unborn child has 
     constitutional rights. This statement indicates that Judge 
     Sotomayor does not share the values of a majority of 
     Americans and that her decisions on the Supreme Court will 
     fail to protect the rights of unborn children.
       Although Judge Sotomayor has never directly addressed 
     abortion-related questions while on the bench, her 
     association with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund (PRLDEF), a radical organization that has supported an 
     unlimited right to abortion, indicates that she shares the 
     organization's views on these issues. Judge Sotomayor served 
     on the PRLDEF's board of directors between 1980 and 1992. 
     During this period, the PRLDEF filed several amicus briefs in 
     prominent abortion cases.
       These briefs repeatedly emphasized that the PRLDEF opposes 
     any effort to limit the rights recognized by Roe v. Wade, 
     arguing that abortion is a fundamental right and that the 
     Constitution requires strict scrutiny of limitations on the 
     ability to obtain an abortion. We believe that, if Judge 
     Sotomayor is given a position on the Supreme Court, her 
     decisions when confronted with these important questions will 
     align with the radical views expressed in PRLDEF's amicus 
     briefs.
       In fact, these briefs indicate that Judge Sotomayor may 
     favor even more expansive abortion rights than Justice 
     Souter, whose support for abortion has been qualified by his 
     willingness to permit reasonable state and federal 
     regulations. Souter has indicated his approach by supporting 
     regulations of federal funding for abortion counseling in 
     Rust v. Sullivan and by voting to uphold state consent laws 
     in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The PRLDEF's briefs supported 
     striking down both of these regulations as unconstitutional.
       We ask that you please carefully question Judge Sotomayor 
     during her confirmation hearing about these issues, which 
     implicate important values shared by a majority of the 
     American public and threaten to diminish the legitimacy of 
     the Constitution.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Brian Burch,
     President.
                                  ____

         National Rifle Association of America, Institute for 
           Legislative Action,
                                        Fairfax, VA, July 7, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: I am 
     writing to express the National Rifle Association's very 
     serious concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.
       We are particularly dismayed about the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Second Circuit's recent decision in the case 
     of Maloney v. Cuomo, which involved the application of the 
     Second Amendment as a limit on state law, via incorporation 
     of the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment's 
     Due Process Clause. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that 
     decided this case in a brief--and in our opinion, clearly 
     incorrect--per curiam opinion.
       The Maloney panel claimed that ``it is settled law . . . 
     that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the 
     federal government seeks to impose on this right.'' It based 
     this ruling on the 1886 case of Presser v. Illinois, decided 
     long before the development of the Supreme Court's modern 
     incorporation doctrine. But as the Court made clear last year 
     in District of Columbia v. Heller, post-Civil War cases such 
     as Presser ``did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth 
     Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.''
       Further, Presser (along with United States v. Cruikshank) 
     only stands for the concept that the guarantees in the Bill 
     of Rights do not apply directly to the States. As we have 
     seen throughout the Supreme Court's Twentieth Century 
     jurisprudence, most of the Bill of Rights has been 
     incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth 
     Amendment's Due Process Clause. Thus, the failure of the 
     Maloney panel to engage in a proper due process analysis of 
     the Second Amendment is extremely troubling, to say the 
     least.
       The Second Circuit's decision (as well as the Seventh 
     Circuit's similarly flawed reasoning in Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of 
     Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago) is at odds with the Ninth 
     Circuit's decision in Nordyke v. King, which did engage in a 
     full Fourteenth Amendment analysis (again, as required by the 
     Supreme Court in Heller). The Ninth Circuit held that while 
     the Second Amendment does not apply to the states directly or 
     through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, modern 
     Fourteenth Amendment cases do require its incorporation 
     through the Due Process Clause. This stark circuit split 
     makes it highly likely that the Supreme Court will take up 
     one or more of these cases in the immediate future, perhaps 
     as soon as next term.
       In addition, Judge Sotomayor was a member of the panel in 
     the case of United States v. Sanchez-Villar, where (in a 
     summary opinion) the Second Circuit dismissed a Second 
     Amendment challenge to New York State's pistol licensing law. 
     That panel, in a terse footnote, cited a previous Second 
     Circuit

[[Page 20831]]

     case to claim that ``the right to possess a gun is clearly 
     not a fundamental right.'' Since the precedent cited for that 
     point is no longer valid in the wake of Heller, Judge 
     Sotomayor should be asked whether she would take the same 
     position today.
       The cases in which Judge Sotomayor has participated have 
     been dismissive of the Second Amendment and have troubling 
     implications for future cases that are certain to come before 
     the Court. Therefore, we believe that America's eighty 
     million gun owners have good reason to worry about her views. 
     We look forward to a full airing of her past decisions and 
     judicial philosophy at the upcoming committee hearings, and 
     urge you and all committee members to engage in the most 
     serious questioning possible on these critical issues.
       Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA has 
     not announced an official position on Judge Sotomayor's 
     confirmation. However, should her answers regarding the 
     Second Amendment at the upcoming hearings be hostile or 
     evasive, we will have no choice but to oppose her nomination 
     to the Court.
       Finally, we would caution you against lending any credence 
     to the endorsement of Judge Sotomayor's nomination by 
     organizations that falsely claim to represent gun owners, 
     while promoting an anti-gun agenda. These front groups' 
     actions give them no credibility to speak on this nomination.
       Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Should you 
     have any questions or wish to discuss further, please do not 
     hesitate to call on me personally.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Chris W. Cox,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                     July 7, 2009.
       Dear Senators: As Americans who have dedicated themselves 
     to protecting the Second Amendment right of U.S. citizens to 
     keep and bear arms, we urge you not to confirm Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the United States 
     Supreme Court.
       It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice 
     understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the 
     Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently 
     enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Judge Sotomayor's record on 
     the Second Amendment causes us grave concern over her 
     treatment of this enumerated constitutional right.
       Last year, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case 
     District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second 
     Amendment guarantees to all law-abiding, responsible citizens 
     the individual right to keep and bear arms, particularly for 
     self-defense. Following Heller, the Supreme Court is almost 
     certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment 
     applies to states and local governments, as it does to the 
     federal government (see NRA v. Chicago and McDonald v. 
     Chicago.)
       While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her 
     views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, 
     a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second 
     Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply 
     to the states, and that if an object is ``designed primarily 
     as a weapon'' that is a sufficient basis for total 
     prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, 
     United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues 
     perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that 
     ``the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental 
     right.'' Imagine if such a view were expressed about other 
     fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as 
     the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
       Surprisingly, Heller was a 5-4 decision, with some justices 
     arguing that the Second Amendment does not apply to private 
     citizens or that if it does, even a total gun ban could be 
     upheld if a ``legitimate governmental interest'' could be 
     found. The dissenting justices also found D.C.'s absolute ban 
     on handguns within the home to be a ``reasonable'' 
     restriction. If this had been the majority view, then any gun 
     ban could be upheld, and the Second Amendment would be 
     meaningless.
       The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the 
     Supreme Court. Both its application to the states and whether 
     there will be a meaningfully strict standard of review remain 
     to be decided by the High Court. Judge Sotomayor has already 
     revealed her views on these issues and we believe they are 
     contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment 
     and Bill of Rights. As Second Amendment leaders deeply 
     concerned about preserving all fundamental rights for current 
     and future generations of Americans, we strongly oppose this 
     nominee, and urge the Senate not to confirm Judge Sotomayor.
           Sincerely,
         Sandra S. Froman, Esq., Former President, National Rifle 
           Association of America, NRA Board of Directors and 
           Executive Council; Landis Aden, President, Arizona 
           State Rifle & Pistol Association; Scott L. Bach, Esq., 
           President, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol 
           Clubs; The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Congressman, 7th 
           District of Georgia, NRA Board of Directors; Ken 
           Blackwell, Senior Fellow, Family Research Council, NRA 
           Board of Directors; Rep. Jennifer R. Coffey, NREMT-I, 
           Representative, New Hampshire State House of 
           Representatives, Representative, New Hampshire General 
           Court, Director and National Coordinator, Second 
           Amendment Sisters, Inc., Advisor, New Hampshire Pro-Gun 
           Advisory Council; Robert K. Corbin, Esq., Former 
           Attorney General, State of Arizona, Former President of 
           NRA and current member of NRA Executive Council; Jim 
           Dark, Former Executive Director, Texas State Rifle 
           Association, NRA Board of Directors.
         Alan M. Gottlieb, Chairman, Citizens Committee for the 
           Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Tom Gresham, Host of ``Gun 
           Talk,'' Nationally syndicated radio talk show; Gene 
           Hoffman, Jr., Chairman, The Calguns Foundation, Susan 
           Howard, NRA Board of Directors; Tom King, President, 
           New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, NRA Board 
           of Directors; John T. Lee, President, The Pennsylvania 
           Rifle and Pistol Association; Owen P. Buz Mills, 
           President, Gunsite Academy, Inc., NRA Board of 
           Directors; Evan F. Nappen, Esq., Corporate Counsel and 
           Director, Pro-Gun New Hampshire, Inc.
         Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, 
           NRA Board of Directors; Sheriff Jay Printz, Retired 
           Sheriff and Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, 
           Successful plaintiff in U.S. Supreme Court case Printz 
           vs. U.S., NRA Board of Directors; Todd J. Rathner, 
           President, T. Jeffrey Safari Company, NRA Board of 
           Directors; Wayne Anthony Ross, Esq., President, Alaska 
           Gun Collectors Association, Former Attorney General, 
           State of Alaska, NRA Board of Directors; Don Saba, 
           Ph.D., Sierra Bioresearch, NRA Board of Directors; 
           Robert E. Sanders, Esq., Former Assistant Director (Law 
           Enforcement), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 
           NRA Board of Directors; Jon A. Standridge, Brigadier 
           General (USA Ret.); Joseph P. Tartaro, President, 
           Second Amendment Foundation; Jim Wallace, Executive 
           Director, Gun Owners' Action League.
                                  ____

                                            National Right to Life


                                              Committee, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell: On behalf of the 
     National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 
     right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, we write to 
     express the opposition of our organization to the 
     confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an associate justice 
     of the United States Supreme Court.
       As a judge, Ms. Sotomayor has encountered little in the way 
     of abortion-related litigation, either at the district court 
     or the court of appeals. In the single ruling that she 
     authored that bore directly on an abortion-related federal 
     policy, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, the 
     result was unambiguously governed by the precedents of the 
     U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Circuit. Yet, there are 
     many troubling indications that Ms. Sotomayor believes that 
     it is the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to construct 
     and enforce constitutional doctrines on social policy 
     questions, even where the text and history of the 
     Constitution provide no basis for removing an issue from the 
     realm of lawmaking by the duly elected representatives of the 
     people.
       Legal abortion on demand was imposed by seven Supreme Court 
     justices in Roe v. Wade. Roe was an exercise in judicial 
     legislation, aptly branded ``an exercise of raw judicial 
     power'' by dissenting Justice Byron White. The ruling lacked 
     any real basis in the text of the Constitution, and imposed a 
     policy that was completely at odds with the intent of the 
     lawmakers who crafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.
       The evidence indicates that Ms. Sotomayor approves of the 
     Roe ruling and approves of the type of judicial activism that 
     produced it. For a period of 12 years (1980-1992), prior to 
     becoming a judge, Ms. Sotomayor served on the governing board 
     of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund 
     (PRLDEF), and for part of that time she was the chair of the 
     PRLDEF Litigation Committee. During her tenure on the board, 
     the PRLDEF was actively involved in litigation that attempted 
     to persuade the Supreme Court to expand the judge-created 
     ``right to abortion,'' often beyond what the Court was 
     willing to embrace. During this period, the fund joined 
     briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court in six abortion-related 
     cases. These briefs urged the Court to regard abortion as a 
     ``fundamental right'' (a right on the level of freedom of 
     speech), to apply the strictest standard of scrutiny when 
     reviewing abortion-regulated laws, and thereby to nullify 
     informed consent requirements (including those involving 
     ultrasound), waiting periods, parental notification 
     requirements, restrictions

[[Page 20832]]

     on taxpayer funding of abortion, and even record keeping 
     requirements. The PRLDEF's own ``statement of interest'' in 
     three of these cases said that the PRLDEF ``opposes any 
     efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights 
     recognized in Roe v. Wade.''
       During her recent confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor 
     suggested that she was only aware of this litigation activity 
     in the most general terms, and had no responsibility for or 
     awareness of the substance of the briefs. Frankly, this 
     testimony was not very believable. Ms. Sotomayor was a Yale 
     Law School graduate who, according to many accounts, is 
     exceedingly--even excessively--detail oriented on the legal 
     matters in which she is involved. More believable is what the 
     New York Times reported on May 29, 2009, after interviewing 
     various parties who were directly involved in the PRLDEF 
     litigation activity during this period: ``Ms. Sotomayor stood 
     out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the 
     status of cases, several former members said. . . . The board 
     monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund's lawyers, 
     and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an 
     involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts 
     during her time with the group.''
       If confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ms. Sotomayor will 
     no longer be constrained by the precedents of that Court, 
     including the precedents in which the Court upheld laws 
     requiring notification of a parent before performing an 
     abortion on a minor, requiring a pre-abortion waiting period, 
     barring public funding of abortion, and--by a single vote, in 
     2007--banning partial-birth abortion. Nor, it appears, will 
     she feel greatly constrained by the text and history of the 
     Constitution, in which Roe v. Wade and its progeny find no 
     support.
       Because the available evidence strongly suggests that once 
     on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor will seek to nullify 
     abortion-related laws adopted through the normal legislative 
     processes of our democracy, consistent with the extreme legal 
     theories with which she was associated before being appointed 
     to the federal bench, National Right to Life urges all 
     senators to vote against her confirmation to the Supreme 
     Court.
           Respectfully,
     David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
       Executive Director.
     Douglas Johnson,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                    July 13, 2009.
       Dear Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senate Judiciary Ranking 
     Member Jeff Sessions: On behalf of FRC Action (FRCA), the 
     legislative arm of the Family Research Council, and the 
     families we represent, I write to you today with serious 
     reservations regarding the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to 
     the United States Supreme Court.
       The Senate Judiciary Committee has the important role of 
     properly vetting any nominee to ensure that the nominee has 
     the requisite competence, temperament, character, knowledge 
     of the law and experience to make a good jurist. The nominee 
     must be committed to making decisions based on the law and 
     the facts of each case. Personal ideological predispositions 
     toward certain results must be set aside, and the nominee 
     must have the ability to faithfully uphold the Constitution 
     recognizing that it is the supreme law and source of 
     authority for all American law, including judicial 
     precedents. A review of Ms. Sotomayor's record shows she is 
     lacking in many of these qualities.
       Senators on the committee need to have Ms. Sotomayor 
     address what exactly she meant by some of her more 
     controversial statements, why she tried to suppress her 
     ruling in the Connecticut firefighters' discrimination case 
     and her seeming disregard for U.S. judicial sovereignty. Ms. 
     Sotomayor should also describe the extent of her role in the 
     anti-life work at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and 
     Education Fund (PRLDEF).
       From 1980 to 1992, Judge Sotomayor was an active governing 
     board member of the PRLDEF where she helped to shape the 
     group's controversial legal policy. Just one example of work 
     done while she was there is the brief for Webster v. 
     Reproductive Health Services, written in 1989, in which the 
     organization called the right to abortion ``precious.'' Ms. 
     Sotomayor's troubled history as a jurist, an activist and as 
     an attorney have surfaced numerous other concerns on sanctity 
     of life issues, on sovereignty matters, marriage questions 
     and more that makes us question her fitness to serve on our 
     nation's highest court.
       Barring significant revelations at her Senate confirmation 
     hearing that change our assessment of her judicial 
     philosophy, Family Research Council Action must stand in 
     opposition to Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. The available 
     evidence reveals Judge Sotomayor to be a judicial activist 
     who does not have a proper understanding of the limited role 
     of judges and the judiciary in our constitutional system.
           Sincerely,

                                              Thomas McClusky,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     FRC Action.
                                  ____

                                                    July 13, 2009.

As Hearings Begin, Women's Coalition for Justice Questions Sotomayor's 
                        Ability To Be Impartial

       Washington, DC.--Members of the Women's Coalition for 
     Justice released the following statements in response to 
     today's first Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court 
     Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
       Genevieve Wood, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, 
     The Heritage Foundation, stated, ``I am troubled by Judge 
     Sotomayor's rejection of Justice O'Connor's favored adage 
     that a wise old man would reach the same conclusion as a wise 
     old woman. It is deeply offensive that she has suggested that 
     the sexes and ethnicities `have basic differences in logic 
     and reasoning,' and even more offensive that she believes it 
     is somehow patriotic to indulge in gender or ethnic biases. 
     Her statements raise grave concerns about whether she can 
     truly be impartial and the current defense that she simply 
     endorses including different perspectives doesn't hold water. 
     The Senators must ask challenging questions to determine 
     whether she believes that a wise woman can reach the same 
     conclusion as a wise man, or whether she intends to bring 
     bias, as she has suggested, even to most cases.''
       Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony 
     List, stated, ``Women are best protected by the rule of law--
     and blind justice. Their rights are most endangered when 
     personal preference, ideology or painful personal history 
     inform judgment. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist 
     compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only 
     through blind justice. When evidence of personal preference 
     appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should 
     give all women pause. Sonia Sotomayor's record of support for 
     judicial activism and her work for the pro-abortion Puerto 
     Rican Legal Defense Fund offer little comfort that she will 
     be a friend to the unborn on the Supreme Court. Given what we 
     know about Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial philosophy, 
     including her support of policymaking from the bench, 
     senators have just cause to reject her appointment to the 
     United States Supreme Court.''
       Connie Mackey, Senior Vice President for FRCAction 
     remarked, ``I reject the admonition of Senator Chuck Schumer 
     that opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor will cause 
     the Republican Party to lose women's vote permanently. I 
     believe his crystal ball is cloudy when it comes to women in 
     America. Women think independently and most women will see 
     that Sonia Sotomayor is a judicial activist who will use the 
     courts to make policy reflective of her own personal 
     judgments as opposed to ruling based upon the tenets put 
     forth by the Constitution. Her career as an activist is well-
     documented and disqualifies her from taking the 9th seat on 
     the United States Supreme Court.''
       Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America 
     Legislative Action Committee stated, ``Sonia Sotomayor's 
     record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required 
     of a judge--impartiality. She has used her position as a 
     judge to deny equal justice to people based on their 
     ethnicity. She worked with organizations that aggressively 
     fought against common-sense regulations on abortion. Her 
     flippant dismissal of cases and unwillingness to provide 
     Constitutional reasoning for her decisions exposes her 
     arrogance, disrespect for our judicial system and the people 
     whose lives are dramatically impacted by her decisions. 
     Through her work as a judge and in organizations, she has 
     denied people equal opportunity to make a living because of 
     the color of their skin, preborn babies their right to live, 
     and women the right not to be exploited by abortionists. 
     After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of 
     giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying 
     equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America 
     Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the 
     U.S. Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor has disqualified herself 
     from the U.S. Supreme Court. Senators need to set aside their 
     party loyalty and do their Constitutional duty to uphold 
     equal justice for all by opposing Sonia Sotomayor's 
     nomination.''
       Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for 
     Life remarked, ``It's important for the American people to 
     understand that the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
     the Supreme Court will dramatically shift the dynamics of the 
     Court. Her record of activism in support of a radical pro-
     abortion agenda is clear and documented. This is a judge with 
     a record significantly worse than Judge Souter's. We are 
     asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to seriously consider 
     the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose 
     radical record shows she would rule against all common-sense 
     legal protections for the unborn, including parental 
     notification, informed consent and bans on partial-birth 
     abortion. The American people will not tolerate a nominee who 
     is outside the mainstream of American public opinion.''

[[Page 20833]]

     
                                  ____
         The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern 
           Baptist Convention,
                                     Nashville, TN, July 14, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: This week, 
     the Senate Judiciary committee begins its confirmation 
     hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. We are deeply troubled by 
     many aspects of Judge Sotomayor's record. While we could 
     identify a number of factors that concern us, we describe 
     below those that are the most troubling.
       Judge Sotomayor does not appear to share the pro-life 
     values of nearly all Southern Baptists and of most Americans. 
     Recent polling reveals that the majority of Americans are 
     pro-life. Her lack of rulings on major sanctity of life 
     issues makes it more difficult to determine how she would 
     rule on sanctity issues, but her association with the Puerto 
     Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund raises serious 
     questions about her commitment to pro-life values. She served 
     on the Board of this organization, including as Vice 
     President and Chair of the litigation committee. During that 
     time, the Fund filed briefs in at least six prominent court 
     cases in support of abortion rights.
       While Judge Sotomayor has ruled favorably on abortion-
     related cases at times, we note that her rulings on race-
     related issues reveal a much more ideologically rigid 
     attitude toward race. Her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano is 
     indefensible. We support full racial equality, and therefore 
     support efforts that create equal opportunity for all races. 
     However, we oppose policies that discriminate against some 
     races in order to achieve a predetermined racial outcome. 
     Racial discrimination is wrong in any circumstance.
       We are also disturbed by Judge Sotomayor's lack of respect 
     for private property rights. Her ruling in Didden v. Village 
     of Port Chester demonstrates a willingness to ignore the 
     Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection of private 
     property. While the Kelo case was certainly precedential in 
     her panel's ruling, the Supreme Court stated in their 
     majority opinion that municipalities could not take private 
     property under ``the mere pretext of a public purpose, when 
     its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit.'' Judge 
     Sotomayor was either unaware of this qualification or chose 
     to ignore it.
       Judge Sotomayor has often ruled very responsibly, but the 
     rate at which she has been overruled by the U.S. Supreme 
     Court reveals that she should not be in a position where her 
     decisions cannot be subjected to review. She is out of the 
     mainstream of the American public and too often of the very 
     Court for which she is being considered. We urge you to do 
     all you can to bring out all the facts about Judge Sotomayor 
     during her confirmation hearings, and if these troubling 
     issues remain, to vote against her confirmation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard D. Land,
     President.
                                  ____

         The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern 
           Baptist Convention,
                                     Nashville, TN, July 28, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: This week, the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee is scheduled to vote on the confirmation of Judge 
     Sonia Sotomayor as our nation's newest Supreme Court Justice. 
     As you recall, we raised a number of concerns about her 
     record that we believed required examination during her 
     hearings.
       We watched the hearings and listened to Judge Sotomayor's 
     answers to some very probing questions, but we are not 
     convinced that she is an appropriate candidate for the United 
     States Supreme Court. We urge therefore that you vote against 
     her confirmation.
       While we appreciated Judge Sotomayor's affirmation of the 
     centrality of the U.S. Constitution in rulings, we believe 
     her record demonstrates an inconsistent application of that 
     standard at best. The following cases remain determinative 
     for us. In Owkedy v. Molinari she showed no regard for the 
     1st Amendment guarantee of speech or religious expression. In 
     Maloney v. Cuomo she weakened the 2nd Amendment's guarantee 
     of the individual's right to bear arms. In Didden v. Village 
     of Port Chester she failed to uphold the 5th Amendment's 
     protection of personal property. In Ricci v. DeStefano she 
     violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
       Additionally, we are deeply concerned about Judge 
     Sotomayor's failure to adequately address her 12 year 
     involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund. We believe she was more involved with the group's 
     active efforts to promote a pro-abortion agenda than she 
     admitted.
       Finally, her numerous reversals by the U.S. Supreme Court 
     reveal that Judge Sotomayor does not have the grasp of the 
     fine points of Constitutional law required of a member of the 
     Supreme Court. She needs someone to pass final judgment on 
     her decisions. No such oversight would be possible if she 
     were to join the Court of last resort.
       We regret that we must oppose the nomination of Judge 
     Sotomayor. She is obviously very gifted. Her personal story 
     as well is the kind of story that compels respect and 
     appreciation, We applaud her for her commitment and 
     dedication. Nevertheless, we do not believe Judge Sotomayor 
     meets the requirements for this extremely important position 
     in our nation. We therefore urge you to vote against her 
     confirmation,
       Thank you for your service to our nation. We pray God's 
     guidance and wisdom for you as you make the decisions that 
     affect life for hundreds of millions of people.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard D. Land,
     President.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                         of Christian Schools,

                                    East Ridge, TN, July 15, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Leahy: The American Association of Christian 
     Schools strongly urges you to oppose the confirmation of 
     Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, 
     based on her inability to judge without respect of persons 
     and her misinterpretation of the rule of law and the United 
     States Constitution.
       As President Obama sought a possible nominee, he 
     consistently used the term ``empathy'' to describe the 
     character of his first Supreme Court Justice nominee. When he 
     nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor, he based the criteria of a 
     U.S. Supreme Court Justice on superficial elements rather 
     than on character which demonstrates an actual understanding 
     of the rule of law and original intent of the judicial system 
     established by our Founding Fathers. She has continually met 
     his standards of ``empathy,'' proving through her actions and 
     words her desire to exercise empathy from the bench. 
     According to Judge Sotomayor, to ``ignore . . . our 
     differences as women and men of color [is to] do a disservice 
     both to the law and society.'' She further believes her 
     ``experience will affect the facts that [I] choose to see as 
     a judge.''
       We are concerned that the element of ``empathy'' in the 
     highest Court of the land will redefine and replace the 
     longstanding aspect of impartiality under the law. It seems 
     that the standard of law should no longer solely lie on the 
     Constitution, but also on the hearts of justices.
       Other concerns are based on Judge Sotomayor's 
     interpretation on the right to life. She recently expressed 
     that she has never thought about the rights of the unborn. We 
     find this tragic. Whether a person supports abortion or 
     opposes it, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice should be extremely 
     familiar with the rights that every American is endowed, 
     including life.
       While Judge Sotomayor may have more experience than any 
     other Supreme Court Justice currently sitting on the bench, 
     the Administration and many members of the Senate are 
     impatiently rushing her through the process without properly 
     and adequately researching and critiquing her credentials and 
     past decisions that come with that experience. It is 
     essential that every Senator is given the time and resources 
     to fully examine Judge Sotomayor's past decisions and present 
     understanding of the rule of law.
       Qualifications and credentials are a necessity when filling 
     the bench, but an ability to carry out the duties of a 
     Supreme Court Justice and meet the standards by which they 
     are held to, is of equal importance. Understanding the rights 
     which we are endowed by our Creator and interpreting the law 
     as our founding fathers originally intended is essential. 
     Just as Lady Justice holds the scales to depict her 
     impartiality and a blindfold to cover her eyes from the 
     spheres that try to influence her, her wisdom lies in the 
     ability to pursue the law and to demand nothing less. She is 
     un-influenced, she is impartial.
       We urge you to oppose this nominee, as we believe that she 
     will cause not only harm to the judicial system and the 
     principles of law on which our country was founded, but she 
     also poses a threat to every American who does not receive 
     her ``empathy.''
           Sincerely,
                                                      Keith Wiebe,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    July 14, 2009.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA 
     List), and our 260,000 members and pro-life activists across 
     the country, I write to encourage you to oppose the 
     nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States 
     Supreme Court.
       Women are best protected by the rule of law--and blind 
     justice. Their rights are most endangered when personal 
     preference, ideology or painful personal history inform

[[Page 20834]]

     judgment. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots 
     fought for a human rights standard sustained only through 
     blind justice. When evidence of personal preference appears 
     in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all 
     women pause.
       Sonia Sotomayor's record of support for judicial activism 
     and her work for the pro-abortion Puerto Rican Legal Defense 
     Fund offer little comfort that she will be a friend to the 
     unborn on the Supreme Court.
       While Sotomayor served as a board member of the Puerto 
     Rican Legal Defense Fund, the group filed six briefs with the 
     court advocating for unmitigated abortion on-demand. Multiple 
     accounts tell us that the board closely monitored the fund's 
     work, and that Sotomayor was ``an involved and ardent 
     supporter of their various legal efforts.'' (New York Times, 
     May 28, 2009)
       The briefs in question advocate a philosophy that rejects 
     any legal restrictions on abortion. This position disregards 
     both the broad public support for such restrictions and the 
     fact that such laws save lives. For example when the 
     government restricts funding for abortion on-demand, we see 
     fewer abortions. Even abortion advocates recognize this 
     reality. The Guttmacher Institute recently issued a report 
     showing that when public funding is not available, 1-in-4 
     Medicaid-eligible women do not have abortions. That means 
     approximately 25% of babies whose mothers receive government 
     subsidized health care likely survive due to laws like the 
     Hyde Amendment. Sotomayor's record indicates she would not 
     uphold such commonsense restrictions.
       Women facing unplanned pregnancies deserve woman-centered 
     solutions to help both mother and child, not abortion on-
     demand, which pits mother against child in the most tragic of 
     circumstances. They deserve Supreme Court Justices who will 
     uphold the Right to Life.
       Given what we know about Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial 
     philosophy, including her support of policymaking from the 
     bench, you have just cause to reject her appointment to the 
     United States Supreme Court.
           Sincerely,
                                            Marjorie Dannenfelser,
                                 President, Susan B. Anthony List.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Those letters were from Fidelis, Defending Life, Faith 
and Family, outlining their opposition; a letter from the National 
Rifle Association; a letter from the National Right to Life Committee; 
a letter from FRCAction; the Women's Coalition for Justice; the SBA 
List, the Susan B. Anthony List; the American Association of Christian 
Schools; and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the 
Southern Baptist Convention. Those were one group of letters.
  In addition, there are letters from the National Rifle Association, 
as I mentioned earlier. They have not often, if ever, weighed in on a 
judicial nomination. But this case, this nomination was so close to one 
of the most critical issues facing the country today. That is, whether 
the second amendment applies to States.
  If the second amendment does not apply to States, then States and 
cities can completely ban guns within their jurisdiction.
  Judge Sotomayor earlier this year, after the Heller decision, in the 
first case of its kind after the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, 
concluded the second amendment does not apply to the States.
  She concluded in her very brief opinion that the second amendment 
does not apply to the States; they could eliminate firearms. She 
concluded it was settled law that this was the case when the Supreme 
Court in Heller--and as the ninth circuit concluded, which held 
differently--explicitly left open this question.
  So I think any person who cares about the second amendment and the 
right to keep and bear arms has to be very troubled that the nominee, 
earlier this year, concluded that it does not apply and it is settled 
law, when the Supreme Court had opened it up, as the ninth circuit 
said.
  If it is not reversed, her opinion is not reversed, then cities and 
counties will be able to restrict firearm possession completely.
  Sandra Froman, who is the former president of the National Rifle 
Association, a Harvard law graduate herself, wrote that:

       Surprisingly, Heller was a 5-4 decision, with some justices 
     arguing that the Second Amendment does not apply to private 
     citizens or that if it does, even a total gun ban would be 
     upheld if a ``legitimate governmental interest'' could be 
     found.

  She goes on to say:

       The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the 
     Supreme Court.

  Heller was a 5-to-4 decision.

       Both its application to the States and whether there will 
     be a meaningfully strict standard of review remain to be 
     decided by the High Court.

  I have offered that letter and other letters that we have received 
into the Record. I also printed in the Record a series of op-eds I have 
written on the way I believe an analysis of a nominee should be 
conducted and what are the important principles.
  Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to my staff 
whose assistance throughout this process was critical to the fair 
hearing that Judge Sotomayor received. The Senate Judiciary Committee 
held a hearing for Judge Sotomayor more quickly than it had for the 
last three Supreme Court nominees, despite the fact that she has been 
touted as having the most extensive legal record of any recent Supreme 
Court nominee. As such, my staff went to great efforts to prepare for 
the hearing on her nomination.
  Our team was led by chief counsel for the Supreme Court nomination 
Elisebeth Cook; staff director Brian Benczkowski; chief counsel William 
Smith; deputy staff director Matt Miner; and general counsel Joe Matal. 
Their knowledge of the issues and wise counsel proved invaluable during 
this confirmation process.
  In addition, I am grateful to our Supreme Court team, including 
counsels Ted Lehman, Seth Wood, Ashok Pinto, Ryan Nelson, and Isaac 
Fong; law clerks Chris Mills, Matt Kuhn, Anne Mackin, and Andrew 
English; and intern Jamie Sunderland.
  I would like to acknowledge and extend my gratitude to the dedicated 
and talented members of my permanent staff who worked tirelessly on 
this nomination, all the while handling the regular legislative 
business and other nominations that came before the Judiciary 
Committee: counsels Danielle Brucchieri, Bradley Hayes, Nathan 
Hallford, and Phil Zimmerly; professional staff member Lauren 
Pastarnack; and staff assistants Sarah Thompson and Andrew Bennion.
  I would be remiss if I failed to mention the important work done 
every day by my communications director Stephen Boyd, press secretaries 
Sarah Haley and Stephen Miller, and press assistant Andrew Logan.
  The people I have mentioned bore the bulk of the workload, laboring 
tirelessly night after night, day after day, and nonstop through the 
weekends. They deserve our recognition as a tribute to their hard work, 
professionalism, and dedication to public service.
  I also would like to acknowledge the great help we received from the 
Republican majority leader and his staff: John Abegg, Josh Holmes, and 
Webber Steinhoff; as well as the invaluable contributions of Republican 
Policy Committee counsel Mark Patton.
  Finally, my thanks to the Judiciary Committee's chief clerk, Roslyne 
Turner and her assistant, Erin O'Neill.
  All of these fine staff members contributed to this process and we 
would not have been able to conduct such a fair and thorough hearing 
without their hard work and their professionalism. To each of them, I 
extend my heartfelt thanks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. I rise today, fellow Senators, to discuss the current 
nomination that is under consideration by the Senate for the U.S. 
Supreme Court seat.
  Like every Member of this body, I take this responsibility seriously. 
The Constitution of the United States gives each one of the 100 Members 
of this body the solemn duty to participate in this under what has been 
called the advice and consent provisions.
  Obviously, there are two parts here. First ``advice'' and the second 
``consent.'' The first part, the advice that the President seeks, is 
not under the control of any Member here but is under the control of 
the President. He did not seek my advice on this, which is not 
surprising.
  But, secondly, I am required to exercise my constitutional duty to 
express either consent or the withholding of consent. I appear here 
this morning to

[[Page 20835]]

explain the conclusion I have reached in that regard.
  This is a serious constitutional duty. I think every Member here 
takes it seriously. I think as we do exercise this constitutional duty, 
it is incumbent upon each one of us to create, in our own mind, a path 
forward and a criteria, if you would, as to how to reach a conclusion 
concerning that consent.
  I think all of us come at it from a different point of view. Some of 
us have had some experience in that regard. Although I have not had 
experience here in this body with a U.S. Supreme Court appointment, I 
had the opportunity at the State level, since I have served as Governor 
and had to appoint judges, to determine if, in my mind, a path forward, 
if you would, or a way, a method, in which we would reach that 
conclusion as to the appropriateness of a person, their qualifications 
to serve in a judicial capacity. I have done that.
  In addition to that, I think all of us look to other people who have 
exercised this responsibility and looked for the type of matrix they 
used to reach the conclusion. I have also done that. I have chosen 
someone to emulate as far as how I would reach a conclusion as to 
whether I would grant the consent or withhold the consent.
  That person whom I have chosen to emulate is a person who actually 
chose a matrix that is similar to mine; that is, when we do this, we 
judge who the person is, and what that person stands for--the ``who'' 
and the ``what.''
  Like the person I have chosen to emulate, my focus is not on the 
``who,'' my focus is on the ``what.'' What does this person stand for? 
Because it is, indeed, at the end of the day, the ``what'' that will 
guide that person when that person, when the nominee, makes decisions 
in their capacity as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
  I met with the nominee. I have read her opinions. I have read a lot 
that has been written about the nominee, and weighed those using the 
matrix I have chosen, and that person I chose to emulate chose to reach 
a conclusion as to whether to grant the consent or to withhold the 
consent.
  I think this is a decision that no one should reach lightly but 
should reach based upon weighing the factors that they have chosen. 
When it comes to the ``who,'' I find the nominee that the President has 
put forward to be a person who is engaging, who is very wise, who has 
had clearly the experience to fill this position. I have no difficulty 
with that at all. I am honored that she would spend the considerable 
time she made available for me to meet with her and discuss with her 
the various issues that are important to the great State of Idaho.
  At the end of the day, I have to move from the ``who'' to the 
``what.'' And in that regard, I want to talk about now who I chose to 
emulate when it comes to making this decision. The person I chose to 
emulate is a person who currently serves as the President of the United 
States.
  He came to this body and had the opportunity to do just what I have 
done; that is, to go through this exercise to determine the ``who'' and 
the ``what'' when it comes to the appointment and the qualifications to 
serve as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Then-Senator Obama went through this exact same exercise. At the end 
of the day, when he voted on two of the nominees, two of the Supreme 
Court nominees, he determined that based upon his weighing of the 
nominees, he could not, in good conscience, vote for the nominees 
because--not because of the ``who'' part of the equation but because of 
the ``what does this person stand for'' part of the equation.
  He did that based upon his vision of what he wanted to see in 
America. I did likewise. He concluded that when he withheld his consent 
on those two, that person did not meet his view of what the vision for 
America was. I have reached the same conclusion on this nominee.
  In all good conscience, I must withhold the consent. My fellow 
Senators, I will withhold my consent based not on the ``who'' but on 
the ``what'' on this nomination. I will vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority controls the next 60 
minutes with respect to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the many Senators who took part 
yesterday in the historic debate over the nomination of Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In fact, the distinguished Presiding 
Officer was one who introduced her to the Judiciary Committee and also 
spoke eloquently in the Chamber yesterday. I am hopeful that today will 
not only conclude the debate, but we will then vote on her confirmation 
and vote favorably.
  Senator Klobuchar, the senior Senator from Minnesota, a very active 
member of the Judiciary Committee, led a group of five women Senators 
in a powerful opening hour of debate yesterday. The distinguished 
Presiding Officer was one of them, and it also included Senators 
Shaheen, Stabenow, and Murray. Their speeches were very moving. Several 
Judiciary Committee Senators gave strong speeches of support for Judge 
Sotomayor's nomination, including Senator Schumer, Senator Specter and 
Senator Cardin. Senator Franken, the newest Member of the Senate and 
newest member of the Judiciary Committee, gave his first Senate speech. 
Most of us follow the tradition of waiting for our first Senate speech 
to make sure it is on a matter of some moment. In his case, it was as 
momentous a matter as one could pick, the nomination of a Supreme Court 
Justice. Senator Franken eloquently spoke on her behalf.
  We heard from Senator Lautenberg; Senator Dodd, my neighbor in the 
Senate, both in the row I sit and also in my Senate office, and a good 
friend. Senators Baucus, Merkley, Akaka, Lieberman, Casey, Wyden, and 
Bennet all spoke for her.
  Statements of support for Judge Sotomayor yesterday came from both 
sides of the aisle. On the Republican side, Senator Martinez, who has 
been a strong supporter of Judge Sotomayor, gave a particularly moving 
speech. Senator Bond, a former Governor, former attorney general, and 
one who has appointed judges, joined him in announcing his intent to 
vote for this well-qualified nominee. My neighbors from New England, 
Senators Collins and Snowe, also spoke in favor of her nomination.
  The troubling thing yesterday was to hear some critics of hers making 
unfounded insinuations about the integrity and character of this 
outstanding nominee. That is wrong. She is a judge of unimpeachable 
character and integrity. These critics have also chosen to ignore her 
extensive record of judicial modesty and restraint from 17 years on the 
Federal bench. Instead they have focused on and mischaracterized her 
rulings in a handful, out of more than 3,600, of cases. That is 
interesting, out of 3,600 cases, they could find only a tiny handful to 
criticize, and they can criticize those only by mischaracterizing them.
  Let me go to one area in particular. Some Republican Senators have 
twisted Judge Sotomayor's participation in a unanimous Second Circuit 
decision that applied a 123-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent to 
reject a challenge to a New York State law of restriction on chukka 
sticks, a martial arts device. What she was doing was following the 
precedent of the Supreme Court; again, one of the reasons why it was a 
unanimous decision of the Second Circuit. Some have trumped up a straw 
man by ignoring the facts of Judge Sotomayor's decision. It is easy to 
come to a conclusion if you ignore the facts and the law and just go to 
your conclusion. Of course, that doesn't make it right. They ignored 
the facts of her decision. They ignored the developing state of second 
amendment law, and they ignored Judge Sotomayor's testimony during her 
confirmation hearing, recognizing the individual right to bear arms 
that is guaranteed by the second amendment.
  In fact, in joining the per curiam decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, 
Judge Sotomayor followed and applied the holding of the Supreme Court 
that the

[[Page 20836]]

second amendment provides individuals with the right to keep and bear 
arms. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of 
Columbia v. Heller last year, I applauded the Court for affirming what 
so many Americans already believe. The second amendment protects an 
individual's right to own a firearm. The Heller decision reaffirmed and 
strengthened our Bill of Rights. Vermont has some of the least 
restrictive gun laws in the country. In fact, most would say they have 
the least restrictive gun laws. One does not need a permit to carry a 
concealed firearm in Vermont, if they don't have a felony conviction. 
But Vermonters are trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and 
safely, and we do.
  I am a native Vermonter. I have lived there all my life. I find 
Vermonters do conduct themselves safely and responsibly. Similar to 
many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms. I have enormous respect and 
appreciation for the freedoms the second amendment protects. In fact, I 
own many firearms. Similar to other rights protected by our Bill of 
Rights, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is one I 
cherish. Fortunately, I live in a rural area in Vermont. I can set up 
targets and use my backyard as an impromptu pistol range and often do.
  The Supreme Court's decision in Heller recognized that the second 
amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms 
against Federal restrictions. So before we go off using talking points 
and ignore what she did or ignore what she said, I thought it might be 
good to kind of spoil the rhetoric by actually going to the facts.
  The facts are these. At her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor 
repeatedly affirmed her view of the second amendment guarantees as set 
forth in the Heller decision. This seems to be ignored by some who 
criticize her. In fact, I asked a question on it because it is 
important to me as a Vermonter, as a Senator and certainly as chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee. In response to my question, she testified:

       I understand how important the right to bear arms is to 
     many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a 
     member of the NRA, and I have friends who hunt. I understand 
     the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized 
     in Heller.

  Judge Sotomayor reaffirmed that statement in answers to questions 
from Senators Kyl, Coburn, and Feingold. Judge Sotomayor testified in 
response to a question from Senator Kyl:

       The decision of the Court in Heller . . . recognized an 
     individual right to bear arms as applied to the Federal 
     Government.

  Judge Sotomayor testified in response to Senator Coburn:

       In the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it recognized an 
     individual's right to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the 
     Second Amendment.

  In response to Senator Feingold, Judge Sotomayor testified about 
Heller:

       [T]he Supreme Court did hold that there is . . . an 
     individual right to bear arms, and . . . I fully accept that.

  Judge Sotomayor participated on a Second Circuit panel in a case 
called Maloney v. Cuomo that was decided earlier this year in which the 
unanimous panel--let me emphasize, the unanimous panel--recognized the 
Supreme Court decision in Heller that the personal right to bear arms 
is guaranteed by the second amendment against Federal law restrictions.
  Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative Justice on the U.S. 
Supreme Court, said in his opinion in the Heller case that the Heller 
case expressly left unresolved and explicitly reserved as a separate 
question whether the second amendment guarantee applies to the States 
and laws adopted by the States, whether the State of Vermont or any 
other State. In doing so, the Court left in place a series of Supreme 
Court holdings from 1876 to 1894 that the second amendment does not 
apply to the States.
  I mention this because there are those who want Justices to not be 
activists but to be traditionalists. Going back to 1876 to 1894 
recognizes a tradition of this country. The question posed to Judge 
Sotomayor and the Second Circuit in Maloney involved a challenge by a 
criminal defendant to a New York State law restriction on a martial 
arts device called nunchucks or chukka sticks, not firearms. Indeed, in 
that case the appellant had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, 
agreed to the destruction of the nunchucks as part of the plea, and the 
charge of possession of the nunchucks in violation of New York law had 
been dismissed. The Second Circuit considered the case on appeal from a 
denial of a subsequent declaratory judgment case.
  In declining to overrule the trial judge--the trial judge would not 
set aside the State law against nunchucks--the Second Circuit panel 
emphasized that its decision was dictated by Supreme Court precedent, 
holding that: ``Where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct 
application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some 
other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case 
which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative 
of overruling its own decisions.''' Had the Second Circuit acted 
otherwise, it would have been seen as judicial activism and an 
unwillingness to adhere to Supreme Court precedent. That is something 
that every single Member of this Chamber has said judges should do, 
follow Supreme Court precedent.
  Now Judge Sotomayor is criticized for doing what a Circuit Court of 
Appeals judge is supposed to do; that is, follow the precedent of the 
Supreme Court. She seems to be caught in a Hobson's choice. Had she 
violated that rule, had they acted otherwise, had they refused to 
follow Supreme Court precedent, I am sure she would be attacked as 
being a judicial activist. Come on. Let's be fair. When we have had 
nominees by Republican Presidents, we have heard over and over again 
how Republicans want these people because they follow precedent. Here, 
some Republicans are attacking Judge Sotomayor because she did follow 
precedent, because she did do what a Court of Appeals judge is supposed 
to do.
  In fact, the approach taken by the Second Circuit decision in Maloney 
was adopted by some of the most respected, very conservative jurists in 
the country. Judges Easterbrook and Posner, both renowned 
conservatives, people whom I hear quoted by the Republican side over 
and over again, serve on the Seventh Circuit. They agreed with the 
Second Circuit panel. This may sound like it is getting into the weeds, 
but what I am saying is, judges of all stripes ruled the same way. In 
National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago, they cited the Second 
Circuit in Maloney. Judges Easterbrook and Posner refused to ignore the 
direction of the Supreme Court to implement Supreme Court holdings, 
even if the reasoning in later opinions undermines their rationale and, 
instead, ``leave to [the Supreme Court] the prerogative of overruling 
its own decisions.''
  What I am saying is, conservative judges, liberal judges, and 
moderate judges such as Judge Sotomayor all came to the same 
conclusion: You have to follow precedent. It may sound like I am doing 
a tutorial for a law school class, but I thought rather than having the 
rhetoric, let's go to the facts and let's go to the law. Because both 
the facts and the law are irrefutable.
  If Republican Senators wish to criticize, let them criticize Justice 
Scalia for the Supreme Court's decision in Heller to limit its 
application against Federal Government restrictions and expressly 
reserve for another Supreme Court decision whether to incorporate the 
Second Amendment right against the States. Judges Easterbook, Posner 
and Bauer of the Seventh Circuit and Judges Pooler, Sotomayor and 
Katzmann of the Second Circuit all followed Justice Scalia and the 
holdings of Supreme Court precedent.
  Petitions for certiorari have been filed in both Maloney and National 
Rifle Association and are currently pending before the Supreme Court. A 
third, related decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit is being 
reconsidered en banc by that Court of Appeals. Republican Senators 
insisted during the Roberts and Alito hearings that a Supreme Court 
nominee must avoid making predictions about how she might rule in a

[[Page 20837]]

case that is likely to come before the Supreme Court. Yet Republican 
Senators have now reversed their approach to demand that Judge 
Sotomayor ignore these standards and commit to how she intends to rule 
on these cases and this issue if confirmed.
  Recognizing that she would be unable to say how she would rule, I 
asked Judge Sotomayor whether she would approach these matters with an 
open mind and she assured us that she would. I do not see how any fair 
observer could regard her testimony as hostile to the Second Amendment 
personal right to bear arms, a right she has embraced and recognizes.
  The question of incorporation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of 
Rights against the States is not merely likely to come before the 
Court; petitions to decide it are currently pending before the Supreme 
Court. There are well-recognized limits to how much a judicial nominee 
can say during her confirmation hearings. Nominees do not answer 
questions about cases or issues pending before the Supreme Court. It is 
striking that many of those who today criticize Judge Sotomayor's 
adherence to these limits strongly defended them just a few years ago, 
when a Republican President was doing the nominating.
  A 2005 Senate Republican Policy Committee Report commissioned by 
Senator Kyl concluded that ``the preservation of an independent 
judiciary'' depends on a nominee's ability to avoid signaling how she 
will rule on upcoming cases. According to this report:

       It is inappropriate for any nominee to give any signal as 
     to how he or she might rule on any issue that could come 
     before the court, even if the issue is not presented in a 
     currently pending case. If these novel ``prejudgment 
     demands'' were tolerated, the judicial confirmation process 
     would be radically transformed.

  Senator Kyl's Republican Policy Committee Report raised concerns that 
``no judge can be fair and impartial if burdened by political 
commitments that Senators try to extract during confirmation hearings'' 
and concluded that ``nothing less than judicial independence and the 
preservation of a proper separation of powers is at stake.''
  Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Grassley, Coburn and Hatch referred to 
these restrictions on a nominee's ability to answer questions during 
the Senate's consideration of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees. 
During the Senate's consideration of the Roberts nomination, Senator 
Sessions said:

       Judges apply the facts to the legal requirements of the 
     situation, and only then make a decision. [Judge Roberts] 
     refused to make opinions on cases that may come before him. 
     Of course, he should not make opinions on that . . . He 
     should not be up there making opinions on the cases. That is 
     so obvious.

  At that time, Senator Cornyn shared their view and strongly defended 
Republican nominees who refused to discuss legal issues that might 
arise in the future. He said:

       It undermines a nominee's ability to remain impartial once 
     he or she becomes a judge if he or she has already taken 
     positions on issues that might come before him or her on the 
     bench. . . . In other words, just because some Members may 
     ask these questions does not mean the President's nominee 
     should answer them. In accordance with long tradition and 
     norms of the Senate in the confirmation process, they should 
     not answer them.

  At the beginning of confirmation hearings for John Roberts, Senator 
Grassley said: ``The fact is that no Senator has a right to insist on 
his or her own issue-by-issue philosophy or seek commitments from 
nominees on specific litmus-test questions likely to come before that 
Court.''
  Senator Coburn criticized those Senators whom he said planned to vote 
against the Roberts nomination for his failure to state positions on 
specific issues: ``The real reason they will be voting against John 
Roberts is because he would not give a definite answer on two or three 
of the social issues today that face us. He is absolutely right not to 
give a definite answer because that says he prejudges, that he has made 
up his mind ahead of time.''
  In 2005, Senator Hatch noted the ethical restrictions on a nominee's 
ability to answer questions and said:

       I have said Senators on the Judiciary Committee can ask any 
     question they want, no matter how stupid the question may be. 
     . . . But the judge does not have to answer those questions. 
     In fact, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, judges should 
     not be opining or answering questions about issues that may 
     possibly come before them in the future.

  Both Judge Roberts and Judge Alito followed their advice and did not 
answer questions with any specificity about cases that could come 
before the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts testified during his hearing: 
``I think I should stay away from discussions of particular issues that 
are likely to come before the Court.'' During his hearing, Judge Alito 
testified:

       I think it's important to draw a distinction between issues 
     that could realistically come up before the courts and issues 
     that . . . are still very much in play . . . that's where I 
     feel that I must draw a line, because no issues that could 
     realistically come up, it would be improper for me to express 
     a view, and I would not reach a conclusion regarding any 
     issue like that before going through the whole judicial 
     process that I described.

  I asked Judge Sotomayor during her hearing whether, if not bound by 
Second Circuit or Supreme Court precedent, on whether second amendment 
rights should be considered ``fundamental rights,'' she would keep an 
open mind in evaluating that legal question. Her response to me was 
straightforward. She said:

       You asked me whether I have an open mind on that question. 
     Absolutely.

  She said:

       I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I 
     was a Justice on the Supreme Court.

  She could not have gone any further without prejudging the question 
Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller left open, one that is currently 
pending before the Supreme Court.
  In response to a question from Senator Coburn, Judge Sotomayor 
testified: ``In the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it recognized 
an individual's right to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the Second 
Amendment. . . . The Maloney case presented a different question. That 
was whether that individual right would limit the activities that 
States would do to limit the regulation of firearms.'' Judge Sotomayor 
also told Senator Coburn at the hearing: ``I can assure your 
constituents that I have a completely open mind on this question. I do 
not close my mind to the fact and the understanding that there were 
developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on incorporation that 
will apply to this question or be considered.''
  In response to a question from Senator Sessions on how she would come 
down on the question of incorporation of the Second Amendment, Judge 
Sotomayor testified: ``I have not prejudged the question that the 
Supreme Court left open in Heller . . . of whether this right should be 
incorporated against the States or not.'' She also answered Senator 
Sessions' questions about the panel decision in Maloney:

       Well, when the Court looks at that issue, it will decide is 
     it incorporated or not. And it will determine by applying the 
     test that it has subsequent to its old precedent, whether or 
     not it is fundamental and hence, incorporated. But the 
     Maloney decision was not addressing the merits of that 
     question. It was addressing what precedent said on that 
     issue.

  The only other case in which Judge Sotomayor was involved as an 
appellate judge involving a Second Amendment contention was a case in 
which an illegal alien was convicted of distribution and possession 
with intent to distribute approximately 1.2 kilograms of ``crack'' 
cocaine and of illegal possession of a firearm while an illegal alien. 
In that case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, decided in 2004--before 
the Supreme Court's decision in Heller--involved an attempt to overturn 
a jury conviction. The defendant in that case claimed he had received 
ineffective assistance from his lawyer because his possession of the 
firearm in New York did not provide probable cause for seizure and 
arrest was rejected by a unanimous panel of the Second Circuit. The 
Second Circuit unanimously rejected this claim. In so doing, the panel 
quoted in a footnote to language from an earlier Second Circuit 
decision decided before Heller or Maloney. This is not unlike a number 
of cases in which Judge Sotomayor has upheld police actions when 
undertaken in good faith.

[[Page 20838]]

  So I am disappointed by recent news accounts that the National Rifle 
Association has decided to ``score'' the vote on confirming Judge 
Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. They did this in response to pressure 
from the Republican leader. In fact, this is the first time in the 
history of the NRA that it has ``scored'' a Supreme Court confirmation 
vote. The irony of this is, if she had been nominated by a Republican 
President, they would all be supporting her with her record.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record, at the conclusion of my statement, a copy of the July 24 letter 
from four members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who have 
consistently earned high ratings from the NRA, to the NRA's executive 
vice president and executive director.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Congressmen Joe Baca, Solomon Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes, and 
John Salazar wrote:

       [W]e are disappointed by the NRA's opposition to the 
     nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme 
     Court. It is not merited by either Judge Sotomayor's record 
     or hearing testimony.

  In their letter, they point out that at her hearing Judge Sotomayor 
``emphasized that she has an `open mind' on the question of 
incorporation and `has not prejudged' the issue.''
  In fact, they said:

       Judge Sotomayor has said more than either of the two 
     previous Supreme Court nominees about the Second Amendment--
     specifically, she said that it confers an individual right, 
     as recognized by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision.

  The letter continues: ``Even more troubling, it appears you are 
holding Judge Sotomayor to a different standard than you held Judges 
Roberts and Alito when they were nominated to the Court, or for that 
matter, any previous nominee to the Court. The double standard you have 
set for Judge Sotomayor is a disservice to all members of the NRA, 
particularly those who are Hispanic'' and that ``we are mystified as to 
why the NRA is characterizing Judge Sotomayor as hostile to the rights 
of gun owners and evaluating Judge Sotomayor by a different standard 
than that to which you have held previous Supreme Court nominees.''
  I think it is a double standard. When Justices Roberts and Alito were 
nominated by a Republican President, Republicans did not have this 
standard. When this woman was nominated by a Democratic President, 
suddenly they change the standard. All I am saying is, they ought to 
follow the same standards they followed when President Bush nominated 
the two men he did now, when President Obama has nominated this woman 
to the Supreme Court.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record letters of support for Judge Sotomayor from a large number of 
prosecutors, including the National District Attorneys Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    National Black


                                      Prosecutors Association,

                                        Chicago, IL, July 9, 2009.
     Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate Office 
         Bldg., Washington, DC.
     Senator Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate 
         Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Sessions: On behalf of the National 
     Black Prosecutors Association, representing local, state and 
     Federal African American prosecutors, it is my pleasure to 
     endorse the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the 
     position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme 
     Court. It is noteworthy to mention that she will be this 
     nation's third female and first Latina United States Supreme 
     Court Justice. I highlight Justice Sotomayor's gender and 
     ethnicity only to point out that it is shocking that in its 
     220 year history, the United States Supreme Court has 
     previously had only two female justices, and never a Hispanic 
     justice. It is well overdue that qualified female nominees of 
     varying ethnicities be seriously considered for service on 
     the United States Supreme Court
       Despite the adversity of being diagnosed with Type I 
     diabetes and shortly thereafter losing her father at the age 
     of nine, Judge Sotomayor was a scholastic achiever throughout 
     her elementary and high school years. While at Princeton 
     University, she fought for increased opportunities for Puerto 
     Rican students and to diversify the University's faculty and 
     curriculum. After graduating summa cum laude, she entered 
     Yale Law School, where she became the editor of the Yale Law 
     Journal.
       We applaud Judge Sotomayor's distinguished career in public 
     service, which began with her service as a Manhattan 
     Assistant District Attorney. As a trial attorney, Judge 
     Sotomayor honed her skills, gaining firsthand experience with 
     the real world of crime, pursuing justice for the victims of 
     violent crimes. She was firm but fair as a United States 
     District Court Judge, exhibiting a great respect and 
     understanding of the United States Constitution and its 
     application in the twenty-first century. The opinions she has 
     authored since becoming a judge on the Court of Appeals in 
     1997 clearly show that she respects the law and hews close to 
     precedent. Judge Sotomayor's opinions are marked by a clear 
     recitation of the facts and lengthy recitation of the law 
     that she believed to be applicable to the case. In short, 
     Judge Sotomayor's opinions are akin to a road map; one can 
     easily discern where she started in her analysis, where she 
     ended up, and how she got there. This is all one can ask from 
     an impartial jurist; not that you will always agree with the 
     conclusion of a justice, but that issues, arguments and 
     parties will receive a fair hearing, and the final 
     determination can be easily tracked and understood.
       Judge Sonia Sotomayor's background, life experiences, and 
     accomplishments despite the odds are compelling to say the 
     least. Her intellect, respect for the law and ability to be 
     impartial more importantly would mean that this country would 
     have a Supreme Court Justice that would, without hesitation, 
     examine issues and reach conclusions based on an 
     interpretation of the law and constitutional principles. This 
     country needs a Justice is sensitive to the law's impact on 
     everyday life.
           Sincerely,
                                             Carmen M. Lineberger,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     July 2, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: As former colleagues of the Honorable Sonia 
     Sotomayor during her years as a prosecutor in the Office of 
     the New York County District Attorney, we write to express 
     our wholehearted support for her nomination to the United 
     States Supreme Court.
       We served together during some of the most difficult years 
     in our City's history. Crime was soaring, a general sense of 
     disorder prevailed in the streets, and the popular attitude 
     was that increasing violence was inevitable. It was in this 
     setting that Sonia decided to start her career, not in a 
     judge's chambers or at a high-powered law firm, but rather in 
     the halls of New York's Criminal Courts, as an assistant 
     district attorney.
       She began as a ``rookie'' in 1979, working long hours 
     prosecuting an enormous caseload of misdemeanors before 
     judges managing overwhelming dockets. Sonia so distinguished 
     herself in this challenging assignment that she was among the 
     very first in her starting class to be selected to handle 
     felonies. She prosecuted a wide variety of felony cases, 
     including serving as co-counsel at a notorious murder trial. 
     She developed a specialty in the investigation and 
     prosecution of child pornography cases. Throughout all of 
     this, she impressed us as one who was singularly determined 
     in fighting crime and violence. For Sonia, service as a 
     prosecutor was a way to bring order to the streets of a City 
     she dearly loves. At the same time, she had an abiding sense 
     of justice that spoke of the traditions of an Office headed 
     by Thomas Dewey, Frank Hogan and Robert Morgenthau.
       Few of us can forget her careful and painstaking jury 
     selection. As diligently as she prepared her cases, she also 
     readied her juries to evaluate the evidence and apply the 
     facts to the law as they were instructed by the judge. As any 
     trial lawyer knows, this is no easy task. Sonia emphasized 
     that it is both a privilege and a duty to sit on a case, and 
     jurors must do so without bias or prejudice.
       We are proud to have served with Sonia Sotomayor. She 
     solemnly adheres to the rule of law and believes that it 
     should be applied equally and fairly to all Americans. As a 
     group, we have different world views and political 
     affiliations, but our support for Sonia is entirely non-
     partisan. And the fact that so many of us have remained 
     friends with Sonia over three decades speaks well, we think, 
     of her warmth and collegiality.
       We urge all Senators to approve Sonia's nomination, as our 
     country will be better off

[[Page 20839]]

     with Judge Sotomayor sitting on our nation's highest court.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Steven M. Rabinowitz, Marc J. Citrin, John W. Fried, 
           Thomas Demakis, Rubie A. Mages, John Lenoir, Ted 
           Poretz, Mike Cherkasky, Joseph Ortego, Steven Fishner.
         Irving Hirsch, Jerry Neugarten, Fred Biesecker, Annette 
           Sanderson, Jackie Hilly, Jessica DeGrazia, Maureen 
           Barden, Deborah Veach, Vivian Berger, Maurice Mathis.
         Susan Gliner, Elizabeth Lederer, Frank Munoz, Isabelle 
           Kirshner, Richard Girgenti, Peter Kougasian, Nancy 
           Gray, Jason Dolin, William Tendy, Patrice M. Davis.
         Jose Diaz, Scott Sherman, Peter Zimroth, James Warwick, 
           Stephen L. Dreyfuss, Consuelo Fernandez, Jeff 
           Schlanger, Richard H. Girgenti, John Moscow, Eugene 
           Porcarco, Kim H. Townsend.
                                  ____

                                       National District Attorneys


                                                  Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, June 8, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman,
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member,
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: On behalf 
     of the National District Attorneys Association, the oldest 
     and largest organization representing America's state and 
     local prosecutors, we offer our full support for the 
     nomination of the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor to become the 
     next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
       Because state and local prosecutors handle 95 percent of 
     the criminal prosecutions nationally, rulings by the Supreme 
     Court have far-reaching, serious impacts upon criminal cases 
     in state courthouses across the country. As former 
     prosecutors yourselves, you have a unique appreciation of our 
     concerns.
       We practice where the law is truly tested: not in the 
     deliberative atmosphere of an appellate courtroom, but on the 
     streets where police must make split-second choices in 
     dangerous situations and in trial court situations that 
     sometimes give prosecutors and police only a moment to 
     analyze and react. It is important to the National District 
     Attorneys Association, and to the tens of thousands of 
     prosecutors we represent, that the next Supreme Court justice 
     be well steeped in the law and its practical applications.
       I have had the opportunity to review the judicial record of 
     Judge Sotomayor, particularly in areas important to 
     prosecutors such as criminal and constitutional law. Through 
     her rulings, Judge Sotomayor reveals a deep understanding of 
     the law. As a prosecutor, I find her to employ a thoughtful 
     analysis of legal precedent and the rule of law and apply 
     that law to the specific facts of each case.
       Just as important as her sophisticated knowledge of the 
     law, as a former prosecutor and trial court judge Judge 
     Sotomayor displays an understanding of the impact of those 
     laws on law enforcement, victims and defendants. In 
     interviews with prosecutors who served with Judge Sotomayor 
     in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, Judge Sotomayor 
     has often been described as a ``tough and fearless'' 
     prosecutor. She vigorously and effectively prosecuted child 
     pornographers, murderers, burglars and many other ``street 
     crimes'' in the heart of New York City. She worked closely 
     with law enforcement, deconstructed complex crimes, 
     interviewed witnesses and investigated crime scenes. That 
     kind of legal experience, combined with her 17 years on the 
     federal bench, provide Judge Sotomayor with unique and 
     unprecedented qualifications to be on the Supreme Court.
       Judge Sotomayor's depth of experience with all aspects of 
     the law--as a prosecutor, a private litigator, a District 
     Court Judge and as a Federal Judge--has made her into an 
     exemplary judge and an outstanding nominee to serve on our 
     nation's highest court. She possesses wisdom, intelligence 
     and a real world training that would bring important insight 
     to Supreme Court decisions. The National District Attorneys 
     Association believes that Judge Sotomayor would be a welcome 
     addition to the Supreme Court.
       We are happy to offer our full support for Judge 
     Sotomayor's nomination to serve as a Supreme Court Associate 
     Justice and encourage her swift nomination by the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                               Joseph I. Cassilly,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    July 10, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Minority Member,
     Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: On behalf 
     of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA), we offer 
     our support to the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to 
     become the next Associate Justice of the United States 
     Supreme Court. APA is a national ``think tank'' that 
     represents all prosecutors and provides additional resources 
     such as training and technical assistance in an effort to 
     develop proactive innovative prosecutorial practices that 
     prevent crime, ensures equal justice and makes our 
     communities safer.
       Judge Sotomayor's proven record as a prosecutor, private 
     litigator, District Court Judge and Federal Appellate Judge 
     has shown her dedication to the law, equality of justice and 
     ensuring safer communities. Her distinguished tenure as a 
     Federal District Court Judge would bring additional insight 
     about the trial process to the Supreme Court.
       Judge Sotomayor, with her trial experience as both a trial 
     judge and prosecutor, would bring practical experience to the 
     highest court in the land. Therefore, the APA fully supports 
     Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court and we urge 
     her confirmation.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Glenn F. Ivey,
       Chairman of the Board of Directors, Association of 
     Prosecuting Attorneys.
     David R. LaBahn,
       President and CEO, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record letters of support for Judge Sotomayor from a broad cross 
section of law enforcement agencies, including the National Association 
of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the 
Sheriff of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                of Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                     Alexandria, VA, June 5, 2009.
     Re Endorsement of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Untied States 
         Supreme Court.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: On behalf 
     of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), 
     representing more than 241,000 law enforcement officers 
     throughout the United States, I am writing to advise you of 
     our endorsement of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor 
     for the United States Supreme Court.
       Throughout her distinguished career spanning three decades, 
     Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our 
     judicial system, giving her a depth of experience and 
     knowledge that will be valuable on our nation's highest 
     court. After five years as the Assistant District Attorney in 
     Manhattan, she went into private practice in 1984 to become a 
     corporate litigator. In 1991, she began her career as a 
     federal judge with her nomination to the United States 
     District Court by President Bush. In 1992, she was promoted 
     to the United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit by 
     President Clinton, where she has served for the past eleven 
     years.
       Through her years of trial experience as an Assistant 
     District Attorney, Judge Sotomayor gained an understanding of 
     what law enforcement officers go through day to day in their 
     jobs. Her familiarity with criminal procedure and qualified 
     immunity are evident in the rulings and findings she has 
     issued during her seventeen year career as a federal judge. 
     Judge Sotomayor has shown that as a jurist she has a keen 
     awareness of the real-world implications of judicial rulings, 
     an important aspect when it comes to evaluating the actions 
     of law enforcement officers and to keeping officers and the 
     communities they serve safe.
       As a Supreme Court Justice, NAPO believes Judge Sotomayor's 
     extensive experience in the judicial system and the knowledge 
     she has gained as a prosecutor and judge will serve our 
     nation well. Therefore, we urge you to confirm the nomination 
     of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the United States Supreme Court. 
     If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or 
     NAPO's Executive Director, Bill Johnson.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas J. Nee,
     President.
                                  ____



                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, June 8, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chair,
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: On behalf 
     of the National Sheriffs' Association, we are writing to 
     express our support for the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to 
     be the Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

[[Page 20840]]

       As you know, in most jurisdictions, sheriffs have several 
     responsibilities in the criminal justice system including law 
     enforcement and the administration of our jails. Because of 
     the sheriff's role in enforcing the law and administering the 
     jails, there are many occasions where the sheriffs duties are 
     directly impacted by the actions of the United States Supreme 
     Court. Sheriffs across the country can recite examples in our 
     communities, where criminals have gone free because of 
     technicalities. In many cases, an overriding problem for law 
     enforcement throughout the United States has been the 
     courts--on the federal, state and local level.
       Because of the critical role that the court plays in our 
     criminal justice system, the National Sheriffs' Association 
     is urging the Senate to confirm Judge Sotomayor who we 
     believe has the qualifications, judicial philosophy and 
     commitment to interpreting the Constitution with an abiding 
     sense of fairness and justice.
       Judge Sonia Sotomayor's real world experience as a 
     prosecutor who pursued justice for victims of violent crimes 
     as well as a federal judge at both the district and circuit 
     court levels with an unassailable integrity make her an ideal 
     nominee to serve on the Supreme Court. We believe her 
     judicial philosophy in criminal justice to be sound and 
     support her common sense approach in reviewing criminal 
     cases.
       As one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the 
     nation, the National Sheriffs' Association is calling on the 
     United States Senate to approve Sonia Sotomayor to be the 
     next Associate Justice of United States Supreme Court.
           Respectfully,
     Sheriff David A. Goad,
       President.
     Aaron D. Kennard,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            County of Los Angeles,


                            Sheriff's Department Headquarters,

                                  Monterey Park, CA, July 7, 2009.
     Reconfirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States 
         Supreme Court.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: As Sheriff of the Los Angeles County 
     Sheriff's Department, which is the largest Sheriff's 
     Department in the country in one of the most diverse counties 
     in the world, I support the confirmation of Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor as a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice 
     and, respectfully, urge your Committee to support her 
     nomination.
       As you know, Judge Sotomayor has had the gamut of legal 
     experience beginning with her legal education from Yale 
     University. Judge Sotomayor's work as an Assistant District 
     Attorney for the New York County District Attorney's Office 
     and her work in private practice, led to her nomination by 
     President George H.W. Bush to the United States District 
     Court for the Southern District of New York, for which she 
     was confirmed by the United States Senate. She served in that 
     capacity until President Bill Clinton nominated her to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 
     followed by her second Senate confirmation.
       Judge Sotomayor possesses all the traits important for 
     service on the United States Supreme Court Her educational 
     background, diverse legal experience, and personal story have 
     all contributed to her current success and will continue to 
     positively shape her future on the United States Supreme 
     Court.
       Judge Sotomayor is an excellent nominee for Associate 
     Supreme Court Justice. I am confident that confirmation of 
     her nomination would be a great step forward for our Supreme 
     Court and our Country. Thank you for your service to our 
     Country and making these critical decisions that profoundly 
     impact our Democracy. Should you have any questions, do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Leroy D. Baca,
     Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                                   National Latino


                                   Peace Officers Association,

                                      Santa Ana, CA, May 26, 2009.
     Re Honorable Sonia Sotomayor.

     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing on behalf of the men and 
     women of the National Latino Peace Officers Association 
     (NLPOA) to unanimously support the appointment of the 
     Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, Judge with the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Second District, as the next Justice of 
     the Supreme Court of the United States.
       The NLPOA supports Judge Sonia Sotomayor because she has a 
     long and distinguished career on the federal bench as well as 
     having the depth and breadth of legal experience of all 
     levels of the judicial system. She brings a lifelong 
     commitment to equality, justice, and opportunity, and has 
     earned the respect of all her colleagues being in one of the 
     most demanding appeals circuits in America; the Second 
     Circuit.
       She brings excellent credentials to this position, with a 
     Juris Doctorate from Yale Law and completing her 
     undergraduate work at Princeton, graduating summa cum laude. 
     With over 30 years experience in handling a wide range of 
     substantial civil and criminal cases, Judge Sotomayor has a 
     distinguished record of professional accomplishments as 
     judge, prosecutor, and community leader.
       The NLPOA enthusiastically supports Judge Sonia Sotomayor 
     as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States of 
     America.
       If you have a need for additional information please feel 
     free to contact me.
           Respectfully,
                                                      Art Acevedo,
     National President.
                                  ____


                 New York State Law Enforcement Council

       The New York State Law Enforcement Council congratulates 
     President Obama on his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
     the United States Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor is well 
     known to us from her career as a prosecutor and as a federal 
     judge. She is an extremely able jurist and an exceptional 
     individual. The interests of the nation will be well served 
     when she assumes her seat on the Supreme Court.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                     June 8, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy, Chairman,
     Hon. Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member,
     Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Sessions, I am writing in support 
     of President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
     serve as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
     States. I believe that Judge Sotomayor's inspiring life 
     story, and especially her experience as a prosecutor in New 
     York City, where I spent most of my career, demonstrate a 
     strength of character that will serve her well on our 
     nation's highest court.
       Judge Sotomayor grew up in a housing project in the South 
     Bronx. I patrolled the streets of the South Bronx in the 
     1970s and know what a tough environment that was. I did not 
     have the privilege of working with Assistant District 
     Attorney Sotomayor, but recently I have spoken to several of 
     my colleagues who did work with her, and they give her 
     nothing but rave reviews. They were impressed with her 
     intelligence, her strong work ethic, and her fierce 
     determination to prosecute criminals, and they use words like 
     ``salt of the earth'' to describe her.
       I believe it is important to note that in the questionnaire 
     that she filled out for the Judiciary Committee, Judge 
     Sotomayor included several criminal cases from her years as a 
     prosecutor in a list of the 10 litigated matters in her 
     career that she considers ``most significant.'' These include 
     the case of the so-called ``Tarzan murderer,'' as well as a 
     child pornography case that Ms. Sotomayor pursued 
     relentlessly when others seemed to consider it a low 
     priority.
       Like many others, I have been inspired by Judge Sotomayor's 
     personal story. Through hard work and determination, she 
     earned degrees from Princeton and the Yale Law School. After 
     getting her law degree, she could have cashed in at a blue-
     chip law firm, but she chose instead to take a low-paid 
     position in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where 
     she gained priceless real-world experience that cannot help 
     but inform her judgment as she decides criminal cases that 
     come before her.
       Sonia Sotomayor went out of her way to stand shoulder to 
     shoulder with those of us in public safety at a time when New 
     York City needed strong, tough, and fair prosecutors. I am 
     confident that she will continue to bring honor to herself, 
     and now to the Supreme Court, when she is confirmed for this 
     critically important position.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                              John F. Timoney,

                                  Chief of Police, Miami, Florida,
                       President, Police Executive Research Forum.

  Mr. LEAHY. I urge each Senator to vote his or her own conscience in 
connection with this historic nomination.

                               Exhibit 1


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2009.
     Wayne LaPierre,
     Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association of 
         America, Fairfax, VA.
     Chris Cox,
     Executive Director, National Rifle Association of America, 
         Fairfax, VA.
       Dear Messrs. LaPierre and Cox: As Members of Congress whose 
     strong support for the rights of gun owners has earned us 
     consistently high ratings from the NRA, we are disappointed 
     by the NRA's opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not merited by 
     either Judge Sotomayor's judicial record or hearing 
     testimony. Even more troubling, it appears that you are 
     holding Judge Sotomayor to a different standard than you held 
     Judges Roberts and Alito when they were nominated to the 
     Court, or for that matter, any previous nominee to the Court. 
     The double standard you have set for Judge Sotomayor is a 
     disservice to all members of the NRA, particularly those who 
     are Hispanic.
       We support the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. She is 
     eminently qualified by

[[Page 20841]]

     her experience as a prosecutor, district judge and 12 years 
     on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Her judicial record 
     is one marked by modesty and restraint, prompting the New 
     York Times to write that her ``judicial opinions are marked 
     by diligence, depth and unflashy competence'' and are 
     ``models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes 
     careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical 
     application of layers of legal principles.'' (Adam Liptak, 
     ``Nominee's Rulings Are Exhaustive But Often Narrow,'' May 
     26, 2009). And we believe that the historic act of putting 
     the first Hispanic Justice on the Court, particularly one so 
     well qualified for the job, is an important step for our 
     country.
       Judge Sotomayor has said more than either of the two 
     previous Supreme Court nominees about the Second Amendment--
     specifically, she said that it confers an individual right, 
     as recognized by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision. 
     Judge Sotomayor was then asked repeatedly to discuss her 
     position on incorporation, even though there is now a circuit 
     split on the issue and there are petitions pending asking the 
     Supreme Court to take the issue. Judges are prohibited by ABA 
     rules from commenting on pending cases, making it 
     inappropriate for Judge Sotomayor to state a definitive view. 
     Nonetheless, at the hearing on her nomination, she emphasized 
     that she has an ``open mind'' on the question of 
     incorporation and has ``not prejudged'' the issue.
       Conversely, when now-Chief Justice Roberts testified at his 
     confirmation hearing facing a similar circuit split prior to 
     the Heller decision on the issue of the individual right to 
     bear arms, he declined to discuss the issue at all, saying 
     only: ``That's sort of the issue that's likely to come before 
     the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.'' And now-
     Justice Alito was not even asked a question about the 
     subject. Yet the NRA voiced no opposition to these candidates 
     who were less forthcoming on issues of importance to us.
       Your letter cites two cases as evidence that Judge 
     Sotomayor is hostile to the Second Amendment. Your analysis 
     of those cases is either mistaken or deliberately misleading.
       United States v. Sanchez-Villar, on which Judge Sotomayor 
     was a member of the panel, was decided in 2004, four years 
     before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of 
     Columbia v. Heller. That decision was consistent not just 
     with 2nd Circuit precedent, but with the weight of authority 
     at the time; in 2004, every circuit but the Fifth that had 
     considered the question had similarly concluded that the 
     Second Amendment did not protect an individual right. Your 
     letter fails to mention either fact.
       Your characterization of Maloney v. Cuomo is similarly 
     erroneous. First, Maloney did not involve firearms at all. 
     The degree to which it was not considered an important case 
     at the time can be gleaned from the fact that no outside 
     entity or organization, including the NRA, filed an amicus 
     brief in that case, in contrast to the multiple amici filed 
     in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago.
       Second, the Maloney court did not reject the concept of 
     incorporation; it recognized the prerogative of the Supreme 
     Court, which in Heller explicitly did not overrule prior 
     precedent on incorporation. The panel wrote, ``[w]here, as 
     here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a 
     case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other 
     line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the 
     case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court 
     the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.''
       Two of the most renowned conservative jurists in the 
     country, Judges Posner and Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit 
     Court of Appeals, recently endorsed the Second Circuit panel 
     opinion in Maloney. In National Rifle Association v. City of 
     Chicago, Judge Easterbrook's opinion explicitly stated that 
     the court ``agree[d] with Maloney.''
       Even Mr. Maloney himself said the decision in this case was 
     appropriate: ``I did not expect to win . . . it was clear to 
     me that they had a very solid basis for saying that the 
     Second Amendment is not incorporated and that essentially 
     they are powerless to do anything about it, they had a 
     defensible position there.'' Mike Pesca, ``High Court May 
     Review Personal Weapons Ruling,'' NPR Legals Affairs, June 1, 
     2009.
       In conclusion, we are mystified as to why the NRA is 
     characterizing Judge Sotomayor as hostile to the rights of 
     gun owners and evaluating Judge Sotomayor by a different 
     standard than that to which you have held previous Supreme 
     Court nominees. We are concerned that your opposition will 
     alienate Hispanic NRA members and dismayed that you may 
     unnecessarily force some well-intentioned Senators to choose 
     between disappointing the NRA or infuriating their Hispanic 
     constituents. We hope that you will reconsider your position 
     on Judge Sotomayor.
           Sincerely,
     Joe Baca,
     Silvestre Reyes,
     Solomon P. Ortiz,
     John T. Salazar.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see Senator Lincoln on the floor, one 
of my most distinguished colleagues, and I yield to her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. He is a good and trusted friend, and I appreciate all the 
hard work he and all of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have 
done and all the efforts they have put into this nomination and hearing 
process.
  I rise today to discuss what I think is one of the most consequential 
and long-lasting decisions in the duties a Senator can perform under 
the Constitution--the confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. It 
is a rare practice, so rare, in fact, that my consideration of the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor will mark only the third Supreme 
Court nomination I will have considered since I was first elected to 
the Senate in 1998.
  Even though the President today making this Supreme Court nomination 
has changed from the previous two nominees, as the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee has mentioned, my standards and the standards of 
any of us for evaluating a nominee have not changed, nor should they 
have changed.
  I believe the people of Arkansas, our great State, and certainly our 
Nation deserve a Supreme Court Justice who is able to interpret and 
apply the rule of law fairly without political favor or bias. Ensuring 
that a nominee meets this standard is an obligation I have sworn to 
uphold as a Senator and, moreover, is the standard I expect for a 
lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court.
  In making my decision about Judge Sotomayor, I have taken a number of 
factors into account in evaluating her qualifications for serving on 
our Nation's highest Court.
  First among these are the opinions of my constituents in my home 
State of Arkansas, including those in the legal community. I have heard 
from a number of Arkansans who have expressed strong support for Judge 
Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing her unique background, impressive resume, 
and solid judicial record.
  I also gained a lot of insight when we met at length in June. I was 
able to learn firsthand about who she is as a person, her temperament, 
and her unique life experiences--all of which I believe will help give 
her the ability to give every litigant who comes before the Supreme 
Court a fair shake.
  Arkansans can readily identify with her because Judge Sotomayor is no 
stranger to hard work. She was born in New York, and is the daughter of 
parents who came to the United States from Puerto Rico. After her 
father died, when she was young, Judge Sotomayor was raised by her 
mother, a nurse, a hard-working woman with tremendous values. She went 
on to become valedictorian of her high school, a member of Phi Beta 
Kappa at Princeton, and editor of the Law Review at Yale Law School.
  She has a breadth of professional experience, having served as an 
assistant district attorney and in private practice before beginning 
her 17 years serving as a Federal judge. She has a long history, and, 
again, one that starts with hard work and dedication to hard work.
  Arkansas is known for its ability to grow self-made Americans, and 
those are Americans who are no strangers to hard work. They understand 
what is involved in putting into who you are, and what you are trying 
to become, and what it is you want to achieve on behalf of others.
  Judge Sotomayor even told me in our personal meeting that she had 
entered her practice in real estate and business law because she had a 
great appreciation for business and the industries of this great 
country and she wanted to increase her knowledge of corporate law and 
broaden her experience.
  Moreover, I was impressed during our meeting with her eagerness to 
learn more about Arkansas and her attentiveness to what issues were 
most important to my constituents in my home State of Arkansas.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings also provided me with an 
opportunity to learn about her record and

[[Page 20842]]

judicial philosophy. I was able to monitor the hearings and watch her 
performance under intense scrutiny and pressure, and I was impressed 
with her knowledge, her composure, and her candor.
  Given the weight of this decision and the responsibilities I have to 
my constituents and my country, I have carefully examined the 
information available about Judge Sotomayor's nomination and am ready 
to announce I will support Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  I have confidence, as she made clear through the committee hearings, 
that she understands a judge's obligation is first and foremost a 
``fidelity to the law.''
  As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee mentioned earlier, I was 
raised as an avid duck hunter and a gun owner. Gun ownership is a 
unique part of my State's heritage. I was pleased to hear Judge 
Sotomayor made a promise before the Senate Judiciary Committee to have 
an open mind on the issue of the second amendment and to understand 
what it means in terms of our rights as American citizens.
  In response to questioning, Judge Sotomayor expressed caution in 
declaring how she would rule on an unsettled constitutional issue 
likely to come before the Supreme Court before hearing the arguments 
and studying the opinions before her. I would have been concerned about 
a nominee who had already made up their mind about an unsettled legal 
issue that is likely to come before the Court. Her responsibility is to 
not come in there prejudging or predetermined in her decisions, but to 
come to the Court with an open mind.
  Based on her substantial record, serving on two courts, I am 
satisfied Judge Sotomayor will give future cases involving the second 
amendment and the rights of Americans to own firearms for recreation 
and self-protection a very fair hearing. I am also satisfied that her 
past rulings on these issues follow precedent and fall within the 
judicial mainstream.
  And I think Senator Sessions mentioned some of that in his comments 
in terms of being judicial mainstream.
  Overall, I appreciated Judge Sotomayor's approach to the judiciary 
hearings and her willingness to respond to questions from Senators on 
both sides of the aisle on many important topics.
  Based on her answers, I believe Judge Sotomayor cares more about 
following the law and maintaining the respect for the judiciary than 
she does about politics and ideology.
  As Judge Sotomayor stated:

       The task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the 
     law.

  Finally, I have again searched my conscience and reflected on my 
principles as a Senator for the people of the great State of Arkansas, 
using my experiences a legislator both here and in the House of 
Representatives and also as a farmer's daughter, my experience as a 
wife, a mother, a neighbor, to evaluate a decision of such great 
weight.
  It has become apparent to me Judge Sotomayor does meet the test to 
serve in our Nation's highest Court. I base this conclusion on the 
respect and support she has earned from those in my home State, 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who know her well, on the 
evidence and the record from her own comments and those of her 
colleagues, that she has had an abiding respect for the Court's 
decisions, and that she understands the value of continuity in our law.
  We also see the support from industry representatives, such as the 
Chamber of Commerce, as well as labor organizations. The Senate 
Judiciary Committee received a letter of support for Judge Sotomayor's 
nomination from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest 
business federation, representing businesses and organizations of every 
size, sector, and region.
  The U.S. Chamber wrote, in their letter:

       Pursuant to our long-standing endorsement policy, the 
     Chamber evaluated Judge Sotomayor's record from the 
     standpoint of legal scholarship, judicial temperament, and an 
     understanding of business and economic issues. Based on the 
     Chamber's evaluation of her judicial record, Judge Sotomayor 
     is well-qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the 
     U.S. Supreme Court.
       Her extensive experience both as a commercial litigator and 
     as a trial judge would provide the U.S. Supreme Court with a 
     much needed perspective on the issues that business litigants 
     face. Consistent with her Senate testimony, the Chamber 
     expects Judge Sotomayor to engage in fair and evenhanded 
     application of the laws affecting American businesses.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee from the Chamber of Commerce be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, announced 
     today its support of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor 
     to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Chamber urges members 
     of the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of 
     reporting Judge Sotomayor's nomination for consideration by 
     the full Senate.
       Pursuant to our long-standing endorsement policy, the 
     Chamber evaluated Judge Sotomayor's record from the 
     standpoint of legal scholarship, judicial temperament, and an 
     understanding of business and economic issues. Based on the 
     Chamber's evaluation of her judicial record, Judge Sotomayor 
     is well-qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the 
     U.S. Supreme Court. Her extensive experience both as a 
     commercial litigator and as a trial judge would provide the 
     U.S. Supreme Court with a much needed perspective on the 
     issues that business litigants face. Consistent with her 
     Senate testimony, the Chamber expects Judge Sotomayor to 
     engage in fair and evenhanded application of the laws 
     affecting American businesses.
       The Chamber urges your support of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as 
     Associate Justice of the United States.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I do believe Judge Sotomayor will make 
an excellent Supreme Court Justice and she will give all who come 
before the Court on which she is poised to serve a fair hearing and the 
attention and respect they deserve. So in this very important decision 
that each of us as Senators must make, I am proud to be able to support 
her nomination.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, once again, the Senate is being called 
upon to do its constitutional duty to consider a nomination to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant 
given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on 
the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among 
the most significant that we cast.
  I commend Chairman Leahy for the extraordinarily thorough and fair 
hearings the Judiciary Committee held on this nomination. It has given 
us a very extensive record upon which we can base our judgment. I have 
reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament, and background to 
determine if she is likely to bring to the Court an ideology that 
distorts her legal judgment or brings into question her openmindedness. 
I believe it is clear that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential 
requirements of openmindedness and judicial temperament, and her 
decisions as a judge fall well within the mainstream of our 
jurisprudence.
  Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. 
She was nominated first to the district court in the Southern District 
of New York by President George H.W. Bush. The Senate confirmed her 
nomination. President Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit 
court judge, and the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed her nomination to 
that position.
  The American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge

[[Page 20843]]

Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law 
professors, and community representatives from across the United 
States. They analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches, and other 
writings. They read reports of Reading Groups comprised of recognized 
experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed, and 
they conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the 
words of the committee:

       The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the 
     United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that 
     the nominee must possess exceptional professional 
     qualifications. The significance, range, and complexity and 
     nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will 
     confront on the Court demands no less.

  After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave 
Judge Sotomayor their highest rating unanimously, rating her ``well 
qualified.''
  Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in 
language and ideas they thought they observed in Judge Sotomayor while 
sitting as a judge in the courtroom and as a citizen outside the 
courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge 
Sotomayor's confirmation hearing:

       I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help 
     us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during 
     the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator 
     Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on 
     the Federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals 
     judge. And then there's the other picture that has emerged 
     that--from your speeches and your other writings.

  Our colleague went on to say the following:

       I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as 
     pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making by 
     district court judges and by court of appeals judges on the 
     Federal bench.

  And he said in conclusion then:

       I guess part of what we need to do is to reconcile those--

  Referring to the two different pictures he had.
  Let's assume for a moment there is a difference between Judge 
Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom and those personal views she 
expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people 
who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different 
personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave 
their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of 
an impartial judiciary. In other words, Judge Sotomayor has 
demonstrated the very trait that she is accused by some of lacking: the 
ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door.
  The Congressional Research Service has analyzed Judge Sotomayor's 
record and has concluded the following:

       Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge 
     Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an 
     adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e, the 
     upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics 
     appear to include what many would describe as a careful 
     application of particular facts at issue in a case and a 
     dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as 
     overstepping its judicial role.

  Well, that is the opposite of an activist judge imposing her views 
despite the law.
  We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges, regrettably, 
can't lay those aside when making their judicial calls. Judge Sotomayor 
has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully 
applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
  So today, once again, the U.S. Senate is being called upon to do its 
constitutional duty and consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given 
their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the 
lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the 
most significant that we cast.
  Article II, section 2 of the Constitution simply provides that: 
``[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and 
Consent of the Senate shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court . 
. . Without specific constitutional guidance, each senator must 
determine what qualities he or she thinks a Supreme Court Justice 
should have, and what scope of inquiry is necessary to determine if the 
prospective nominee has these qualities.
  This will be the twelfth Supreme Court nomination on which I will 
have voted. Each time, I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, 
temperament and background to determine if the nominee is likely to 
bring to the court an ideology that distorts his or her legal judgment 
or brings into question his or her open-mindedness. I believe that 
Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of open-mindedness 
and judicial temperament and her decisions as a judge fell well within 
the mainstream of our jurisprudence.
  Judge Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed 
Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She 
continued to excel at Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude, 
and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a corecipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, 
the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law 
School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
  In her 30-year legal career, Judge Sotomayor has been a Federal 
circuit and trial court judge, a civil commercial litigator in private 
practice, and a State prosecutor. She served as an assistant district 
attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and later 
worked in private practice.
  Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. 
During the 102nd Congress, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge 
Sotomayor to be a district judge on the Southern District of New York. 
On August 11, 1992, the Senate confirmed her nomination.
  During the 105th Congress, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge 
Sotomayor to be a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit. On October 2, 1998, the Senate confirmed her 
nomination by a vote of 67-29.
  On May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to be 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by 
the departure of Justice David Souter. Recently, the American Bar 
Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and 
interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors and community 
representatives from across the United States; they analyzed Judge 
Sotomayor's opinions, speeches and other writings; read reports of 
reading groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas 
of the law that they reviewed; and conducted an in-depth personal 
interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee:

       The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the 
     United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that 
     the nominee must possess exceptional professional 
     qualifications. The significance, range, complexity and 
     nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will 
     confront on the Court demands no less.

  After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave 
Judge Sotomayor their highest rating, unanimously rating her ``well 
qualified.''
  Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in 
language and ideas they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a 
judge in the courtroom, and as a citizen outside of the courtroom. For 
example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's 
confirmation hearing,

       I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help 
     us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during 
     the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator 
     Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on 
     the federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals 
     judge.
       And then there's the other picture that has emerged that--
     from your speeches and your other writings.

  He further stated,

       You know, I actually agree that your judicial record 
     strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of--of judicial 
     decision making by district court judges and by court of 
     appeals judges on the federal bench. And while I think what 
     is creating this cognitive dissonance for many of us and for 
     many of my constituents who I've been hearing from is that 
     you appear to be a different person almost in your speeches 
     and in some of the comments that you've made. So I guess part 
     of what we need to do is to try to reconcile those.


[[Page 20844]]


  Assume there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the 
courtroom, and those personal views she expressed outside of the 
courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on 
the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the 
end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views 
outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial 
judiciary.
  Senator Graham pointed that out when he said,

       Her speeches, [while troubling], have to be looked at in 
     terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we 
     will find someone who has not carried out that speech.

  In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the trait she is 
accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions 
at the courthouse door. She has an extensive judicial record and we 
have had the opportunity to review that record. The Congressional 
Research Service analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and concluded:

       Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge 
     Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an 
     adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the 
     upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics 
     appear to include what many would describe as a careful 
     application of particular facts at issue in a case and a 
     dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as 
     overstepping its judicial role.

  That is the opposite of an activist jurist imposing her views despite 
the law. During her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked 
about the role of the courts numerous times. Her response makes clear 
that she adheres to the responsibilities of a judge:

       . . . look at my decisions for 17 years and note that, in 
     every one of them, I have done what I say that I so firmly 
     believe in. I prove my fidelity to the law, the fact that I 
     do not permit personal views, sympathies or prejudices to 
     influence the outcome of cases, rejecting the challenges of 
     numerous plaintiffs with undisputably sympathetic claims, but 
     ruling the way I have on the basis of law rejecting those 
     claims. . . .

  We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges regrettably 
can't lay those aside. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial 
career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  For these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor to the 
Supreme Court.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters received by the 
Judiciary Committee from the AFL-CIO and from AFSCME be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2009.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to 
     urge you to support the swift confirmation of Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor as our next Supreme Court Justice.
       Judge Sotomayor fully acknowledges the real world 
     consequences of judicial rulings, and throughout her career 
     has demonstrated her understanding of the impact of the law 
     on working families. She has also consistently interpreted 
     our labor laws in the manner in which they were intended.
       Judge Sotomayor has recognized that persecution for union 
     activity can be a basis for granting asylum in this country. 
     She has enforced the rights of workers to be free from all 
     types of discrimination, to be paid correct wages, and to 
     receive the health benefits to which they are entitled. In 
     the baseball strike of 1995, Judge Sotomayor recognized that 
     baseball owners had forced the strike by engaging in unlawful 
     conduct and she issued an injunction that saved baseball.
       Throughout her nomination hearing before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor demonstrated that she is 
     a stellar jurist with a commitment to uphold the 
     constitutional rights of all.
       Judge Sonia Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial 
     experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in the last 
     100 years. We urge the Senate to confirm her nomination to 
     the Supreme Court.
           Sincerely,

                                               William Samuel,

                                                         Director,
     Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
     Members of the Committee on Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to vote yes when the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Judge 
     Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. We believe that 
     she conducted herself with distinction during her 
     confirmation hearing and that she should be confirmed as the 
     next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
       Judge Sotomayor was impressive during her confirmation 
     hearing, demonstrating that she is well-qualified to serve on 
     the high court. Her successful appearance before the 
     Judiciary Committee is no surprise when you consider her 
     strong educational and professional background. She was 
     valedictorian of her high school class, won a scholarship to 
     Princeton and earned her law degree at Yale University where 
     she served as editor of the Yale Law Review. Judge Sotomayor 
     has served with distinction as a litigator, prosecutor, trial 
     court and U.S. appellate judge and brings more federal 
     judicial experience than any of the current members of the 
     Supreme Court and than any Justice in the last century prior 
     to their nomination to the high court.
       As an organization representing working men and women, we 
     obviously are interested in a judicial nominee's record on 
     issues impacting the lives of working families. Judge 
     Sotomayor has been consistent in her interpretation of labor 
     laws and has worked to preserve the rights of workers to 
     receive fair pay, health benefits and to be free of workplace 
     discrimination. She has proven that she is well within the 
     mainstream with her views of the Constitution.
       Judge Sotomayor's nomination marks a milestone, making her 
     the first Hispanic and the first woman of color to be 
     nominated to the high court, thereby fulfilling President 
     Obama's promise to add diversity to the Supreme Court.
       We strongly support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor 
     to the U.S. Supreme Court and urge you to vote yes to confirm 
     her.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
                                          Director of Legislation.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of 
a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Judiciary Committee has received 
several letters and statements of support from organizations dedicated 
to advancing civil and women's legal rights, including LatinoJustice 
PRLDEF, the Alliance for Justice, and the National Women's Law Center. 
I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            LatinoJustice, PRLDEF.

    Former LatinoJustice PRLDEF Board Member Judge Sonia Sotomayor 
                  Nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court

       We congratulate former board member and present Federal 
     Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor in being nominated to the 
     U.S. Supreme Court.
       The LatinoJustice PRLDEF family rejoices and congratulates 
     President Obama for making the historic decision to nominate 
     the first Latina to the Supreme Court. The president has not 
     only chosen a well-qualified and respected judge who will be 
     a great asset to the court and our nation--but with his first 
     opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, the 
     president brings the Hispanic community into the exclusive 
     chambers of the highest court in the land.
       ``Sonia is a member of our family and spent more than a 
     decade providing leadership to our organization, said Cesar 
     Perales, LatinoJustice PRLDEF President and General Counsel. 
     ``We profited firsthand from her probing mind as well as her 
     thoughtfulness beyond her extraordinary intellect. She is a 
     most practical person who found solutions to complex 
     issues.''
       Judge Sotomayor's nomination comes at a time when the 
     Hispanic community is at the heart of a number of highly 
     politicized issues and attacks on our civil liberties. 
     LatinoJustice PRLDEF recently has fought battles against 
     anti-immigration ordinances, a rash of hate crimes against 
     Latinos and attempts to police the use of Spanish.
       As the second largest and fastest growing population in 
     America, with a large pool of qualified individuals to choose 
     from, it was wholly appropriate for the president to nominate 
     a Hispanic.
       Although Judge Sotomayor has a stellar judicial record, 
     many of her supporters are expecting a fight from the right 
     and from conservatives.

[[Page 20845]]

       ``We are prepared to engage those who would unfairly 
     tarnish her reputation,'' Perales said. ``The nation needs to 
     know that LatinoJustice PRLDEF will come to her defense.''
       The Latino community will be looking to the Senate to 
     proceed with the confirmation process in a fair and timely 
     manner.
       We expect that senators from both parties should treat 
     Judge Sotomayor with the respect she deserves, examine her 
     record thoughtfully, and perform their constitutional duty 
     without undue delay or obstruction.
       LatinoJustice PRLDEF has organized a Task Force made up of 
     exemplary lawyers and academics to conduct a review of the 
     nominee's published papers and decisions.
                                  ____



                                         Alliance for Justice,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: The 
     Alliance for Justice endorses Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 
     nomination to the Supreme Court. Alliance for Justice 
     (``AFJ'') is a national association of over 80 organizations 
     dedicated to advancing justice and democracy. For 30 years we 
     have been leaders in the fight for a more equitable society 
     on behalf of a broad constituency of environmental, consumer, 
     civil and women's rights, children's, senior citizens' and 
     other groups. We believe all Americans have the right to 
     secure justice in the courts and to have our voices heard 
     when government makes decisions affecting our lives.
       Judge Sotomayor has a record of academic and professional 
     excellence, and we commend President Obama for choosing a 
     brilliant and fair-minded jurist to serve on our nation's 
     highest court. There is no question that Judge Sotomayor is 
     eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Her rise 
     from modest circumstances to become a graduate of Princeton 
     University and Yale Law School speaks well of her intellect, 
     character, and dedication. Her extensive career as a criminal 
     and commercial litigator and her seventeen years on the bench 
     as trial and appellate judge round out her sterling 
     credentials.
       Importantly, if confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will bring the 
     perspective provided by being the only sitting justice to 
     have served as a trial court judge. It will be enormously 
     valuable to the Supreme Court to have a member with an 
     understanding of the challenges that trial judges face and 
     the way in which Supreme Court rulings are likely to play out 
     on the front lines of the criminal justice system.
       We also find it enormously important that throughout her 
     career Judge Sotomayor has worked to open the legal 
     profession to women and people of color. Through her 
     involvement in community activities and as a mentor, she has 
     shared her remarkable talents and example.
       As part of AFJ's work to promote a fair and independent 
     judiciary, we conducted a thorough analysis of Judge 
     Sotomayor's judicial record, composed of the more than 700 
     opinions she has authored in a wide range of areas of law. We 
     focused on four areas of her jurisprudence--access to 
     justice; criminal law and procedure; constitutional and civil 
     rights; and business and consumer litigation--each of which 
     will be addressed in greater detail below. Judge Sotomayor is 
     a careful jurist who digs into the facts of a case and issues 
     narrow rulings. She has written frequently in her opinions 
     about the limited role of a judge, and she has approached 
     change in the law in a very restrained and incremental 
     fashion. A moderate voice who displays no signs of bias 
     toward parties of any particular background or affiliation, 
     Judge Sotomayor tends to avoid announcing new rules or 
     issuing broad statements of principle. She does not 
     consciously espouse a grand theory of interpretation or 
     judicial philosophy. Judge Sotomayor shows deference to the 
     intent of Congress and emphasizes close reading of statutory 
     texts. Above all, her opinions adhere closely to Supreme 
     Court and Second Circuit precedent, showing Judge Sotomayor's 
     deep respect for the rule of law and the importance of stare 
     decisis.
       Judge Sotomayor's rulings on legal issues such as 
     justiciability, preemption, jurisdiction-stripping, and 
     sovereign immunity exemplify her cautious, technical approach 
     to judicial review. They also demonstrate both judicial 
     restraint and a commitment to access to federal courts. 
     Taking a measured approach to questions of standing, she has 
     consistently demonstrated fidelity to examining 
     justiciability prerequisites before allowing a case to 
     proceed. Attentive to issues of mootness and ripeness, Judge 
     Sotomayor systematically works through alleged harms, 
     identifies those that create an active case or controversy, 
     and gives attention to statutory limits on injury or on the 
     class of plaintiffs authorized to seek court redress. 
     Although Judge Sotomayor has ruled on only a few preemption 
     cases, her rulings reflect the often complex interplay 
     between state and federal law, and she subjects preemption 
     claims to rigorous statutory analysis, relying on text and 
     legislative history to discern Congressional intent. Her 
     rulings on other doctrines concerning parties' access to 
     justice, such as court stripping, sovereign immunity, and 
     attorneys' fees, demonstrate awareness of the importance of 
     access to a fair and impartial judiciary.
       Judge Sotomayor's criminal law experience is lengthy and 
     varied. She spent the first five years of her career as a 
     prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, and 
     she has participated in hundreds of criminal cases during her 
     long tenure on the federal bench. Importantly, Judge 
     Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court the insights gained 
     from her years presiding over criminal proceedings as a 
     district court judge, which will make her the only sitting 
     justice who has been directly responsible for implementing 
     the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and meting out punishment. Her 
     district court record reflects a tough jurist unafraid of 
     imposing sentences at the high end of the guideline range for 
     both white collar and violent criminals. She does not, 
     however, uniformly support sentence enhancements, and she 
     vigorously opposed a district court's injection of personal 
     policy preferences into a sentencing decision.
       Judge Sotomayor's criminal justice opinions reveal the 
     temperament of a former prosecutor who understands the real-
     world demands of prosecuting crime and fundamentally respects 
     the rule of law. When reviewing the constitutional rights of 
     criminal defendants, Judge Sotomayor closely follows Second 
     Circuit precedent and dispenses narrow rulings tailored to 
     the particular facts of the case. Exhibiting a moderate and 
     restrained approach to judicial review of trial process, she 
     focuses on procedural issues, and she has resolved the 
     overwhelming majority of her cases without reaching the 
     merits of a defendant's claim. Significantly, she frequently 
     concludes that trial defects resulted in harmless rather than 
     structural error. Her restrained manner is most evident in 
     her habeas corpus decisions, in which she strictly adheres to 
     the procedural requirements of the Antiterrorism and 
     Effective Death Penalty Act (``AEDPA''), often dismissing 
     habeas petitions as unexhausted or time-barred under AEDPA, 
     even when faced with potentially credible--and, in one 
     instance, ultimately proven--claims of actual innocence. 
     While the Alliance for Justice believes that, where possible, 
     judges should reach the merits of a defendant's 
     constitutional claims and recognize the damage that a trial 
     court error inflicts on the integrity of a criminal 
     proceeding, we nonetheless respect Judge Sotomayor's moderate 
     approach and commitment to preserving the delicate balance 
     between the government's ability to prosecute crime and an 
     individual's constitutional rights.
       Judge Sotomayor takes a similarly cautious approach in 
     civil rights cases, above all taking care to strictly follow 
     precedent and limit her rulings to the facts at hand. When 
     finding that the matter before her is not squarely addressed 
     by precedent, she tends to rule narrowly, moving the law in 
     small increments rather than in bold steps. While we do not 
     always agree with her restrained interpretation of statutes 
     or the Constitution, we applaud the consistent attention she 
     has paid to matters of process, including procedural due 
     process. Her opinions insist that individuals in our justice 
     system are entitled to adequate notice, a right to be heard, 
     and representation. In particular, we appreciate that she has 
     shown particular attention to the procedural rights of 
     individuals who are less likely to be able to fend for 
     themselves. She has also emerged as a strong defender of 
     First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of 
     religion, as well as the rights of the disabled.
       Her limited record reviewing controversial constitutional 
     issues, such as those involving the Second Amendment and the 
     Takings Clause, is a model of restraint, faithfully applying 
     Supreme Court precedent. She does not depart from her 
     cautious approach when reviewing civil rights protections 
     against discrimination. Her employment discrimination 
     decisions are within the legal mainstream, and she has ruled 
     in a consistently balanced manner for both plaintiffs and 
     defendants. Contrary to the accusations by some commentators, 
     there is no evidence of racial bias in any of the hundreds of 
     decisions Judge Sotomayor has written. Rather, her 
     jurisprudence in cases involving racial discrimination claims 
     is very much like her jurisprudence in other areas of the 
     law: deliberate, measured, and strictly adherent to 
     precedent. Finally, on other hot-button issues such as 
     reproductive rights, capital punishment, and executive power, 
     her record is too slim to arrive at any meaningful 
     conclusions about her views.
       Our review of Judge Sotomayor's rulings in business and 
     consumer litigation further emphasized Judge Sotomayor's 
     dedication to careful attention to the facts of each case, 
     deference to the legislature, and adherence to legal 
     precedents. Judge Sotomayor has a wealth of experience in 
     business and consumer litigation garnered from her time spent 
     as a judge, in private practice, and through her public 
     service activities. Consequently, she will bring to the Court 
     an impressive working knowledge of commercial

[[Page 20846]]

     law, including securities, antitrust, employment, banking, 
     trademark and copyright, and product liability. An analysis 
     of Judge Sotomayor's opinions in labor cases showed that she 
     cannot be pigeonholed as pro-union, pro-employer, or pro-
     employee, although her rulings show judicial restraint and a 
     respect for the National Labor Relations Board and Congress's 
     national labor policy favoring collective bargaining.
       In sum, our examination of Judge Sotomayor's record 
     demonstrates her consistency and restraint as a jurist. 
     Importantly, her very presence on the Court may have a 
     ``Marshall effect'': justices who sat with Justice Thurgood 
     Marshall have noted that his presence in conference and on 
     the bench changed their conversations and informed their 
     decisions. As the Court's first Hispanic and only its third 
     woman, Judge Sotomayor may have a similar effect on the 
     activist justices on the Court who appear intent on weakening 
     our core constitutional, civil rights, environmental, and 
     labor protections.
       Most fundamentally, Judge Sotomayor is a highly 
     accomplished and qualified nominee who has proven herself to 
     be fair, reasonable, and committed to upholding the rule of 
     law and core constitutional values. For these reasons, 
     Alliance for Justice is proud to endorse her historic 
     nomination to the Supreme Court.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Nan Aron,
     President, Alliance for Justice.
                                  ____



                                  National Women's Law Center,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
     Re nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate 
         Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Sessions: On behalf of the 
     National Women's Law Center (the ``Center''), we write in 
     support of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an 
     Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
     Judge Sotomayor possesses sterling academic and legal 
     credentials, with a varied legal career including government 
     service as a prosecutor, private practice in complex areas of 
     commercial law, and 17 years as a federal judge, both at the 
     trial and appellate level. She is well-respected in the 
     profession and has an excellent reputation as a careful, 
     thoughtful, fair, and extremely intelligent jurist. The ABA 
     Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
     her well-qualified for the Supreme Court. She has also 
     received the endorsement of the National Association of Women 
     Lawyers, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the New 
     York City Bar Association. In addition to her exceptional 
     legal qualifications, Judge Sotomayor brings an inspiring 
     life story and a demonstrated commitment to public and 
     community service, including within the civil rights 
     community.
       As an organization dedicated to advancing and protecting 
     women's legal rights, the National Women's Law Center since 
     1972 has been involved in virtually every major effort to 
     secure and defend women's legal rights in this country. The 
     Center has reviewed Judge Sotomayor's legal record, including 
     her judicial decisions, public statements, and experiences 
     outside of her service on the bench, and her testimony before 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation 
     hearings. The Center's review of the totality of Judge 
     Sotomayor's legal record has led the Center to conclude that 
     Judge Sotomayor will bring a real-world perspective, much-
     needed diversity of experience and background, considerable 
     legal acumen, and a fair-minded approach to the Court. The 
     National Women's Law Center is proud to support Judge 
     Sotomayor, an exceptionally qualified nominee who is only the 
     third woman, the third person of color, and the first Latina 
     and woman of color, to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
       The Center's review focused, on issues of particular 
     importance to women--including prohibitions against sex 
     discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, the 
     constitutional right to privacy (which includes the right to 
     terminate a pregnancy and other aspects of women's 
     reproductive rights and health), as well as the statutory 
     provisions that protect women's legal rights in such 
     fundamental areas as education, employment, health and 
     safety, and social welfare, access to justice, and public 
     benefits. The Center's analysis is set forth in full in a 
     public report, The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on 
     Critical Legal Rights for women, available at www.org/pdf/
     Sotomayor Report.pdf, which was released on July 17, 2009.
       Judge Sotomayor's legal record demonstrates that she is a 
     careful judge who is extremely respectful of the role of the 
     judiciary, who is deferential to precedent, and who delves 
     deeply into the factual record. Judge Sotomayor's decisions 
     have been fully justifiable as a matter of law and fall well 
     within the mainstream of judicial thought. Questioned 
     extensively about her prior statements regarding the 
     influence that a judge's background and experiences have on 
     the decisionmaking process, Judge Sotomayor replied 
     consistently that she believes strongly that the even-handed 
     application of the law must always prevail. Judge Sotomayor's 
     testimony at her confirmation hearings on a variety of topics 
     and legal issues reinforced her record as a judge, 
     reiterating her commitment to precedent, her careful and 
     fact-bound approach, and her understanding of the role of the 
     judiciary.
       Judge Sotomayor's record and testimony provide confidence 
     that her judicial philosophy and approach to the law are 
     consistent with the legal rights and principles that are 
     central to women, including the constitutional right to 
     privacy and Roe v. Wade, Equal Protection, and key statutory 
     protections.
       The Center offers its strong support of Judge Sotomayor's 
     nomination to the Supreme Court, and urges the Committee to 
     approve her nomination quickly.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Duff Campbell,
       Co-President.
     Marcia D. Greenberger,
       Co-President.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as a Member of Congress, there are votes 
you cast that you remember for a lifetime. Recently, a new Senator, Al 
Franken, came to my office the day after he was sworn in, and we talked 
about his adjustment to the Senate. He talked to me about his concern 
about the first three votes he cast in the Senate, that he was pushed 
in quickly and had to make decisions and didn't have a chance to 
reflect as he would have liked to reflect on those votes. I said to him 
that I understood that, but after he has been in the Senate for a 
while--or the House for that matter--and he has cast many votes, he 
would realize that some are more important than others.
  This is an important vote. It is not the most important vote a Member 
of the Senate can cast--a vote for a nomination of the Supreme Court. I 
would argue the most important vote you can cast is whether America 
goes to war because if the decision is made in the affirmative, as it 
has been, people will die. I can't think of anything more compelling 
than that vote.
  But this ranks a close second in terms of the impact it will have. 
These are lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 
Justices on average serve 26 years, longer than most Members of 
Congress. The Supreme Court has the last word in America when it comes 
to our most significant legal issues. This High Court across the 
street, comprised of nine men and women, defines our personal rights as 
Americans to privacy and the restrictions the government can place on 
the most personal aspect of our lives and our freedom. It doesn't get 
any more basic than that.
  The Supreme Court decides the rights of workers, consumers, 
immigrants, and victims of discrimination. The nine Justices decide 
whether Congress has the authority to pass laws to protect our civil 
rights and our environment. They decide what checks will govern the 
executive branch--the President--in time of war.
  In critical moments in American history, the Supreme Court has 
succeeded and failed our Nation. In the Dred Scott decision in the 
1850s, the Supreme Court perpetuated slavery and led us to a civil war. 
In Brown v. Board of Education, in the 1950s, that court brought an end 
to the legal blessing on discrimination based on race. Because these 
issues were so important, and tomorrow's issues may be as well, we make 
our choices for the Supreme Court with great care. We obviously need 
Justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, the proper judicial 
temperament, and a commitment to impartial and objective justice. More 
than that, we need Supreme Court Justices who understand our world and 
the impact their decisions will have on everyday people. We need 
Justices whose wisdom comes from life, not just from law books.
  Sadly, this important quality seems to be in short supply these days. 
The Supreme Court has issued decision after decision in recent years 
that represent a triumph of ideology over common sense. The case of 
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is the best example of this 
troubling trend of the Court. In that case, the Supreme Court dismissed 
a claim of

[[Page 20847]]

pay discrimination simply because the claim was filed more than 180 
days after the initial discriminatory paycheck. But most employees in 
most businesses in America have no idea how much the person next to 
them is being paid, so it is often impossible to know you are a victim 
of pay discrimination until long after the fact, long after 180 days. 
The Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision defied common sense, the 
realities of the workplace, and a long record of earlier 
decisions.year-old girl was strip-searched at her school based on a 
false rumor that she was hiding ibuprofen pills. At the oral argument 
before the Court in April, several Supreme Court Justices asked 
questions about the case that revealed a stunning lack of concern for 
the eighth grade victim. One of the Justices even suggested that being 
strip-searched was no different than changing clothes for gym class. 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped her eight male colleagues understand 
why the strip search of a 13-year-old girl was humiliating enough to 
violate her constitutional rights. The majority of the Justices, 
nevertheless, ruled that school officials were immune from liability.
  These and other decisions demonstrate that the Supreme Court needs to 
understand the real world and the impact its decisions have on real 
people. I believe Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be such a Justice.
  One of my favorite memories of Judge Sotomayor's hearing was watching 
her mother's face glow with pride as Judge Sotomayor talked about the 
history of her family. She spoke about growing up in public housing, 
losing her father when she was 9 years old, and struggling to succeed 
against adversity, illness, and the odds. She talked about what a great 
impact her mom had on her life, and that her mom taught her what a 
friend was worth. She talked about earning scholarships to Princeton 
University and Yale Law School, serving as a prosecutor and a corporate 
litigator, and then being selected by President George H.W. Bush to 
serve the Federal judiciary and being promoted to a higher judicial 
office by President Bill Clinton.
  It is a rare occurrence for a Federal judge to receive appointments 
by Presidents of different political parties. Sonia Sotomayor received 
those and that reflects so well on her skill as a judge.
  Judge Sotomayor has served for more years as a Federal judge than any 
other Supreme Court nominee in a century and, if confirmed, she will be 
the only Justice on the current Supreme Court with actual experience on 
the district court and the trial court, the front line of our judicial 
system.
  For many who oppose Sonia Sotomayor, her life achievements and her 
judicial record aren't good enough. They have gone through 3,000 
different court decisions that this woman has written or been part of. 
They have scoured through hundreds of speeches she has given. If you 
watched the hearing, they focused primarily on one case and one 
sentence in one speech.
  At Judge Sotomayor's hearing, Republican Senators mentioned the words 
``wise Latina woman''--that one line in one speech--17 different times. 
Senator after Senator asked her, ``What did you really, really mean 
with those three words?''
  Those of us who are Senators live in a world of daily decisions, 
speeches, and votes. If we vote in a way that is controversial, we ask 
the people to be fair and judge us on our life's work, not on a single 
vote. It is a standard we ask for ourselves. But for some Senators, it 
is not a standard they would give Judge Sotomayor when it comes to her 
decisions and life in public office.
  Members of Congress also live in a world of revised and extended 
remarks. We live in a world of jokes that aren't that funny, and verbal 
gaffes. Many want to condemn Judge Sotomayor for her ``wise Latina'' 
remark that she herself conceded was ``a rhetorical flourish that fell 
flat.'' I think some of her critics in the Senate are applying a double 
standard here.
  I pointed out at the hearing that those who read the ``wise Latina'' 
sentence should have kept reading, because a little further in that 
same speech, the judge noted that it was nine white male Justices on 
the Supreme Court who unanimously handed down the Brown v. Board of 
Education decision, and other cases involving race and sex 
discrimination.
  Judge Sotomayor made it clear at her hearing that she believes no 
single race or gender has a monopoly on good judgment. But her 
statements are not good enough for some of my colleagues. I hope that 
Senators would be wise enough themselves to look at her long record on 
the bench and not one line in one speech.
  Let's be honest. A great deal of concern about her nomination has to 
do with the issue of diversity. Why do we even seek diversity when it 
comes to appointments to the Federal judiciary? First, it is because we 
live in a diverse nation. We want every American to believe they have 
an equal opportunity to succeed. We want every American, Black, White, 
brown, male and female to know that our system of government is fair. 
We want all Americans to look at our Congress and our courts and feel 
there are leaders who can identify with the diversity of life 
experience in this great diverse Nation.
  Second, diversity on the Federal bench is important because different 
life experiences can lead to different perspectives.
  Does anybody believe there is a clear, objective answer to every case 
that comes before the Supreme Court? If they do, please explain to me 
why one-third of all rulings in that Court in the last term were 
decided by a 5-to-4 vote.
  Does anybody believe the Supreme Court's recent strip search case 
would have come out the same way if Justice Ginsburg, the only woman on 
the Supreme Court at this moment, had not helped her eight male 
colleagues to reflect on what it was like for a 13-year-old girl to be 
treated in such a humiliating fashion at her school?
  Does anybody believe that women judges have not helped their male 
colleagues understand the realities of sex discrimination and sexual 
harassment in the workplace? Study after study has shown that men and 
women on the bench sometimes rule differently in discrimination cases. 
That is why diversity is so important.
  This doesn't mean their rulings are based on personal bias. It simply 
means that Americans see the world through the prism of various 
experiences and perspectives. Our Supreme Court Justices should possess 
an equally rich and wide field of vision as they interpret the facts 
and the law. Criticizing Judge Sotomayor for recognizing this reality 
is unfair.
  The criticism of Judge Sotomayor for her position in the Ricci case, 
which involved the firefighters in Connecticut, is also unfair. Judge 
Sotomayor's position in that case followed past judicial precedents. At 
her nomination hearing, she offered clear explanations about the law as 
she saw it when she reached her conclusion, and about how her decision 
was fully consistent with the way the law has historically dealt with 
competing claims of discrimination.
  Her position in the Ricci case was supported by a majority of the 
members of her appellate court, a unanimous three-judge panel of her 
court, the district court, and by four of the nine members of the 
Supreme Court. Hers was not a radical, unreasonable position. I think 
we know that. When my colleague Senator Specter asked the firefighters 
themselves if they believed that Judge Sotomayor's ruling in the case 
was made in good faith, they said they had no reason to believe 
otherwise. Nor do I.
  To those who say Judge Sotomayor wouldn't have an open mind in race 
discrimination cases, look at her 17 years on the bench. Based on an 
independent study by Supreme Court scholar Thomas Goldstein, after 
looking at all 96 of her race discrimination cases, he found that she 
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs less than 10 percent of the time. 
There is no bias in her decisionmaking. The facts don't support that 
conclusion.
  There are two other issues I will address--foreign law and the second 
amendment. These issues are near and dear to the rightwing conservative 
base.

[[Page 20848]]

  With respect to foreign law, Judge Sotomayor stated repeatedly over 
and over, in question after question, that American courts should not 
rely on decisions of foreign courts as controlling precedent. But she 
said that in limited circumstances, decisions of foreign courts can be 
a source of ideas, akin to law review articles or legal treatises.
  She is hardly alone in her thinking on this. Justice Ginsburg took 
the same position and observed: ``I will take enlightenment wherever I 
can get it.''
  This commonsense approach has been embraced by two conservative 
Supreme Court Justices appointed by President Reagan: William Rehnquist 
and Anthony Kennedy.
  Indeed, we cannot expect the rest of the world to adopt the 
democratic principles and fundamental freedoms we promote as a Nation, 
while at the same time saying we will never consider ideas developed in 
other countries. This is plain common sense.
  It is sad that some of my colleagues are in the thrall of small-
minded xenophobes and don't appreciate that the march of democracy has 
reached many corners of the world and generated thoughtful reflection 
on our most basic values.
  On the issue of the second amendment, I was sorry to see a major 
lobby group in Washington, DC, the National Rifle Association, not only 
announce their opposition to Judge Sotomayor but also notify its 
members and colleagues that this vote is going to be scored against 
them on the annual legislative scorecard. This is the first time in its 
history that the NRA has taken a position on a Supreme Court Justice.
  Every citizen is entitled to his opinion, but it is unfortunate that 
the decision of this historic gravity has become a bargaining chip for 
lobbyists in Washington, and contributions in the next political 
campaign. What is worse, Judge Sotomayor has a record of honest 
reflection on the second amendment.
  Most of the gun-related criticism of Judge Sotomayor is focused on 
the Maloney case. But in that case, she came to the exact same 
conclusion as a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit, based in Illinois. That three-judge panel was not a 
gathering of liberals. It featured three Republican appointees and two 
of the most conservative icons on the Federal bench, Judge Frank 
Easterbrook and Judge Richard Posner.
  They concluded that only the Supreme Court, not appellate courts, 
could overrule century-old Supreme Court precedents on whether the 
second amendment right to bear arms applies to the States.
  I realize the NRA and their Senate allies don't like that ruling. 
They wanted Judge Sotomayor to do what the Ninth Circuit did and 
overrule Supreme Court precedent. But in the Maloney case, Judge 
Sotomayor did what an appellate court should do, and she followed the 
law.
  I am pleased that not every conservative group joined the NRA's line 
of fire. I will mention some organizations and individuals who don't 
typically show up at Democratic party rallies but who support the 
judge: Kenneth Starr, a man who led the impeachment of President 
Clinton; Charles Fried, a conservative Republican who served as 
Solicitor General during the Reagan administration, also supports her 
confirmation, as do conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and 
David Brooks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed her. In 
Illinois, the conservative Chicago Tribune said:

       In four days of testimony under often intense questioning, 
     [Judge Sotomayor] handled herself with grace and patience, 
     displaying a thorough knowledge of case law and an 
     appreciation of her critics' concerns. The result was to 
     reinforce a strong case that she will make a good Supreme 
     Court justice and deserves Senate approval.

  I want to acknowledge that, as of this moment, eight Republican 
Senators have stepped forward and announced they are going to support 
Judge Sotomayor. I am heartened by their courage and their support of 
this fine judge.
  The last issue I would like to address is that word ``empathy.'' 
Judge Sotomayor's critics have twisted and tortured this word in an 
effort to discredit her and raise doubts about her objectivity. Empathy 
is simply the ability to see another person's point of view. It is the 
ability to put yourself in their shoes. That is it. It doesn't mean 
exercising bias or favoring a particular side. The judge's critics are 
wrong to conflate these concepts.
  I believe, and President Obama believes, that Judge Sotomayor's life 
experience--from her days growing up in public housing, to her service 
as a high-powered lawyer representing large corporations--will give her 
a unique ability to understand the interests of all the parties that 
come before her for decisions of the Supreme Court. It gives her an 
ability to understand different perspectives and points of view. That 
is what empathy is all about.
  Judge Sotomayor had demonstrated this quality in 17 years on the 
bench. It explains why she enjoys such a reputation for fairness and 
thoughtfulness.
  In the 220-year history of the United States, 110 Supreme Court 
Justices have served under our Constitution, and 106 of them have been 
white males. We have had two women Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Two of them have been African Americans, Thurgood 
Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
  In life, and in our Nation, if you want to be first, you have to be 
the best. Sonia Sotomayor's resume and inspirational background clearly 
meet that higher standard. What a great story it is for America that 
President Obama has given us a chance to consider Sonia Sotomayor to 
serve as the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court.
  Judge Sotomayor should not be chosen to serve on the Court because of 
her Hispanic heritage. But those who oppose her for fear of her unique 
life experience do no justice to her or our Nation. Their names will be 
listed in our Nation's annals of elected officials one step behind 
America's historic march forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support and vote yes on the nomination of 
Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
United States.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am proud to support the confirmation 
of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  Judge Sotomayor's story is proof of the central American promise: 
that any person, by sheer force of their talent, can rise from the 
humblest background to one of the highest offices in this country. Born 
to a Puerto Rican family, Judge Sotomayor grew up in public housing in 
the South Bronx. Her father, a tool-and-die worker with a third grade 
education, died when she was nine years old. Due to her mother's 
struggle and sacrifice, and Judge Sotomayor's tremendous ability and 
perseverance, she graduated valedictorian of her high school in New 
York, then graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University.
  She went on to earn her law degree from Yale Law School, where she 
was editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school, Judge Sotomayor 
served as an assistant district attorney in New York County for 5 years 
and then entered private practice as a corporate litigator. For the 
past 17 years, she has served as a Federal district and appellate court 
judge.
  Given her experiences and career, there is no doubt that Judge 
Sotomayor is immensely qualified to serve on our Nation's highest 
Court. What is clear from her 17-year judicial career, from my meeting 
with her, and from her confirmation hearing is that she is an unbiased, 
mainstream judge with a deep commitment to the rule of law and 
constitutional values. She has an exemplary record during her tenure on 
the bench, and every independent analysis has made clear that she is a 
judge who faithfully applies the law.
  Given her record, I am saddened that many Republicans have chosen to 
grossly distort her record, and have spent so much time focusing on a 
few out-of-context quotes and less than a handful of decisions. Putting 
rhetoric aside, she has participated in nearly 3,000 decisions and 
authored approximately 400 opinions. Her 17-year record

[[Page 20849]]

overwhelmingly demonstrates that she is anything but a ``judicial 
activist.''
  Considering her outstanding intellect, credentials and judicial 
record, there simply is no doubt Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed. 
However, for me, there is another, equally important, consideration. I 
also firmly believe that Judge Sotomayor will be an important and 
needed voice on the Court to ensure proper effect is given to our most 
important statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 
the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination Employment Act, ADEA, 
so all Americans receive the fullest protections of the law.
  This is illustrated in an area of the law that I care deeply about--
disabilities rights. Unfortunately, as many in Congress know, the 
Rehnquist Court repeatedly misread the ADA, ignored the intent of 
Congress and narrowed the scope of individuals deemed eligible for 
protection under the ADA. The result of these decisions was to 
eliminate protection for countless thousands of Americans with 
disabilities. These flawed, harmful decisions were reversed last year 
when Congress unanimously enacted the ADA Amendments Act.
  The contrast between the Rehnquist Court and Judge Sotomayor is 
stark. In Bartlett v. New York State Board of Bar Examiners, Marilyn 
Bartlett had a Ph.D. in educational administration and a law degree 
from Vermont Law School. She was also diagnosed with a disability that 
affected her reading speed and fluency. After completing law school, 
Ms. Bartlett worked as an associate and received excellent reviews. 
However, when she took the bar exam, she was denied accommodation for 
her reading impairment, such as extra time and permission to record her 
essays on tape. She failed the exam. The bar claimed that she did not 
have a disability because the examiners did not believe she was limited 
in the major life activities of reading or working.
  Judge Sotomayor, however, ruled for Ms. Bartlett, holding that a 
student with learning disabilities was entitled to an accommodation 
while taking the bar exam. Understanding the true purposes of the ADA, 
she noted:

       For those of us for whom words sing, sentences paint 
     pictures, and paragraphs create panoramic views of the world, 
     the inability to identify and process words with ease would 
     be crippling. Plaintiff, an obviously intelligent, highly 
     articulate individual reads slowly, haltingly, and 
     laboriously. She simply does not read in the manner of an 
     average person. I reject the basic premise of defendants' 
     experts that a learning disability in reading can be 
     identified solely by a person's inability to decode, i.e., 
     identify words, as measured by standardized tests, and I 
     accept instead the basic premise of plaintiff's experts that 
     a learning disability in reading has to be identified in the 
     context of an individual's total processing difficulties.

  As the Congressional Research Service noted, ``She anticipated the 
legislative discussions surrounding the ADA Amendments Act by finding 
the use of self accommodations did not mean that the plaintiff was not 
an individual with a disability.''
  The contrast between Judge Sotomayor's approach to judging--with her 
respect for congressional intent and for long-standing precedent--and 
the current Court's activism is likewise illustrated by their 
respective treatment of so called ``mixed motive'' discrimination 
cases.
  In June of this year, the Supreme Court decided Gross v. FBL 
Financial, Inc. In a case involving an Iowan, Jack Gross, the Court 
made it harder for those with legitimate age discrimination claims to 
prevail under the ADEA. In doing so, it reversed a well established, 
20-year-old standard, consistent with that under title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act, that a plaintiff need only show that membership in a 
protected class was a ``motivating factor'' in an employer's action. 
Instead, the Court held that a plaintiff alleging age discrimination 
must prove that an employment action would not have been taken against 
him or her ``but for'' age. In other words, the plaintiff must now 
prove that age discrimination was not a cause or a motivating factor, 
but must prove that it was the exclusive cause of an adverse employment 
action. Proving ``but for'' cause is extremely difficult and will 
greatly limit potentially meritorious suits involving discrimination 
Congress sought to prevent.
  In doing so, the Court did not even address the question it granted 
certiorari on. As Justice Stevens noted in dissent, ``I disagree not 
only with the Court's interpretation of the statute, but also with its 
decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking. The Court is unconcerned 
that the question it chooses to answer has not been briefed by the 
parties or uninterested amici curie. Its failure to consider the views 
of the United States, which represents the agency charged with 
administering the [Age Discrimination Employment Act], is especially 
irresponsible.''
  The contrast with Judge Sotomayor is telling. In Parker v. Columbia 
Pictures, she addressed the very same question in the disabilities 
context--whether a plaintiff need show discrimination was a 
``motivating factor'' or ``but-for'' cause under the ADA. In contrast 
to Justice Thomas's opinion in Gross, she carefully analyzed the 
statutory language, intent of Congress and precedents and noted that 
``Congress intended the statute . . . to cover situations in which 
discrimination on the basis of disability is one factor, but not the 
only factor, motivating an adverse employment action.''
  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has transformed the legal landscape 
regarding the ability of Congress to protect our most vulnerable 
citizens. In fact, since 1995, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have 
struck down 38 acts of Congress. Until then, the Court had struck down 
an average of one statute every 2 years.
  For example, in University of Alabama v. Garrett, a case I personally 
attended, the Court limited the rights of people with disabilities. In 
doing so, it ignored numerous congressional hearings and a task force 
which collected evidence through 63 public forums around the country 
attended by more than 7,000 persons. In United States v. Morrison and 
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Court completely ignored 
extensive congressional fact-finding and struck down parts of the 
Violence Against Women's Act and Age Discrimination Employment Act, 
respectively. In June, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District 
v. Holder, the Court suggested it was poised to strike down the Voting 
Rights Act, disregarding expansive congressional fact-finding, 
including 21 hearings and 16,000 pages of testimony.
  Given the current Court's repeated disregard for Congress and for our 
efforts to expansively protect American citizens from discrimination, I 
believe it is imperative that the next Justice be someone who respects 
precedent, strives to apply congressional intent and purpose, and 
understands the importance of this Nation's landmark civil rights 
protections. Based on her long judicial record, I am confident Judge 
Sotomayor is precisely that type of jurist.
  Confirmation of Judge Sotomayor will be historic. She clearly has the 
intellect, experience and judgment to be an outstanding Justice. I am 
proud to support her nomination.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  The role of the Senate in the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice 
is to give its advice and consent on the President's nomination. I 
believe it has been the longstanding tradition of this body that we are 
to judge whether an individual is qualified to serve based on the 
complete record of each nominee.
  Once again, I compliment Senators Sessions and Leahy for the 
excellent job they have done in handling the confirmation hearings for 
Judge Sotomayor. The hearings were fair and enabled the American people 
to get a better understanding of what sort of Justice Judge Sotomayor 
will be. Equally important, these hearings were conducted with 
civility, allowing Senators to disagree without being disagreeable. 
This is something I would like to see more of in the Senate. Sadly, as 
some of my colleagues have

[[Page 20850]]

pointed out, the judicial nomination process has become so partisan 
that it seems to bring out the worst in the Senate, when it ought to 
bring out the best.
  I believe the factors to be examined in determining whether a Supreme 
Court nominee is qualified include her education, prior legal and 
judicial experience, judicial temperament, and commitment to the rule 
of law. Based on my review of her record, and using these factors, I 
have determined that Judge Sotomayor meets the criteria to become a 
Justice of the Supreme Court. I didn't come to this determination 
lightly, and Judge Sotomayor has made statements that give me pause. 
However, after reviewing her judicial record and the comments made 
during the Judiciary Committee hearings, on balance, I believe she is 
fit to serve on our Nation's highest Court.
  I am comforted by Judge Sotomayor's express rejection of then-Senator 
Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions ``the 
critical ingredient is supplied by what's in the judge's heart and the 
depth and breadth of one's empathy.'' In answer to a question from 
Senator Kyl, Judge Sotomayor said:

       I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is 
     judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't 
     determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a 
     judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that 
     compels conclusions in cases, it's the law. The judge applies 
     the law to the facts before that judge.

  In addition to being fit for the bench, the story of Judge Sotomayor 
is the story of so many Americans who rose from humble beginnings to 
reach levels of achievement that would not be possible in any other 
nation.
  It is sort of the story that reminds me of what is so unique and 
special about our Nation, that a young working-class Latina woman or 
the son of a first-generation Eastern European immigrant family can be 
nominated to the Supreme Court or be elected to serve his home State in 
this great Chamber.
  During our private meeting, Judge Sotomayor and I were able to 
discuss this opportunity. What struck me is she is someone who 
understands what a great opportunity this is, as well as the great 
challenges that await her. While the Founding Fathers may have a 
disagreement with her on some of her legal views, I think they would be 
proud that judging individuals on their merit has endured as part of 
this great experiment.
  As a number of my colleagues have already noted, Judge Sotomayor, 
through hard work, has risen from humble beginnings to now await 
confirmation to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor excelled throughout 
her academic career. From the time at Blessed Sacrament School and 
Cardinal Spellman High School, where she was the valedictorian of her 
class, she has excelled in highly competitive environments. Like 
Justice Alito, she is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law 
School. Judge Sotomayor attended Princeton on scholarship and graduated 
not only summa cum laude but also was the recipient of the prestigious 
Pyne Prize from that university. Judge Sotomayor went on to Yale Law 
School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Her 
academic record should serve as an inspiration to all that in a 
meritocracy, we all have an equal opportunity to rise to the top.
  After her stellar academic career, Judge Sotomayor entered public 
service as a district attorney in New York, where her drive and basic 
fairness were well noted. This commitment to public service impressed 
me.
  Judge Sotomayor not only succeeded in the public sector, she also 
worked her way up from associate to partner, practicing corporate law 
at a New York law firm. In private practice, Judge Sotomayor 
specialized in intellectual property and copyright law. Her rise from 
associate to partner in such a specialized field is a clear indication 
that the private sector recognized her merit and rewarded her for her 
skill and ability.
  Judge Sotomayor returned to public service with her appointment to 
the district court, where she served for 6 years. I believe Judge 
Sotomayor's experience on the district court will be invaluable to the 
Supreme Court, where none of her colleagues have experience as a judge 
in a trial court. I hope her experience there will help shape her 
future opinions, particularly in procedural cases where many 
commentators have noted a need for rules that work in practice, not 
just in theory.
  Judge Sotomayor's time on the trial bench was marked by opinions that 
set forth the facts and applied the law narrowly. Did you hear that? 
Her time on the trial bench was marked by opinions that set forth the 
facts and applied the law narrowly--exactly what one would want from a 
trial court.
  In addition to district court experience, Judge Sotomayor has 
appellate court experience, over 10 years on the Second Circuit. I 
reviewed many of her opinions from her time on the Second Circuit, and 
while many were not opinions I would have offered, her opinions, as 
well, were within the legal mainstream. Judge Sotomayor's opinions, for 
the most part, were lengthy, workman-like, limited rulings, the sort of 
opinions that exhibit the judicial restraint one would hope for a 
Supreme Court Justice.
  Given her academic and professional achievements, it is not 
surprising that the American Bar Association has given the judge its 
highest ratings when considering her for the Supreme Court.
  While impressive in what she has overcome to reach this point in her 
career, her record is not without blemish. In particular, the one 
comment that gave me significant pause as to whether I would support 
her nomination is the now well-known statement by the judge that ``a 
wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often 
than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived 
that life.'' Such a statement is repugnant to someone like me who has 
worked so hard to reach a colorblind society where an individual's race 
or gender is not considered in judging a person's merit. The question I 
had to ask myself was, Is this comment an indication that Judge 
Sotomayor would reject the rule of law and blind justice to favor 
certain people on the basis of inappropriate criteria? After study of 
her judicial record, I have concluded it is not. Based on my review, 
Judge Sotomayor's decisions, while not always decisions I would render, 
are not outside the legal mainstream and do not indicate an obvious 
desire to legislate from the bench. Furthermore, Judge Sotomayor 
recognized during her nomination hearings that this ``could be 
hurtful'' and was not reflective of how she would judge cases. Through 
my review and my staff's review of her cases, her testimony, and my 
conversations with the judge, I have confidence that the parties who 
appear before her will encounter a judge who is committed to 
recognizing and suppressing any personal bias she may have to reach a 
decision that is dictated by the rule of law and precedent.
  I think I would be remiss in my discussion of the judge if I failed 
to address the Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. 
By now, all my colleagues and many Americans are aware that the Supreme 
Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision in the Ricci case. The 
case involved a reverse-discrimination suit against the city of New 
Haven, CT.
  Some opponents of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation have used this 
opinion to suggest that her legal philosophy is outside the mainstream 
of American jurisprudence and that her nomination should be rejected. I 
believe a review of the close decisions rendered by the various Federal 
courts, including the Second Circuit's 7-to-6 decision to refuse to 
rehear the case and the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision to reverse the 
Second Circuit, suggests this matter was, for a number of the judges 
who reviewed the case, a close call. In other words, it was very close. 
For one to say she is outside the mainstream when these decisions were 
so close I think is really stretching things quite a bit. Nevertheless, 
I believe Judge Sotomayor and her fellow panel judges would have better 
served the public by issuing a more comprehensive decision regarding 
their logic in

[[Page 20851]]

affirming the district court's decision in favor of the city of New 
Haven.
  In closing, I wish to make a few remarks about the judicial 
confirmation process.
  Judge Sotomayor is the third nominee to the Supreme Court to come 
before the Senate since I came to the Senate in 1999. For both Justice 
Roberts and Justice Alito, then-Senator Obama promoted an ``empathy 
standard'' to determine if he would vote for these nominees. Then-
Senator Obama said:

       The critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the 
     judge's heart.

  Such an analysis is no analysis at all. In fact, it flies in the face 
of the meritocracy in which Judge Sotomayor succeeded. All of us in 
this Chamber can examine the academic credentials of and prior judicial 
decisions authored by a nominee and determine whether he or she is 
qualified. We cannot examine and judge what is in the heart.
  Let me be clear. If I applied Senator Obama's standard, I would not 
be voting for Judge Sotomayor, his nominee. The President was wrong. I 
think his standard makes the whole nomination process an exercise in 
partisan politics. We need less politics in the judicial selection 
process and the judiciary in general, not more. It has become too 
politicized in the last several years. It is something about which all 
of us should be concerned.
  I urge all my colleagues to reject the Obama empathy standard--just 
as Judge Sotomayor rejected it, just as I am rejecting it--and return 
to a standard where it is the qualifications of the nominee we judge, 
not the politics or heart of that nominee.
  Judge Sotomayor is not the nominee I would have selected if I were 
President, but making a nomination is not my role today. My role is to 
examine her qualifications to determine if she is fit to serve. Again, 
in reviewing her academic and professional record, taking into account 
her temperament and integrity, it is clear to me she is qualified to 
serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Will the Senator withhold the 
request for a quorum call?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to jump to the 
Democratic side for 5 minutes, if that is possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I thank my Republican colleague.
  I begin by congratulating my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, 
for the distinguished manner in which he has led these hearings.
  I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. As an assistant district 
attorney, a Federal district judge for the Southern District of New 
York, and a Federal circuit court judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated her eminent 
qualifications, impartial jurisprudence, and a faithful interpretation 
of the U.S. Constitution, and this body has every reason to vote today 
in support of her nomination.
  It is no secret that over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has 
become a very conservative institution. We are long past the days when 
the Court respected and dutifully applied the full implications of the 
Bill of Rights and vigorously protected the freedoms provided us by the 
Founders of our country and the Framers of the Constitution. Recently, 
this rightwing drift has become worse, not better. The present Court 
has routinely favored corporate interests over the needs of working 
people and the interests of the wealthy and powerful against those of 
ordinary citizens.
  My hope is that Judge Sotomayor will help bring balance to a Supreme 
Court that today is way out of balance and has moved very far to the 
right.
  The Court recently gutted a key provision of the McCain-Feingold 
campaign finance law, allowing well-financed corporations to manipulate 
the legislative process under the guise of free speech--as if the Bill 
of Rights were written to grant giant corporations the same level of 
constitutional protection that it does flesh-and-blood American 
citizens. That is wrong, and that is unfortunate.
  The Supreme Court recently made it easier for employers to avoid 
valid pay discrimination claims by their employees on procedural 
technicalities, a decision Congress had to rectify. And just this past 
term, the Court scaled back environmental protections, holding that the 
Clean Water Act permits a mining company to pump hundreds of thousands 
of gallons of toxic wastewater per day into an Alaskan lake.
  I sincerely hope and I have every confidence that Judge Sotomayor's 
nomination to the Supreme Court will help curb this corporatist trend 
and put the Court back on the path of respecting the rights of 
individual Americans and the environmental and other laws passed by 
Congress. For that reason, I intend to vote for Judge Sotomayor as 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a Justice on the Supreme 
Court of the United States. She will be the most experienced jurist to 
be placed on the Supreme Court in a century, and she will be the first 
Latina Justice in our Nation's history.
  With her extensive career in public service and her lifelong 
commitment to equal justice, Judge Sotomayor will bring a remarkable 
perspective to the Court. Given her extraordinary and far-ranging 
experience, she has already distinguished herself as one of the most 
able and hardworking Federal judges in the Nation, and I am confident 
that she will bring the same high ability and dedication to all issues 
before the Supreme Court.
  Judge Sotomayor has already spent 17 years as a Federal judge. She 
was first nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of New York in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Six years 
later, she was nominated by President Clinton to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit. She received bipartisan support in the 
Senate each time, and it is a special privilege for me to support her 
for the third time.
  Judge Sotomayor has a deep understanding of our legal system as a 
result of the experience she has had as an attorney and a judge. She 
has more judicial experience at both the appellate and district court 
level than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years. In addition, 
in her earlier legal career, she served as an assistant district 
attorney in New York City and worked as a civil litigator in private 
practice. Her experience in the criminal and civil systems and as a 
district judge and an appellate court judge give her a unique 
perspective that will be invaluable as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
  During her years as a Federal judge, she has participated in over 
3,000 decisions, including over 400 Second Circuit decisions by panels 
that included at least one judge appointed by a Republican President. 
In those cases, she has agreed with the result favored by the 
Republican appointee over 95 percent of the time. Some have sought to 
portray Judge Sotomayor as a judicial activist, but her record clearly 
shows that she is a mainstream jurist who does not let personal 
ideology dictate the outcome of the cases she is deciding.
  Not only is Judge Sotomayor eminently qualified by her experience to 
serve on the Supreme Court, but her nomination is historic. I, like 
many Americans, welcome the insight and perspective that Judge 
Sotomayor will bring to the Court, and she will serve as a role model 
for millions of our people.
  Judge Sotomayor's compelling life story is an impressive example of 
the best of our country. She was born in the Bronx and raised in New 
York City by hardworking parents. Through the strong support of her 
family and her own hard work and dedication and extraordinary 
achievement, she has been

[[Page 20852]]

nominated to be the Nation's 111th Supreme Court Justice.
  I commend President Obama for selecting her. With her intelligence, 
insight, and experience, she is an excellent choice to serve in this 
distinguished role, and I am sure she will do an outstanding job 
protecting the rule of law and the fundamental rights and liberties of 
all Americans. Judge Sotomayor has worked hard to achieve success, and 
I commend her for her life's accomplishments. I wish her well in this 
new role, and I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation.
  On the day soon to come, when she walks up the steps of the Supreme 
Court and passes under those famous and inspiring words, ``Equal 
Justice Under Law,'' inscribed in the marble over the entrance, 
millions of our fellow citizens and communities across the Nation will 
be able to say, ``Yes, the American dream is alive and well in America 
today.''
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Judge 
Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the highest court in the land is 
historic in several respects. Clearly, becoming the first Hispanic to 
serve on the U.S. Supreme Court is an important milestone. Our country 
is well served when these barriers fall and we are able to put forward 
qualified candidates who reflect the diversity of our citizenry.
  But what also makes Judge Sotomayor's nomination so significant is 
the extent of her judicial experience and her overall qualifications.
  Judge Sotomayor has more Federal judicial experience than any jurist 
nominated to the Court in the last 100 years, and has more overall 
judicial experience than any nominee in the last 70 years. She is the 
first Supreme Court nominee to have sat on both a Federal trial court 
and an appellate court, and would be the only current justice with 
trial court experience. Altogether, she has been a Federal judge for 
over 17 years, including 6 years on the U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of New York and 11 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit. In addition to serving on the bench, Judge 
Sotomayor has a distinguished record as a prosecutor and an attorney in 
private practice.
  Considering the depth of Judge Sotomayor's experience, it is not 
surprising that after a thorough review of her record the American Bar 
Association unanimously gave her their highest rating. The ABA found 
that she was ``well qualified'' to serve as a justice based on her 
integrity, competence, and judicial temperament. Judge Sotomayor's 
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee also demonstrated her 
adherence to mainstream jurisprudence and commitment to objectively 
making decisions based on the facts of each case and the applicable 
legal precedent.
  I strongly believe Judge Sotomayor has the qualifications, 
experience, and impartiality necessary to be an excellent justice of 
the Supreme Court, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, we have heard a number of discussions 
from Senators throughout this confirmation process regarding judicial 
activism--what is it and what does it mean. I think our former 
Judiciary Committee chairman and great legal constitutional scholar, 
Orrin Hatch, has defined it clearly and fairly and in the right way. 
Orrin Hatch has said for years that judicial activism is when a judge 
is assigned a case and they allow their personal, political, moral, 
religious or ideological views to influence their decision, and not 
render a verdict based on the law and the facts. It is true of a 
conservative jurist with a conservative ideology as well as a liberal.
  In truth, in recent years, we have had a pretty frequent national 
debate--for maybe 20 or more years--over this question. The 
intellectual defense of activism--the living constitutional view of 
activism--has come from the liberal side. Conservatives have said: No, 
that is not the role of a judge. A judge is supposed to decide the 
discrete issue before them in a way that handles that case because it 
may well provide precedent in the future. And that is what they should 
do and not be expansive in their rulings and set policy or to promote 
some long-term agenda they believe--rightly or wrongly--may be the 
greatest thing the country could ever do. They weren't elected to set 
policy. Judges aren't elected to declare to the United States how we 
ought to tax or regulate the environment or that kind of thing. That is 
what the legislative branch gets to do.
  So I wished to raise that and discuss it a little further. It has 
also been mischaracterized that conservative jurists who show restraint 
are activists--they are not, but they have been accused of activism--
because they have actually seen fit to throw out and find 
unconstitutional a statute passed by Congress. Well, we passed an 800-
page stimulus package, we passed a bailout bill last fall that nobody 
even got to read or to study. I am surprised there are not more pieces 
of legislation held unconstitutional than there are.
  It is not activism for a judge, such as Chief Justice Roberts--who 
has been accused of being an activist--to declare a statute 
unconstitutional. What would be wrong is if he were doing so to promote 
his own personal views about policy. That would be wrong.
  The second amendment to the Constitution says that ``a well-regulated 
militia being essential for the security of a free State, the right of 
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' That is what 
the second amendment says. It is in the Constitution. It is one of the 
Bill of Rights. Essentially, when the city of Washington, DC--a Federal 
enclave, a district--saw fit to almost completely ban the right of 
citizens in this city to have guns, Chief Justice Roberts and four 
other members of the Supreme Court found it violated the Constitution. 
It violated the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not 
activism, is what I am saying. Somehow we have gotten confused on this 
matter. Therefore, we need to be alerted to it.
  Sometimes my colleagues, I think, have tried to say: Well, everybody 
does it. Everybody is an activist, so the Constitution is a malleable 
document. It gets redefined as the years go by. It is a living 
document, they say. But it is not living, is it? You can go over to the 
archives building and you can see it. It is a contract. The American 
people granted certain rights to this government and they reserved 
certain rights to themselves. Of the rights they reserved, for example, 
was the right of free speech, the right to assemble, and to criticize 
their incumbent politicians if they are not happy with them. They 
reserved the right to keep and bear arms.
  I think we need to get our minds straight. Judges should see their 
role as a limited role, and they should not seek to impose their policy 
values on the country. They should see it as then-Judge Roberts said in 
his hearing so beautifully and so eloquently: A judge is a neutral 
umpire. They call the balls and strikes. They do not take sides in the 
ball game. How much more basic can it be than that?
  I wanted to try to clarify that point, and I think it is important. 
We have other constitutional rights--the right to keep your property 
unless it be taken for public use, such as a highway. That is a public 
use. But in the Kelo case, 5 to 4, and in the case rendered by Judge 
Sotomayor, they ruled that the government could take one man's 
drugstore--his property on which he was going to build a private 
drugstore--and the city could condemn it and give the property to 
another man to build a different drugstore on for personal profit. 
Where does the public use come from?
  Justice O'Connor dissented in the Kelo case and ruled the other way. 
She ruled the other way, and it was okay to

[[Page 20853]]

do that. The case dealing with Judge Sotomayor went even further than 
that. But it is not activism for a court to say that no city, or 
whatever, can take a man's property under some redevelopment scheme or 
plan so they can get more tax money, because if they take it and give 
it to this other private guy, he can build a big shopping center there 
and they will get more tax revenue. That is not a public use. The 
question is: Is the property used for a public purpose, not otherwise? 
The Constitution gives an individual the right to have their own 
property and people can't take it from you.
  The Constitution, likewise, says every American citizen is entitled 
to equal protection of the laws and that they cannot be denied equal 
protection of the laws on account of their race. It is a big important 
constitutional issue. So we get into a situation where a city, New 
Haven, conducts a fair test, by all accounts; a carefully crafted test. 
No one criticized its validity. They conducted a test and 18 
firefighters passed the test. They testified that they studied very 
hard to master the test which related directly to their firefighting 
ability. They go out and do the right thing and they are on track to be 
promoted. But not enough people of one group or another did well on the 
test, and the city--the government--decides they didn't get the results 
they liked on this test and so they threw it out.
  It is not activism for the U.S. Supreme Court to say--really all of 
them to say--that this is not right, that this is not complying with 
the Constitution or even the civil rights statutes in America that 
require equal justice under the law, not favoritism based on one or the 
other because of their background, ethnicity, or race. That is just 
what it is all about.
  The Justices on the Supreme Court, the ones who are known for showing 
restraint, should not be criticized if on occasion they declare the 
U.S. Congress did something wrong and it was unconstitutional. I am 
afraid we do it more often than we like to admit, the truth be known. 
Bills come through here late at night, nobody has done any 
constitutional research on most of what is in them to see if it is 
constitutional or not. The American people are entitled to have the 
final decision about constitutionality rest with a court that is 
prepared to defend their individual rights.
  On the three cases I mentioned--the case of a property taking from a 
private individual, the case of 18 firefighters who passed the test and 
were ready to claim their promotion, and the question of the right to 
keep and bear arms--each one of those was an individual situation in 
which an individual American appealed to the courts and claimed they 
have a right in plain words provided to them by the Constitution and 
they are asserting that right and they are pleading their case in the 
Court and asking the Court to grant them that right. In the three cases 
I mentioned, unfortunately Judge Sotomayor ruled with the government, 
the power of the State, and against the individuals asserting their 
claims in three exceedingly important cases.
  It is not activism to throw out a city's decision on forfeiture or 
guns; nor is it activism to throw out a decision that discriminates 
against American citizens based on their race.
  That is one of the things we discussed a lot in this debate. I think 
it has been a good debate. I complimented Senator Leahy this morning 
again. He gave us all a chance to ask questions. We had 30 minutes, as 
we have done before. Some wanted to do less, but he said no, that is 
the way we do these things. We had 30-minute rounds and then 20-minute 
rounds and then 10-minute rounds to ask questions. I think pretty much 
the fundamental issues involved in this nomination got discussed in 
committee. Some written questions were filed in addition. Now that it 
is on the Senate floor, I believe the Members of the Senate have an 
adequate record from which they can make a decision on what they think 
is best for America.
  I believe we should not have anyone on the Court who is not committed 
to the Constitution, not committed to putting aside their personal 
political agenda, and who will stay in strict adherence to the law and 
the facts of the cases that come before them. That is how I evaluated 
this case.
  I am proud of Judge Sotomayor. She handled herself well and patiently 
at the committee. She was asked a lot of tough questions, but if you 
want to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court you have to be prepared 
for that. You should not submit yourself if you are not prepared for 
that. But she handled it nicely and courteously.
  I think the Senators conducted themselves well also. A lot of people 
wanted to vote for her but, as the hearings went by and they studied 
the record, they concluded they were not able to vote for her based on 
philosophy and her approach to the law. But I think the committee 
hearing did what it was supposed to.
  There have been no delays. This will be one of the fastest 
confirmations in history. Within a few hours we will be having an up-
or-down vote on her confirmation, unlike what happened when Judge 
Alito--a fabulous nominee, in my opinion--was subjected to a filibuster 
before he was confirmed. She is going to be given an up-or-down vote in 
just a few hours.
  I thank the Chair for this time. I look forward to the rest of the 
debate and final vote in a few hours.
  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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for a second time now, I come to the 
floor to voice my opposition to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be 
an Associate Justice. I cannot support her nomination because I am not 
persuaded she has the right judicial philosophy to be on the Supreme 
Court. I have spoken many times and have again spoken at the Judiciary 
Committee and on the floor at some length about my reasons for opposing 
the judge's confirmation, but I want to reiterate some of these reasons 
before we vote on her nomination about 2 hours from now.
  It is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to thoroughly review 
the qualifications of the President's judicial nominations. This advice 
and consent process is especially important when we consider nominees 
to the Supreme Court, which obviously is the highest court in our land.
  Both Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions did an admirable job 
in conducting a fair but very rigorous examination of the judge's 
record. The nominee was asked tough questions, but she was also treated 
fairly and with respect, as is appropriate for all judicial nominees.
  We want to make sure judicial nominees have a number of qualities, 
but superior intelligence, academic excellence, distinguished legal 
background, personal integrity, and proper judicial demeanor and 
temperament are not the only qualities we must consider in a judicial 
nominee. Judges, and in particular Supreme Court nominees, must have a 
true understanding of the proper role of a Justice as envisioned by the 
writers of the Constitution as well as an ability to faithfully 
interpret the law and Constitution without personal bias and 
prejudices. Since becoming a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
the very first year I came to the Senate in 1981, I have used this 
standard to confirm both Republican and Democratic Presidents' nominees 
for the Supreme Court.
  Because Supreme Court Justices have the last say with respect to the 
law and have the ability to make precedent, they do not have the same 
kinds of restraints lower court judges have. So we need to be convinced 
these nominees have judicial restraint--in other words, the self-
restraint to resist interpreting the Constitution to satisfy their 
personal beliefs and preferences. We need to be persuaded these 
nominees will be impartial in their judging and bound by the words of 
the Constitution and legal precedent. We need

[[Page 20854]]

to be certain these nominees will not overstep their bounds and 
encroach upon the duties of the legislative and executive branch. That 
is our checks-and-balances system of government. Our American legal 
tradition demands that judges not take on the role of policymakers, 
reserved to those of us in the legislative branch, but that instead 
they check their biases and preferences and politics at the door of the 
courthouse. The preservation of our individual freedoms depends on 
limiting policymaking to legislators rather than on elected judges who 
have a lifetime appointment.
  When then-Senator Obama voted against now-Chief Justice Roberts, he 
spoke from his desk over there about how a judge needed to have, in his 
words, ``empathy'' to decide the hard cases. He said:

       That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's 
     deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader 
     perspective on how the world works and the depth and breadth 
     of one's empathy. . . . in these difficult cases the critical 
     ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

  In another speech, President Obama further elaborated on this empathy 
standard:

       In those 5 percent of cases, what you've got to look at is 
     what is in the Justice's heart. What's their broader vision 
     of what America should be . . . We need somebody who's got 
     the heart--the empathy--to recognize what it's like to be a 
     young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like 
     to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and 
     that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges.

  He spoke very well in that quote about the empathy those of us who 
were elected ought to have, but I think he spoke incorrectly about what 
judges should have. And when the President then nominated Judge 
Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he did that with the belief that she 
meets his empathy standard.
  President Obama's empathy standard has been widely criticized as 
contrary to the proper role of judges--and that is my point--and that 
is because an empathy standard necessarily connotes standards of 
impartiality. That is a very radical departure from our American 
tradition of blind impartial justice. In fact, even Judge Sotomayor 
repudiated President Obama's empathy standard at her confirmation 
hearing.
  A judge's impartiality is so critical to his or her duty as an 
officer in an independent judiciary that it is mentioned three times in 
the oath of office for Federal judges. Every judge swears ``to 
administer justice without respect to persons,'' to ``do equal right to 
the poor and to the rich,'' and to ``faithfully and impartially 
discharge and perform all [his] duties.'' That is from the oath judges 
take. Therefore, empathetic judges who choose to embrace their personal 
biases cannot uphold their sworn oath.
  If we are to have a government of laws and not of men and women, then 
our judges must not favor any party or class over another, whether they 
be historically privileged or historically disadvantaged. Our judges 
must decide the cases before them on the law this Congress writes and 
what it requires, even if the law compels a result that is at odds with 
the judge's personal, deeply held feelings.
  The fact that we have an independent judiciary means that it is not a 
political body. In exchange for remaining unchecked by the will of the 
people, the judicial branch is required to maintain impartiality. This 
country was founded on the principle that justice is the same for 
everyone. No one is entitled to special treatment, whether by fate or 
fortune, because no man or woman is above the law.
  No matter what you call it--empathy, compassion, personal bias, or 
favoritism--it can have no place in the decisionmaking process of a 
judge--it can have a place in decisionmaking by a Senator--but 
especially in the case of the judicial branch, notably the Supreme 
Court or a Supreme Court Justice.
  While justice is not an automated or mechanical process, it also is 
not a process that permits a patchwork of cases where the outcome is 
determined not by the law but by the judge's personal predilections. 
Judges may differ on what the law is, but they should never reach a 
conclusion because of a difference in ideology or because of their 
empathy for one of the parties.
  An empathy standard for judging would betray the very cause of 
equality that it purports to champion by creating classes among our 
citizens in the eyes of the law. That is what is so dangerous about 
President Obama's standard and why we should be cautious in deferring 
to his choices for the judicial branch. That is why we should continue 
to assess judicial nominees based on their fidelity to the rule of law 
and not on some well-intentioned hope or belief that the personal 
biases they will rely on in judging will be the right ones.
  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's speeches and writings over the years 
reveal a judicial philosophy that highlights the importance of personal 
preferences and beliefs in her judicial method. Her speeches and 
writings reveal her views of a judge and judicial decisionmaking 
process that are quite contrary to what our American tradition demands 
of the judiciary and our system of justice.
  I will cite a few troubling statements she has made. She questioned 
``whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all in even 
most cases'' and also ``whether by ignoring our differences as men, 
women, people of color, we do a disservice to both the law and the 
society.''
  She promoted identity politics where she openly admitted that ``[my 
experiences] will affect the facts I choose to see'' and that ``I 
willingly accept that . . . judge[s] must not deny the differences 
resulting from experience and heritage.''
  She claimed that the court of appeals is where ``policy is made.''
  She said that a ``wise Latina would more often than not reach a 
better conclusion than a white male.''
  She disagreed with a statement by Justice O'Connor that ``a wise old 
woman and a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in 
a case.''
  She said that ``unless American courts are more open to discussing 
the ideas raised by foreign cases, and by international cases, that we 
are going to lose influence in the world,'' as if it is for the Supreme 
Court Justices to worry about our influence in the world. It seems to 
me the chief diplomat of our country is the President of the United 
States. She urged judges to look to foreign law so they can get their 
``creative juices'' flowing.
  At her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor attempted to distance 
herself from these statements and explain them away, most likely 
recognizing that they were controversial and out of the mainstream. 
However, in my mind, she was not very successful. Even the Washington 
Post said Judge Sotomayor's testimony about some of her statements 
before the Judiciary Committee was ``less than candid'' and 
``uncomfortably close to disingenuous.''
  I was not the only one who had problems reconciling what Judge 
Sotomayor said at the hearing with the statements she has repeated over 
and over throughout the years. That is because the statements made at 
the hearing and those made in speeches and in law review articles 
outside the hearing are polar opposites. Some of her explanations were 
contrived or far-fetched. In my opinion, these statements in her 
writings and speeches cannot be reconciled with her hearing testimony. 
I am not sure which Judge Sotomayor I am to believe. She appears to be 
Justice Ginsburg in her speeches and writings but made statements like 
Chief Justice Roberts in her confirmation hearing.
  So I think the Washington Post's conclusions are worth repeating:

       Judge Sotomayor's attempts to explain away and distance 
     herself from that [wise Latina] statement were uncomfortably 
     close to disingenuous, especially when she argued that her 
     reason for raising questions about gender or race was to warn 
     against injecting personal bias into the judicial process. 
     Her repeated and lengthy speeches on that matter do not 
     support that interpretation.

  I am not only troubled by the speeches and writings of the judge--
these were produced during her time as a sitting judge on the Second 
Circuit--and

[[Page 20855]]

her contradictory statements before the Judiciary Committee but I also 
have concerns with cases Judge Sotomayor decided when she sat on the 
Second Circuit. Some cases raise serious concerns about whether Judge 
Sotomayor will adequately protect the second amendment right to bear 
arms and the fifth amendment property rights.
  Statements she made at the hearing raise concerns that she will 
inappropriately create or expand rights under the Constitution. Other 
cases raise concerns about whether she will impose her personal policy 
decisions instead of those of the legislative or executive branch. In 
addition, Judge Sotomayor's track record on the Supreme Court is not a 
particularly good one. She has been reversed 8 out of 10 times and was 
criticized in another of the 10 cases.
  At the hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked about her understanding of 
rights under the Constitution, including the second and fifth 
amendments and the right to privacy. She was asked about her legal 
analysis in certain cases, like the Ricci, Maloney and Didden cases. 
She was also asked about how she views precedent and applies it in 
cases before her. Ultimately, I wasn't satisfied with her responses, 
nor was I reassured that Judge Sotomayor would disregard her strong 
personal sympathies and prejudices when ruling on hard cases dealing 
with important constitutional rights.
  With respect to the Ricci case, I wasn't persuaded by Judge 
Sotomayor's claims that she followed precedent, nor her explanation as 
to why she could dismiss such a significant case in summary fashion. 
The only reason this case found its way to the Supreme Court was 
because her Second Circuit colleague read about it in the newspaper, 
recognized its importance, and asked to have it reconsidered. When the 
Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor's decision, it held that there 
was no ``strong basis in evidence'' to support her opinion. In fact, 
her legal reasoning in Ricci was so flawed, all nine Justices rejected 
it.
  With respect to the Maloney case, I was concerned with Judge 
Sotomayor's explanation of her decision holding that the second 
amendment right to bear arms is not ``fundamental,'' as well as her 
claims that she was simply following Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit 
precedent. I was also concerned with her refusal to affirm that 
Americans have a right of self-defense. If Maloney is upheld by the 
Supreme Court, the second amendment will not apply against State and 
local governments, thus permitting potentially unrestricted limitations 
on this important constitutional right.
  With respect to the Didden case, I was troubled with Judge 
Sotomayor's failure to understand that her decision dramatically and 
inappropriately expands the ability of State, local, and Federal 
Governments to seize private property under the Constitution. In fact, 
based on the Didden holding, it is not clear whether there are any 
limits to the ability of State, local, and Federal Governments to take 
private property. I also was concerned with Judge Sotomayor's 
mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo. And I 
wasn't satisfied with her explanation about why she summarily dismissed 
the property owner's claims based on the statute of limitations. I 
don't think these concerns are off the mark--the Didden case has been 
described as ``probably the most extreme antiproperty rights ruling by 
any Federal court since Kelo.''
  So Judge Sotomayor's discussion of landmark Supreme Court cases and 
her own Second Circuit decisions raise questions in my mind about 
whether she understands the rights given to Americans under the 
Constitution. I question whether she will refrain from expanding or 
restricting those rights based on her personal preferences.
  Almost two decades ago, then-Judge Souter during his confirmation 
hearing spoke about courts ``filling vacuums'' in the law. That 
discussion struck me as odd and troubled me, because clearly it is not 
the role of a court to fill voids in the law left by Congress. Although 
Judge Souter backtracked on his courts ``filling vacuums'' statement 
when I pressed him about it, I believe that his decisions on the 
Supreme Court actually reveal that he does believe courts can and do 
fill vacuums in the law. It is no secret that I regret my vote to 
confirm him. And because of that, I have asked several Supreme Court 
nominees about the propriety of judges ``filling vacuums'' in the law 
at their confirmation hearings. So this question shouldn't have come as 
a surprise to Judge Sotomayor when I asked her about it at her 
confirmation hearing. Unfortunately, I wasn't satisfied with her 
lukewarm answers to my question. In fact, it just reinforced the 
concerns I had with her hearing testimony, cases, speeches and 
writings.
  Judge Sotomayor has overcome many obstacles to get to where she is 
today. There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor is an engaging, talented, 
intelligent woman. She has tremendous legal experience and many other 
good qualities. I very much enjoyed meeting with her and getting to 
know her personally. But I can't just base my decision on these things. 
I have to look at her judicial philosophy and determine whether I 
believe it is one that is appropriate for the Supreme Court. That is my 
constitutional responsibility. And based on her answers at the hearing 
and her decisions, writings, and speeches, I am not comfortable with 
what I understand to be Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. I am not 
persuaded that she will protect important constitutional rights, and I 
am not convinced that she will refrain from creating new rights under 
the Constitution. I am not persuaded that she won't allow her own 
personal biases and prejudices to seep into her decisionmaking process 
and dictate the outcome of cases before her. So it is with regret that 
I must oppose her nomination to the Supreme Court.
  I said this in the Judiciary Committee, and I repeat it now on the 
floor. Only time will tell which Judge Sotomayor will sit on the 
Supreme Court. Is it the judge who proclaimed that the court of appeals 
is where ``policy is made,'' or is it the nominee who pledged 
``fidelity to the law?'' Is it the judge who disagreed with Justice 
O'Connor's statement that a wise woman and a wise man will ultimately 
reach the same decision, or is it the nominee who rejected President 
Obama's empathy standard? Only time will tell.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has an impressive 
background and an inspiring American story. She is a testament to the 
power of a strong work ethic and a focus on education and is a role 
model to many Americans as a result.
  I enjoyed meeting with her in June and found her to be very 
intelligent and eloquent in expressing her thoughts. I let her know I 
would reserve judgment on her nomination until the conclusion of a fair 
and thorough hearing process.
  After much deliberation and careful review, I have determined that 
Judge Sotomayor's record and many of her past statements reflect a view 
of the Supreme Court that is different from my own.
  I view the Supreme Court as a body charged with impartially deciding 
what the law means as it is applied to a specific case. I believe Judge 
Sotomayor views the Supreme Court as more of a policymaking body where 
laws are shaped based on the personal views of the justices.
  Unfortunately, nothing I heard during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation 
hearing or in my meeting with her in June sufficiently allayed this 
concern.
  For this reason, I am disappointed to say, I will not be able to 
support Judge Sotomayor's nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this hour under 
Democratic control be divided in the following manner: Reed of Rhode 
Island, 15 minutes; Senator Carper, 10 minutes; Senator Kerry, 10 
minutes; Senator Menendez, 5 minutes; Senator Schumer, 5 minutes; 
Senator Nelson of Florida, 3 minutes; and Senator Boxer, 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 20856]]


  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the nomination before us of Sonia Sotomayor 
to replace Associate Justice David Souter is of great importance. The 
Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of justice in the land. 
Therefore, this is one of the most consequential votes that any Senator 
can cast.
  The Constitution makes the Senate an active participant, along with 
the President, in the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Article 
II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution states that nominees to the 
Supreme Court shall only be confirmed ``by and with the Advice and 
Consent of the Senate.'' The Senate's role in the confirmation process 
places an important democratic check on America's judiciary. As a 
result, this body's consent is both a constitutional requirement and a 
democratic obligation. It is in upholding our constitutional duties as 
Senators to give the President advice and consent on his nominations 
that I believe we have one of our greatest opportunities and 
responsibilities to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.
  As I have said before, in weighing a nominee's qualifications for the 
Court, we must consider an individual's intellectual gifts, experience, 
judgment, maturity and temperament. Judge Sotomayor's compelling life 
story demonstrates that she possesses each of these qualities.
  She overcame early adversity--with the loss of her father, a 
diagnosis of juvenile diabetes--to become an accomplished student at 
her high school. She went on to Princeton, where she excelled both 
inside and outside of the classroom, receiving the school's highest 
academic prize upon graduation.
  From there she became a stellar student at Yale Law School and served 
on its prestigious law journal. Upon graduating from Yale, Judge 
Sotomayor surely had a number of very lucrative options available to 
her. It is a testament to her early commitment to public service that 
she chose to serve 5 years as assistant district attorney in New York.
  By all accounts, she was a zealous and thorough prosecutor and 
demonstrated the same rigor and commitment to excellence that have been 
her hallmark throughout her career.
  Judge Sotomayor is extremely qualified for this role. As a Supreme 
Court Justice, Judge Sotomayor would bring to bear her rich and varied 
real-world experience. She has been a big-city prosecutor. She has been 
an attorney in private practice. She has been a trial judge, and she 
also knows what it means to be an appellate judge. Judge Sotomayor 
would make history as only the third female Justice and the first 
Hispanic Justice. Moreover, she has more Federal judicial experience 
than any nominee to the Court in 100 years.
  Yet as compelling as these qualities and accomplishments are, there 
is a higher bar for a nominee to the Nation's highest Court. In 
previous consideration of Supreme Court judges, I have stated my test 
for a nominee for the Supreme Court. It is a simple test, one drawn 
from the text, the history and the principles of the Constitution. A 
nominee to the Supreme Court must live up to the spirit of the 
Constitution. A nominee must not only commit to enforcing the laws but 
also to doing justice. A nominee must give life and meaning to the 
great principles of the Constitution: Equality before the law, due 
process, freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the 
expansion of opportunity.
  In my view, Judge Sotomayor has met this test quite admirably. Judge 
Sotomayor's opinions demonstrate that she is no ideologue. Instead, she 
seeks to carefully weigh the facts in determining a just and fair 
outcome.
  One issue of great concern at this time of conflict is executive 
power. As Commander in Chief, the President's duty is to guard the 
country's national security while also safeguarding individual 
freedoms. All too often, in my view, President Bush, guided by other 
government officials and questionable legal opinions, erred on the side 
of concentrating executive power. Indeed, I noted during my comments on 
Judge Alito's nomination that his avowal of the unitary executive 
theory was troubling in light of the Bush administration's policies. 
Judge Sotomayor's record on this issue suggests that she would more 
appropriately balance national security and individual freedom, and the 
role of Congress.
  In the case of Doe v. Mukasey, she joined a unanimous panel decision 
that stated:

       The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank 
     and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, 
     cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce 
     constitutional requirements. ``Under no circumstances shall 
     the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.''

  But she has also shown a clear recognition that within the 
appropriate sphere, the executive must be supported. In Cassidy v. 
Chertoff, she authored a unanimous panel opinion on the 
constitutionality of a ferry company's search of baggage and vehicles. 
The panel ultimately concluded that searches were permissible because 
``it is minimally intrusive, and we cannot say, particularly in light 
of the deference we owe to the Coast Guard, that it does not constitute 
`a reasonable method of deterring the prohibited conduct.'''
  In answering questions from my colleagues on the boundaries of 
presidential power during her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor 
chose her words carefully. However, she was clear in affirming that no 
one is above the law. On this issue and many others, Judge Sotomayor 
has demonstrated a fair and balanced approach that will add to the high 
Court.
  I believe Judge Sotomayor would be an able successor to Judge Souter 
a court that in recent years has taken a sharp turn away from 
protections of privacy, freedom, and other values we hold dear.
  Judge Sotomayor's careful application of the facts to the 
Constitution and the quest for justice persuade me that she will make a 
worthy addition to our Nation's highest Court. Indeed, she meets my 
test as someone who will not only uphold the letter of the law but the 
spirit of the law. It is with great pleasure that I support her 
nomination to the highest Court in the land and urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint letter 
of support signed by more than 1,200 law professors from all 50 States 
and the District of Columbia. In their joint letter, these professors 
write:

       Her opinions reflect careful attention to the facts of each 
     case and a reading of the law that demonstrates fidelity to 
     the text of statutes and the Constitution. She pays close 
     attention to precedent and has proper respect for the role of 
     courts and the other branches of government in our society.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions: We the 
     undersigned professors of law write in support of the 
     confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice 
     of the United States Supreme Court.
       As a federal judge at both the trial and appellate levels, 
     Judge Sotomayor has distinguished herself as a brilliant, 
     careful, fair-minded jurist whose rulings exhibit unfailing 
     adherence to the rule of law. Her opinions reflect careful 
     attention to the facts of each case and a reading of the law 
     that demonstrates fidelity to the text of statutes and the 
     Constitution. She pays close attention to precedent and has 
     proper respect for the role of courts and the other branches 
     of government in our society. She has not been reluctant to 
     protect core constitutional values and has shown a commitment 
     to providing equal justice for all who come before her.
       Judge Sotomayor's stellar academic record at Princeton and 
     Yale Law School is testament to her intellect and hard work, 
     and is especially impressive in light of her rise from modest 
     circumstances. That she went on to serve as an Assistant 
     District Attorney for New York County speaks volumes about 
     her strength of character and commitment to the rule of law. 
     When in private practice as a corporate litigator in New 
     York, she was deeply engaged in public activities, including 
     service on the New York Mortgage Agency and the New York City 
     Campaign Finance Board, as well as serving on the Board of 
     Directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund.
       Her career won bi-partisan respect, which led to her 
     becoming a U.S. District Court

[[Page 20857]]

     judge (nominated by President George H.W. Bush on the 
     recommendation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and 
     confirmed by a majority Democratic Senate in 1992). Her 
     performance on the district court solidified Judge 
     Sotomayor's support, and in 1998 she was elevated to the 
     Second Circuit (nominated by President Bill Clinton and 
     confirmed by a majority Republican Senate).
       Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court an 
     extraordinary personal story, academic qualifications, 
     remarkable professional accomplishments and much needed 
     ethnic and gender diversity. We are confident that Judge 
     Sotomayor's intelligence, her character forged by her 
     extraordinary background and experience, and her profound 
     respect for the law and the craft of judging make her an 
     exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court and 
     we urge her speedy confirmation.

  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in support of Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those of us who are 
privileged to serve in the Senate cast literally thousands of votes 
during our years here. We take many votes that crucial and important. 
But a handful of them are far more meaningful than others. These votes 
have historic consequences, ones which will resonate for years--in some 
cases, for decades--to come. This is one of those votes.
  This is my third opportunity to vote on a Supreme Court nominee. On 
the previous two occasions, we faced different circumstances in which I 
had to decide whether to vote for or against candidates who were 
nominated by a President not of my party, nominees who may not have 
shared my political beliefs or my judicial philosophy. Similar to my 
colleagues, I take seriously our constitutional obligation to provide 
advice and consent to determine whether a President's nominees truly 
merit a lifetime appointment.
  In each of those two earlier cases, I considered my decision 
carefully and deliberately. In one of those cases, that of now-Chief 
Justice John Roberts, I chose to support the President's selection. In 
the other, I did not. Reasonable people can disagree about the nominee 
before us this week. I certainly respect the views of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle who may ultimately vote against Judge 
Sotomayor's confirmation. But, first, I wish to explain why I am 
supporting Judge Sotomayor and, second, I want to encourage my 
Republican colleagues to support her nomination as well.
  In 2005, I voted to confirm Judge John Roberts' nomination to become 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I admitted it was a close call, at 
least it was for me. Ultimately, I chose to take what I described at 
that time as a ``leap of faith.''
  Chief Justice Roberts holds political and legal opinions that are not 
consistent totally with mine in a number of respects. I knew he would 
sometimes deliver decisions I might not fully agree with. But after 
carefully considering his testimony, meeting with him at some length, 
and personally talking to a number of his colleagues--colleagues who 
knew him well and colleagues who had worked closely with him in the 
past--I concluded that John Roberts would prove to be a worthy 
successor to retiring Chief Justice Rehnquist, and I think he has.
  In short, by supporting John Roberts' nomination, I voted my hopes, 
not my fears. Just as I voted my hopes instead of my fears in the case 
of then-Judge, now-Chief Justice Roberts, I hope many of our friends 
and colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see their way clear 
to doing the same in this instance.
  Before coming to the Senate, I served as Governor of Delaware. As 
Governor, I nominated dozens of--actually scores of--men and women to 
serve as judges in our State courts. The qualities I sought in the 
judicial nominees whom I submitted to the Delaware State Senate 
included unimpeachable integrity, a thorough understanding of the law, 
a keen intellect, a willingness to listen to both sides of a case, 
sound judicial temperament and judgment, and a strong work ethic.
  These are qualities that still guide me as I decide how to vote on 
judicial nominees in the Senate. In applying each of those standards to 
Judge Sotomayor during the course of my examination of her record, it 
is clear to me she meets or exceeds all of them.
  First, consider her experience. Judge Sotomayor has a compelling life 
story--a story that confirms her work ethic and informs her judicial 
temperament. In June of this year, I had the pleasure of meeting 
personally with Judge Sotomayor. We spoke at length about her 
experience, her service, and her life. We talked about our respective 
childhoods, our respective educational opportunities, and our careers. 
It was a revealing conversation, and her responses were forthright. 
They were insightful. And they were sincere.
  The nominee before us truly highlights the diversity of the country 
in which we live. We know her story by now. Sonia Sotomayor grew up in 
a south Bronx housing project. Her parents were both immigrants from 
Puerto Rico. Her father had limited education and did not speak 
English.
  Her mom worked 6 days a week to support her family and instilled in 
her daughter the importance of a quality education. Judge Sotomayor 
excelled in school and went on to attend Princeton University on a 
scholarship. She later went on to Yale Law School, where she served as 
an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
  I have met many people in my life who have built themselves up from 
nothing. Unfortunately, I have found that a number of them--maybe many 
of them--seem to have forgotten where they came from. But it is clear 
to me that Sonia Sotomayor has not forgotten. When we met, she told me 
she was ``still Sonia from the projects.'' Despite all her success, she 
still has not forgotten her roots. Let me say, I find that enormously 
refreshing and encouraging.
  After law school, Sonia Sotomayor served as an assistant district 
attorney in New York. During her 5 years in that position, she tried 
dozens of major criminal cases and became known, in the words of Robert 
Morgenthau--who was then, and still remains, the district attorney in 
Manhattan--as a ``fearless and effective prosecutor.''
  Starting in 1984, Sonia Sotomayor spent 8 years in private practice. 
As a civil and international corporate litigator, she gained 
considerable experience in the private sector, handling cases involving 
everything from real estate to contract law, from intellectual property 
to banking.
  Then, in 1992, with bipartisan support, Sonia Sotomayor began her 
service to this country in the Federal judiciary. She was nominated to 
serve as a Federal district judge, not by a Democrat but by a 
Republican, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and was unanimously--
unanimously--confirmed by this Senate.
  Six years later, when Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated her 
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she received the support of 25 
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Their vote of 
confidence in Judge Sotomayor then has since been confirmed by her 
reputation for moderation and impartiality.
  The Second Circuit is considered by many to have one of the most 
demanding caseloads in our Nation. Judge Sotomayor participated in over 
3,000 decisions and has written more than 230 opinions for the 
majority. During her time on the bench, she examined difficult issues 
of constitutional law, complex business disputes, and high-profile 
criminal cases.
  Judge Sotomayor brings more Federal judicial experience to the 
Supreme Court than any Justice confirmed in the last 100 years.
  As a Federal judge for nearly two decades, Sonia Sotomayor has 
demonstrated a clear commitment to unbiased, impartial justice and to 
the rule of law. Unlike some nominees for the Federal bench, with Judge 
Sotomayor, we can see a long paper trail of her legal rulings.

[[Page 20858]]

  Her record reveals that she consistently takes each case on its own 
merits--regardless of the ideological outcome--and narrowly applies the 
law to the particular facts. She may even be more of a strict 
constructionist, when it comes to applying the law, than many of the 
Justices my friends on the other side of the aisle admire the most. 
Quite frankly, she is a model of judicial restraint.
  As a circuit court judge, Sonia Sotomayor is known as a moderate who 
agrees with her more conservative colleagues far more than she 
disagrees with them. One of those colleagues on the Second Circuit, 
Richard C. Wesley, himself an appointee of George W. Bush, had this to 
say about her:

       Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. 
     She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her 
     endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to 
     serve with her.

  Another Second Circuit colleague, Judge Roger Miner, who was 
appointed by President Ronald Reagan, described Judge Sotomayor as an 
``excellent choice,'' saying:

       I don't think I'd go as far as to classify her in one camp 
     or another. I think she just deserves the classification of 
     outstanding judge.

  And the Second Circuit's current chief judge, Dennis Jacobs, 
appointed by the first President Bush, said:

       Sonia Sotomayor is a well-loved colleague on our court. 
     Everybody from every point of view knows that she is fair and 
     decent in all her dealings. The fact is, she is truly a 
     superior human being.

  The strength of Judge Sotomayor's record and reputation is perhaps 
why, to some extent, many critics have focused almost exclusively on 
one or two legal rulings, and on a line from a speech she gave years 
ago. But I do not find much to agree with in these criticisms. But even 
if I did, it does not seem fair to me that she should be judged on 
those few items alone. These few quibbles need to be put in the context 
of her lifetime of work.
  Of all people--of all people--we in the Senate should understand 
this. As Senators, whether we have served here for 12 years or 24 years 
or for 50 years, such as Robert Byrd has done, we will vote thousands 
of times. As many of us know from personal experience, it is easy to 
take one vote or one decision or one line from one of our speeches 
completely out of context and make us appear to be someone we are not 
or to stand for something that is entirely alien to our beliefs and 
values. It has happened to me. I suspect it has happened to most, if 
not all, of our colleagues. I might add, I believe that is what has 
happened to the nominee before us today.
  As a result, I believe it is incumbent upon us to examine carefully a 
nominee's overall record, much as I hope the people of Delaware will 
consider my overall record when they cast their votes every 6 years.
  If nothing else, Judge Sotomayor's extensive record demonstrates she 
sticks to the law. Perhaps that is why, in part, the American Bar 
Association has given this judge, this nominee, its top rating of 
``well qualified'' in assessing her record and in evaluating her 
judicial temperament.
  For all these reasons--and more--I invite my conservative colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to take a leap of faith, as I did a few 
years ago with John Roberts--as I did 4 years ago--and join me in 
casting their vote in favor of Judge Sotomayor's nomination to serve on 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  With that, I say thank you to the Presiding Officer and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have never missed a vote on a nomination 
for a Supreme Court Justice in my time in the Senate. Today, I will 
vote to support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I submitted 
questions to Judge Sotomayor on matters of great importance to the 
preservation of congressional power: the constitutional grant of the 
purse strings to the Congress; the role and responsibility of the 
legislative branch to conduct oversight and investigation; and the 
deliberate restraints on the executive branch created by the 
Constitution's separation of powers. I found her answers thoughtful, 
her intellect keen, and that Judge Sotomayor possessed the requisite 
reverence--and patience--for the process outlined in article II, 
section 2 of the Constitution.
  I watched the hearings intently; I studied Judge Sotomayor's words. 
What struck me about the Judiciary Committee's hearings was the dearth 
of inquiry into her judicial record. Indeed, her record is certainly 
substantial; the most substantial record I have seen in some time. But, 
instead of delving into her many opinions, or questioning her on 
Supreme Court jurisprudence, Judge Sotomayor was asked the same few 
questions over and over, needlessly.
  The tendency to grandstand is hardly a partisan thing. The Senate's 
ability to question a nominee is a precious gift from our Founding 
Fathers--a check on the Judiciary and on the Executive. While the 
President may nominate, the advice and consent of the Senate is 
required for confirmation. But, in this particular instance, partisan 
trifles took the place of constitutional probing. Statements were taken 
out of context, while volumes of Judge Sotomayor's judicial record went 
unquestioned, and likely unread. Unfortunately, by not probing, the 
Senate shirks its responsibilities.
  Judge Sotomayor's story is similar to my own story. Much like my own 
journey from the southern coalfields of Raleigh County to the U.S. 
Senate, Judge Sotomayor overcame tremendous adversity through 
determination and hard work.
  Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate. That is a good 
thing. I hope that we as a body will reflect on the nomination and 
confirmation processes as envisioned in the Constitution, and ask 
ourselves whether we can do a better job in living up to the spirit of 
the law in the future.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my full 
support for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be our 
Nation's 111th Supreme Court Justice. I am proud of Judge Sotomayor's 
dedication to her country, and I am impressed by her outstanding 
accomplishments. Today marks an historic occasion for our country, as 
Judge Sotomayor becomes only the third woman and first Hispanic ever to 
serve on the highest Court in the land.
  The decision of whether to confirm a nominee for a lifetime 
appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the Senate's most 
significant and solemn duties under the Constitution. It will affect 
generations of Americans for years to come.
  After 24 years of service to the people of West Virginia as their 
U.S. Senator, the nomination of Judge Sotomayor marks the 11th Supreme 
Court nominee under five Presidents that I have had the opportunity to 
consider. I have supported most nominees, but have opposed some. In 
each instance, I came to my decision after a careful and thorough 
process, and the same is true of my support for Judge Sotomayor.
  The first question that must be answered about any nominee is: Does 
he or she possess the intellect, experience, and temperament to serve 
on the Supreme Court? For Judge Sotomayor, the clear answer is yes.
  Her educational and professional background is impeccable. She was 
valedictorian of her high school class, graduated summa cum laude from 
Princeton University, and served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal 
while attending Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor has served with 
distinction on almost every level of our judicial system as a 
prosecutor, civil litigator, district court judge, and appeals court 
judge. In her confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee, she 
showed herself to be an even-tempered and honest person, as well as a 
straightforward and critical thinker.
  But once a nominee's impressive credentials and integrity are 
established, my analysis of his or her fitness to serve on the Supreme 
Court cannot end. The tremendous responsibility that all Justices have 
to the Constitution--and their decisions' impact on all Americans 
requires further consideration of the nominee's core beliefs about our 
country and our justice system.

[[Page 20859]]

  Before supporting a nominee, I need to know that he or she 
understands the consequences of the Supreme Court's decisions. I need 
to know that he or she will protect the best interests of West 
Virginians. And I need to know that he or she will uphold the 
fundamental rights and freedoms that all Americans enjoy under the 
Constitution and in our laws.
  Every American needs to know that our courthouse doors are open for 
everyone, not just the wealthy, the powerful, or the well-connected. 
The Founders intended our courts to serve as a place where all citizens 
can go to resolve disputes, seek relief from injustices, and hold 
wrongdoers accountable. As members of our court of last resort, Supreme 
Court Justices have a particularly important role in upholding our 
constitutional freedoms, even when lawmakers or public opinion would 
limit them.
  To understand the enormously important role of the Court in the lives 
of Americans, we need only look at cases such as Gideon v. Wainwright, 
in which the Court recognized the fundamental right of defendants to be 
represented by counsel, even those who cannot afford to hire an 
attorney; or Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court struck 
down racial segregation in our public schools. These are the types of 
decisions that require a deep respect for our Constitution and the 
courage to do what is right.
  After meeting with Judge Sotomayor in person and reviewing her 
extensive judicial record, I firmly believe that she possesses those 
qualities, and will always put the American people first.
  I also believe that she understands the real world implications of 
our laws and how they affect the lives of everyday people. She knows 
what it is like to overcome adversity and work against the odds to 
become a successful lawyer and judge. In her, I see someone who shares 
the values that are important to West Virginians: hard work; 
determination; love for her country; love for her family; and a sense 
of pride in her community. It is no surprise that her nomination is 
supported by Democratic and Republican officials; conservatives, 
liberals, and moderates; prosecutors and law enforcement organizations; 
civil rights organizations; former colleagues; and fellow jurists.
  I am disappointed that some of my colleagues have suggested that 
Judge Sotomayor's comments in a few of her speeches indicate that she 
will let personal biases influence her decisionmaking. I could not 
disagree more. Her extensive judicial record reflects a fair, 
thoughtful, and careful approach to decisionmaking--one that is based 
on meticulous analysis of the facts and a close following of the law 
and precedent.
  As a trial court judge, she presided over approximately 450 cases. As 
an appeals court judge, she participated in over 3000 decisions and 
authored approximately 400 published opinions. With 17 years of service 
on the bench, she brings more Federal judicial experience to the 
Supreme Court than any nominee in nearly 100 years.
  Judge Sotomayor's record speaks for itself, and I commend President 
Obama for nominating such a highly qualified individual to serve my 
fellow West Virginians and Americans on the Supreme Court.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the story of Sonia Sotomayor's life is a 
remarkable one. Born in humble circumstances, she has risen to the top 
of the legal field, and earned the opportunity to be considered for a 
place on America's highest court.
  As evidenced by her exceptional educational achievements, and her 
vast and varied legal resume as a prosecutor, private practice 
litigator and Federal judge, Sonia Sotomayor is unquestionably 
qualified from the standpoint of experience, competence, and intellect. 
In fact, having been appointed to the Federal bench in 1992 by 
President George H.W. Bush, she has more Federal judicial experience 
than any Supreme Court nominee in 100 years, and more overall judicial 
experience than any nominee in 70 years.
  Judge Sotomayor's record places her squarely within the mainstream of 
American jurisprudence. Even some of her harshest critics have conceded 
that her long record on the bench is one of mainstream decisions and 
judicial opinions.
  And Judge Sotomayor's record shows that she is not an activist and 
has not legislated from the bench. Instead, she has faithfully adhered 
to precedent. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 
CRS, found that ``perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge 
Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the 
doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial 
precedents).'' Further, CRS found that Sotomayor has exhibited ``a 
careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a 
dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping 
its judicial role.''
  Finally, Judge Sotomayor has the temperament to serve on the Supreme 
Court. Her grueling nomination hearings demonstrated her patience, 
thoughtfulness and composure in the face of tough and aggressive 
questioning by almost 20 Senators over several days.
  Those same qualities of character were evident during our personal 
meeting. During our wide-ranging discussion, I also found Judge 
Sotomayor to be genuine, humble and open-minded. Although she grew up 
in an urban setting, I am confident that she can relate to people from 
more rural areas like North Dakota, because she understands everyday 
people and their struggles, she has common sense, and she is no 
stranger to hard work and the need to overcome obstacles. In short, I 
believe she learned the same values and the same lessons growing up in 
the Bronx that I learned growing up in Bismarck.
  Some Senators have announced their intention to vote against Judge 
Sotomayor, but their criticism has not been based on a comprehensive 
assessment of her 17-year record as a judge, or her 30 years in the 
legal profession. One source of opposition has been various comments 
she has made in speeches, particularly on the topics of race and 
gender. Judge Sotomayor herself has admitted that she could have 
phrased some of her comments in these areas more effectively or 
appropriately. But when taken in their full context, her remarks seem 
to be primarily an expression of support for the unique American 
``melting pot'' and the notion that a diversity of backgrounds has made 
us a stronger and better nation. Perhaps more importantly, there is no 
evidence whatsoever that her personal views have improperly influenced 
her decisions in the courtroom.
  Some have also questioned Sotomayor's views on gun rights, and, in 
particular, whether or not she believes the second amendment restricts 
the right of individual States to regulate firearms. Despite the 
concerns that have been raised, a careful reading of her judicial 
record indicates that she has been very much in the judicial mainstream 
on gun issues. And she clearly stated during her confirmation hearings 
that she has a completely open mind on the specific question of how the 
second amendment should be applied to the States. I take her at her 
word, and it is my hope that the Supreme Court will indeed find that 
the second amendment protects the rights of gun owners and users 
against intrusion by State laws.
  When voting on judges, all we can do is look at the nominee's record 
and accomplishments, analyze his or her intellect and character, and 
decide whether he or she is qualified to serve on the bench. I have 
consistently followed that approach in the past, most recently in 
voting to confirm Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Using the 
same standards I applied to those nominations, I believe Sonia 
Sotomayor is eminently qualified for a place on the Supreme Court, and 
I am proud to support her nomination.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, there are few decisions that have a more 
lasting effect on our democracy than fulfilling my constitutional duty 
of advice and consent for Justices of the Supreme Court. This body will 
assume this tremendous responsibility once again today as we consider 
the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill a seat on the Supreme 
Court that has

[[Page 20860]]

been vacated by Justice David Souter. She is the third woman to be 
nominated to the Supreme Court and the first nominee to be of Hispanic 
descent.
  This will be the third time that I have cast a vote in regards to a 
Supreme Court Justice. The previous two times were for current Chief 
Justice Roberts and current Associate Justice Alito. Both of these 
Justices were appointed by former President George W. Bush. I voted in 
favor of both of these nominees even though their ideologies often 
differ from my own. They are both qualified members of the Judiciary 
and while our philosophies may differ, they both are, and were, within 
the broad mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence.
  It is within this mainstream that I find Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Her 
career as a jurist is a model of integrity and discipline. Her judicial 
philosophy is rooted in precedent and a devotion to the law. Judge 
Sotomayor has consistently pledged during the confirmation process her 
commitment to the law. She has stated that it is her duty to interpret 
the law and not to enact law. She has many years of service and 
experience as a prosecutor and litigator; district court judge and 
circuit court Judge. She has twice received bipartisan support from 
this body--the second time with my support. She has received the 
highest rating from the American Bar Association. It is clear that she 
has an accomplished resume.
  Earlier this summer, I met with Judge Sotomayor to form my own 
opinions on her judicial theory. While our conversation centered on a 
variety of interests, it was clear that Judge Sotomayor distinguished 
herself as an able jurist who relied on precedent. I reviewed her 
record and did not find anything that would deter me from that belief. 
The same can be said of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee during her confirmation hearings. She has said that she does 
not inject personal bias in her decision making process and I trust her 
at her word.
  Often, I think that this process has become overpoliticized. Judge 
Sotomayor is highly qualified and able to serve on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Opposition for opposition's sake is not constructive to our 
national dialogue. However, while I believe the President should have 
some latitude in selecting judges this does not mean that those 
nominees should be ideologues that stand outside of conventional 
judicial theory. Most Americans do not sit on the ends of the political 
spectrum but within the middle. I believe that Judge Sotomayor is 
within that middle ground. I support Judge Sotomayor to be Associate 
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and look forward to casting my vote 
in favor of this historic nominee.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to address one of the most 
significant and far reaching decisions a Senator makes: The vote on a 
confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. This vote will have an immense 
impact on future generations. A Senator is called upon to make two 
decisions that are irrevocable; one is the decision to go to war and 
the other is the confirmation of the members of the Supreme Court. The 
people of Maryland have entrusted in me the right make this decision 
and I take this responsibility very seriously.
  When I decide how I will vote on any nominee for the Federal bench, I 
have three criteria. First, the nominee must possess the highest 
personal and professional integrity. Second, the nominee has to have 
the competence and temperament to serve as a judge. Finally, the 
nominee must demonstrate a clear commitment to core constitutional 
principles. Judge Sonia Sotomayor passes all those tests with flying 
colors.
  If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor would be the third woman to serve on 
the Supreme Court and the first Hipanic on the Supreme Court. She has a 
compelling personal story, as well as a distinguished judicial record. 
Her father was a tool-and-die worker with third grade education who 
spoke no English and died when Judge Sotomayor was only nine years old. 
She was raised by her mother, a nurse in a public housing project in 
the Bronx, New York. After her father's death, she turned to reading 
Nancy Drew mystery novels, which inspired her love of reading and 
learning that put her on a path that ultimately led her to the law. 
Sotomayor excelled in school, graduated top of her class at Blessed 
Sacrament and Cardinal Spellman High School. She won a scholarship to 
Princeton University where she graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta 
Kappa. She then attended Yale Law School and served as an editor for 
the Yale Law Journal.
  Sonia Sotomayor's competence cannot be questioned. She is a champion 
of the law with a distinguished legal career spanning three decades. 
She has served at almost every level of the judicial system and she is 
the first Supreme Court nominee in 50 years to have served as a trial 
judge. She began her legal career as a fearless and effective 
prosecutor, working in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for 5 
years where she tried dozens of criminal cases from street crimes, to 
child abuse, police misconduct and homicides. She then became a 
corporate litigator for over 8 years in private practice. She made 
partner at the law firm where she tried complex corporate cases, 
including intellectual property, trademark and copyright infringement, 
real estate and banking.
  For nearly two decades, Sonia Sotomayor has been a sharp and fearless 
trial judge. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor to 
serve as a Federal district judge and she was unanimously confirmed by 
the Senate. As a Federal district court judge, she heard over 450 cases 
during 6 years as trial judge and ruled against Major League Baseball 
owners to end the baseball strike. She was then nominated by President 
Clinton to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the 
Senate on a vote of 69-29. She has been a tough, fair and thoughtful 
appellate judge who has written over 400 opinions, of which the Supreme 
Court reviewed only five cases and reversed only three of those 
opinions. Sonia Sotomayor understands upholding the law means the 
consistent, fair and common sense application of the law. She has an 
understanding of real world consequences of decisions and recognizes 
that her job as a judge is to interpret the laws passed by Congress and 
not making laws from the bench. Under her tenure as a judge, she has 
demonstrated a level head, the ability to handle difficult situations 
with a calm and thoughtful temperament, and is well respected among her 
colleagues.
  Judge Sotomayor's integrity is unquestioned. Throughout her career 
she has worked to make sure that the courthouse doors are open to all. 
She was raised by hardworking parents who instilled strong work ethic. 
Throughout her life she has been active in her community and serves as 
a role model. She mentors kids from troubled neighborhood, teaches at-
risk high school students job and life skills, and helps find summer 
jobs for these students. In addition, Sonia Sotomayor holds 
uncompromising views on judicial independence and has demonstrated she 
is an independent thinker dedicated to the rule of law. Sotomayor has 
stated that the Constitution should not be bent under any circumstance 
and from the bench she has shown she is a moderate judge who respects 
judicial precedent. In fact, 95 percent of her decisions have been 
favored by Republican appointees on the Second Circuit and she is well 
known for her judicial restraint.
  In sum, Sonia Sotomayor is an outstanding nominee to the highest 
court in the United States and an inspiration to all Americans. She is 
living proof that the American dream can be achieved. She is the 
daughter of hardworking immigrants, who overcame obstacles, went to Ivy 
League schools on scholarship, and has served for over 17 years as a 
Federal judge. Today I am proud to say when my name is called, I will 
vote aye.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I wish today to discuss the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and share 
the reasons why I will cast my vote in favor of her confirmation.
  For me, the single most important consideration in deciding whether 
to

[[Page 20861]]

provide my consent to a judicial nomination is an assessment of whether 
the judge will bring an ideology to the bench, seeking to advance a set 
agenda regardless of the facts a case presents and the laws and 
precedents at hand. I believe--as most Nebraskans and Americans 
believe--that a political agenda belongs in the political branches, and 
thus activists and would-be policymakers should seek legislative or 
executive office if they want to make laws and set policy.
  Judges, on the other hand, must show respect for the laws and 
Constitution of The United States and deference to settled law and 
precedent. The role of a judge is to adjudicate impartially; and the 
impartial application of justice should be devoid of personal views and 
political agendas.
  Judge Sonia Sotomayor's education and legal career show that she is a 
brilliant woman with a breadth and depth of legal experience. She has 
been a prosecutor, an attorney in private practice, a trial court 
judge, and an appellate judge. I am particularly impressed by her 
record on the bench, where she has earned a reputation as tough on 
crime, fair on the facts and the law, respectful of precedent, and 
mindful of the limited role of the judiciary.
  Judge Sotomayor has pledged fidelity to the law, and her extensive 
record of upholding the law as a trial and appellate judge is a 
concrete example of how she has carried out this pledge. Her 17-year 
record provides evidence of a restrained and mainstream judicial 
philosophy and shows that she has not been an activist. An objective 
review of Judge Sotomayor's record shows a fair, impartial, and humble 
judge.
  For example, in addition to achieving a unanimous rating of ``well 
qualified'' from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on 
the Federal Judiciary, the highest rating possible, Judge Sotomayor has 
won praise for her judicial restraint. Of particular importance to me 
was this statement by the ABA Committee: ``Judge Sotomayor's opinions 
show an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy 
based on the judge's personal views. Her opinions are narrow in scope, 
address only the issues presented, do not revisit settled areas of law, 
and are devoid of broad or sweeping pronouncements.''
  In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service analyzed 
her record as a judge and concluded: ``Perhaps the most consistent 
characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has 
been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding 
of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics appear to include 
what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts 
at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court 
might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.'' This is high praise 
indeed, for those of us like me who value a limited role and eschew 
judicial activism.
  Having discussed some of the reasons why I believe Judge Sotomayor is 
fit to serve on the High Court, I would like to take a moment to 
respectfully address some of the concerns and criticisms that some of 
my constituents and a certain few of my colleagues have raised about 
Judge Sotomayor.
  Foremost, I believe that actions speak louder than words. Throughout 
this confirmation process, certain comments Judge Sotomayor has made 
outside of the courtroom have been the subject of much criticism. 
Indeed, some of these remarks could be cause for concern if they proved 
to slant the judge's approach to the law or impede her ability to 
render an unbiased opinion. But after examining her record, meeting 
personally with her, and observing the Judiciary Committee hearings, I 
am convinced that Judge Sotomayor will approach the Supreme Court with 
the same unbiased fidelity to the law that has marked her distinguished 
career thus far. Simply put, I see no significant evidence that she has 
manipulated the facts of cases or interpretations of the law in the 
courtroom to alter the outcome of a case.
  In addition, some have singled out a handful of decisions the judge 
has participated in as grounds for disqualification. Mr. President, I 
do not expect a judge to agree with me all of the time, just as I do 
not agree with all the laws or all the precedents on the books; 
however, I firmly believe that disagreeing with a law or a precedent is 
not grounds for a judge to rewrite the law as he or she sees fit. And 
while I may not personally agree with the outcome of every single case 
Judge Sotomayor has decided, it is clear to me that her opinions were 
informed by facts, bound by precedents, and faithful to the law.
  Judge Sotomayor has decided more than 3,000 cases as a member of the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Only 13 of these have been reviewed by 
the Supreme Court; only 5 have been reversed. Of the opinions she 
authored, five were reviewed, her opinion was upheld in two, and she 
was reversed or vacated in three. This compares favorably with recent 
Supreme Court reversal rates and with recent Supreme Court nominees.
  My approach to confirmation of judicial nominees has not changed 
during my time in the Senate. I have voted to confirm the overwhelming 
majority of nominees to come before us--including both Chief Justice 
Roberts and Justice Alito for the Supreme Court--and my standards for 
what I consider a qualified judge have not changed since my days in the 
Governor's office, when I appointed 81 judges, including the entire 
Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. I wish I could say the 
same for the way the Senate considers judicial nominations, which to my 
disappointment has just become increasingly political and partisan. In 
the 1990s, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with only three 
dissenting votes, Justice Stephen Breyer with only nine dissenting 
votes. Yet recent nominations show that rising partisanship has 
affected both the tenor of the debate and the outcome of the vote. The 
Senate confirmed Chief Justice Roberts with 22 dissenting votes, and 
Justice Alito was confirmed with 42 dissenting votes.
  In 2005, the nomination process became so polarized that I joined 
with 13 of my colleagues to form the Gang of 14 to prevent the shutdown 
of the Senate over partisan positioning with respect to appeals court 
nominees. I commend the Judiciary Committee for presiding over a 
cordial and fair hearing process for Judge Sotomayor, but as in all 
things, I wish the Senate could return to a more bipartisan approach to 
our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.
  As a Senator, I have taken very seriously my role to responsibly, 
thoughtfully, and thoroughly review a nominee's qualifications and 
record. After examining her record, meeting personally with her, and 
observing the Judiciary Committee hearings, I am convinced that Judge 
Sotomayor's approach on the Supreme Court will demonstrate the same 
fidelity to the law that has marked her distinguished career. In the 
years ahead, I believe she will make an important contribution on the 
Supreme Court. I wish her well in her new role.
  I thank the Senate for this opportunity to offer my perspective on 
this historic nomination.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm the nomination of 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 
Let me explain why I am supporting her.
  Judge Sotomayor's impressive life story is an American story of 
working hard and making the most of every opportunity. She grew up in a 
housing project in the South Bronx nurtured by a working mother who 
instilled in her the values of America. She understood that education 
was the key to unlocking the greatness that is available in our 
country. She won a scholarship to Princeton University, where she 
graduated with highest honors. But she did not stop there. She then 
attended one of America's finest law schools, where she also excelled 
and was a member of the prestigious Law Review.
  In addition to her extraordinary academic achievements, Judge 
Sotomayor's many work experiences in the legal profession make her 
ideally suited to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[[Page 20862]]

She has been a prosecutor, an attorney in private practice, a trial 
judge and an appellate court judge. She has been a Federal judge for 
more than 17 years. When she is confirmed, she will have had more 
judicial experience than any other Supreme Court Justice in more than 
100 years, and she will be the only justice on this Supreme Court to 
have had experience as a trial judge. The knowledge she has gained over 
those many years will serve her, the Court, and our country well.
  After reviewing her career on the bench and closely following her 
confirmation hearings, I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor is sincere 
in her commitment to apply the law, rather than to make the law. Her 
record shows that she cannot be fairly labeled ``left'' or ``right.'' 
For many years, she has looked at the facts and law of the many cases 
that have come before her and she has called them as she sees them 
without regard for anything else. Her record clearly demonstrates that 
she is a moderate, mainstream judge with great respect for the law, our 
Constitution, our country, and its institutions.
  In my own meeting with Judge Sotomayor, I found her to be 
intelligent, measured, deliberate, and thoughtful. Judge Sotomayor 
assured me that she holds great respect for settled law. The more than 
3,000 cases she has participated in support that conclusion as well.
  This extensive record, and all of her experiences in life and law, 
likely explain the remarkable breadth and scope of people and 
organizations, many from opposite ends of the political and ideological 
spectrum, supporting her nomination. For example, the Chamber of 
Commerce and labor unions support her as well as numerous police 
organizations and defense lawyers. These are not natural allies, but 
they have seen what I have seen: a person of exceptional intelligence, 
wide-ranging experience, judicious temperament, and a commitment to 
even-handedly and fairly applying the law without fear or favor.
  This is also demonstrated by her appointments to the bench. It is 
telling that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed to the Federal bench 
by President George H.W. Bush, who nominated her to the District Court 
for the Southern District of New York. Judge Sotomayor was then 
promoted by President Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit. It is rare indeed to have a judge nominated by 
Presidents of both parties, and this is a testament to Judge 
Sotomayor's intellect, impartiality, and judicial conduct.
  A Supreme Court appointment is for life and many Justices serve for 
decades, but their influence does not stop there. The cases they write 
or participate in have an effect on the law of the land for many 
decades even after they leave the Court. That is why I take my duty as 
a Senator to confirm a President's nomination for the Court so 
seriously, as I have done here.
  One of the things that makes our country great and an inspiration to 
so many throughout the world is our commitment to ``Equal Justice Under 
Law,'' which is carved in marble over the entrance to the Supreme 
Court. Equal justice means that, under our law, who you are does not 
matter; who you know or are connected to does not matter; how much 
money you have or do not have does not matter; the color of your skin, 
your ethnicity, your gender or any other personal characteristic does 
not matter. The facts of a case and the applicable law are all that 
matter in our justice system. That is what the phrase ``Equal Justice 
Under Law'' means in our country and to our country.
  I am confident that ``Equal Justice Under Law'' will inform and 
animate Judge Sotomayor's decisions throughout her years on the Supreme 
Court. If one looks with an open and fair mind at the full breadth of 
Judge Sotomayor's inspiring life, extraordinary career and superb 
qualifications, as I have, it is clear that she has earned a place on 
the Supreme Court and I am proud to be supporting her nomination. I 
have no doubt that our country will be well served by her.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, more than half a century ago, a young 
couple from Puerto Rico settled down in the Bronx with dreams of a 
better life.
  They didn't have much money, but they had a vision for the future.
  A vision that their son and daughter might be able to get a good 
education, find a rewarding job, and live out the full promise of the 
American dream.
  Today, their son Juan is a doctor and university professor near 
Syracuse, NY.
  And their daughter Sonia is about to become the first Latina Justice 
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  This family's story could only take place in America.
  It is a testament to the greatness of our democracy that the daughter 
of a relatively poor family can grow up to attend the finest 
universities in the world, and even rise to the highest judicial body 
in the land.
  But it is not only her remarkably American story that will make Judge 
Sonia Sotomayor an excellent addition to the Court.
  Her legal background marks her as the single most qualified Supreme 
Court nominee in the last 60 years.
  After graduating from Princeton University and Yale Law School, she 
served as an assistant district attorney and then had a successful 
legal practice of her own.
  In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Ms. Sotomayor as the 
first Hispanic judge on the U.S. District Court in New York State.
  Eight years later, President Clinton elevated her to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals, where she serves today.
  Throughout her distinguished career, Judge Sotomayor has been a 
prudent and thoughtful jurist.
  She has consistently exhibited the highest standards of fairness, 
equality, and integrity.
  She is a brilliant legal mind and a moderate on the bench.
  No one can argue with her professional qualifications for this post.
  And I believe that her personal background will lend a fresh and 
dynamic perspective to the highest court in our land.
  That is why I was proud to write to President Obama on May 15, urging 
her nomination.
  I am pleased that he shares my high regard for Judge Sotomayor, and I 
thank him for giving us an eminently qualified nominee to confirm.
  When we consider the makeup of the Supreme Court, we seek to build 
debate, not consensus.
  Judge Sotomayor's uniquely American story will bring diversity to the 
Court's rulings.
  And it is this diversity--of background, of perspective, of opinion--
that will lend legitimacy and integrity to each decision.
  As a former attorney general of Illinois, I have a deep understanding 
of these issues.
  Every legal opinion should be bound by law and the weight of 
precedent.
  The law must be grounded in sound and objective reasoning, and it is 
a powerful force in people's everyday lives.
  That is why we need jurists like Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  Because, when five voices come together to render a court decision, 
it becomes the law of the land.
  There is no army, no threat of violence to back it up--just the quiet 
force of a written opinion.
  That is the wonderful thing about this democracy.
  And as a Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor will never forget 
that.
  She will be a strong addition to the highest court in our land, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in giving her our utmost support.
  Let us come together to make history by confirming the first Latina 
Supreme Court Justice in American history.
  Let us renew our commitment to fairness, equality and diversity by 
confirming the most qualified nominee this Senate has seen in more than 
half a century.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.

[[Page 20863]]


  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to express 
my support for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be 
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, the Senate is on 
the verge of a historic decision in confirming Judge Sotomayor. She 
brings a wealth of experience to this lifetime appointment, with 17 
years of service on the judicial bench--more than any member of the 
current court. She has served as a prosecutor, a trial judge, an 
appellate judge and has also worked as an attorney in the private 
sector.
  In fact, with the retirement of Justice David Souter and the 
confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, she will become the only justice on 
the current Supreme Court with experience as a trial judge. This 
experience gives her a perspective that will be a much-needed addition 
to the Court.
  If we confirm her today--and I am confident we will--Judge Sotomayor 
will become the nation's first Hispanic in history to sit on the 
highest court in the land, and only the third female Justice. Women, 
Latinos and Latinas--indeed all Americans--can join in celebrating 
these significant milestones. Judge Sotomayor embodies the progress our 
country has achieved, and yet I know she would agree with me that there 
is much more to be done.
  According to the American Bar Association, women comprise 47 percent 
of all law students, as compared to 1947, when women made up 3 percent 
of law students. That is significant progress. I firmly believe that 
for Hispanics, Judge Sotomayor's appointment will mark the beginning of 
a new era of steady progress. According to the U.S. Department of 
Labor, today only about 4 percent of lawyers and 3 percent of judges 
are of Hispanic descent.
  Judge Sotomayor will serve as an able Associate Justice. She will 
also serve as a tremendous role model for law students and other young 
people thinking about entering the legal profession and for those who 
aspire to become judges. Her confirmation and service on the U.S. 
Supreme Court will serve to accelerate progress into the future.
  Like election of the president who appointed her, Judge Sotomayor's 
confirmation says to young people of all incomes and backgrounds: You 
can be anything you want to be.
  All of us have been moved by Judge Sotomayor's personal story--of her 
upbringing in the Bronx by a working mother, and her rise from those 
humble beginnings to graduate in one of Princeton University's first 
classes to include women. From there she went on to Yale Law School, 
where she excelled, and then to a coveted post--one of the few held by 
women--in the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney.
  With her record of solid experience, clearly Judge Sotomayor is ready 
to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In rating Judge Sotomayor, the 
American Bar Association conducted confidential interviews with a large 
number of judges and litigants who have worked with her or argued cases 
in her court. The ABA unanimously found Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be 
``well qualified,'' the highest rating the association can give a 
judicial nominee.
  Judge Sotomayor has received support from Democrats and Republicans, 
law enforcement groups and civil rights organizations. Among these 
groups are the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, National Fraternal Order of Police, 
Major Cities Chiefs Association, Women's Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, and the NAACP.
  I agree with the Hispanic National Bar Association, which said that 
Judge Sotomayor ``embodies all the qualities required for service as a 
Justice and are confident that, when confirmed, she will render fair 
and impartial justice for all Americans.''
  The National Association of Women Lawyers has noted that Judge 
Sotomayor's record, ``establishes her lack of gender, racial, ethnic or 
religious bias and her willingness to maintain and open mind, deciding 
cases on the record before her.''
  Throughout her 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has shown a 
respect for established precedent and deference to the role of the 
elected branches of government. She made this point clear in the 
meeting I had with her shortly after President Obama nominated her for 
the post. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS, stated 
that ``perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's 
approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to'' existing 
judicial precedent.
  In her meeting with me and in testimony before the Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Sotomayor repeatedly acknowledged the right to privacy 
is enshrined in our Constitution. I believe she will preserve that 
right.
  President Obama made a wise choice in selecting Judge Sotomayor to 
serve on our highest court. She has demonstrated her integrity and 
intellect throughout the thorough confirmation process. Having followed 
her confirmation hearings closely, I am confident that Judge Sotomayor 
not only has a deep understanding of the law and great respect for 
precedent. I am confident she will make a fine associate justice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  Her career on the Federal bench, from the Southern District Court in 
New York to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and her personal 
journey, from a childhood in a housing project in the Bronx, to honors 
at Princeton University and Yale Law School, are now well known to 
everybody in the country.
  But one of the things that received a small amount of attention in 
her confirmation hearing are the 5 years--right out of law school--she 
spent as a prosecutor in the office of legendary Manhattan district 
attorney Robert Morgenthau. It is a reflection of Sonia Sotomayor's 
grit, determination, and courage that she took on this challenge at 
that particular time to serve as an assistant district attorney during 
one of the most crime-laden periods of New York's history.
  It is not often we get a chance to elevate to the Nation's highest 
Court someone who has followed police into shooting galleries, someone 
who has tracked down witnesses on streets awash in drug-related 
violence, and someone who has personally taken on witnesses and 
shredded some of them on cross-examination, and who has personally 
moved juries to tears in her closing arguments.
  It is not often we get a chance to confirm a Supreme Court nominee 
who does not come from what Chairman Pat Leahy likes to call the 
``judicial monastery.'' But rather we have a chance to confirm someone 
who has the personal experience, perspective, and understanding of how 
the world works within our system of law as a practitioner and also 
having seen what it is like for those who try to enforce the law at the 
street level, our police, our law enforcement officials, and also in 
seeing what happens to victims and families drawn into the system 
unwillingly.
  Judge Sotomayor certainly was not in a ``judicial monastery'' when 
she was undertaking the task of putting criminals behind bars in New 
York. I believe experience will prove of enormous value to somebody on 
the Supreme Court--someone who can go there understanding what it means 
to work 12-hour days as a prosecutor struggling to put together a case 
with reluctant witnesses, with police who have a difficult time coming 
to the courthouse, and, obviously, with experience in interpreting the 
fifth amendment, fourth amendment rights with respect to search and 
seizure and personal incrimination.
  One of her cases, in particular, stands out, which is the 1983 so-
called Tarzan Murderer case, involving a man who broke into apartments, 
sometimes by swinging from rooftops, robbing the residents, and then 
shooting them for no apparent reason. It was Judge Sotomayor's first 
homicide case and also her first homicide conviction. The defendant, 
Richard Maddicks, went to prison for 62\1/2\ years.

[[Page 20864]]

  Judge Sotomayor said the case affected her as no other; that it 
underscored for her how crime destroys families and how prosecutors 
``must be sensitive to the price that crime imposes on our society.'' I 
believe, having been a prosecutor, those are lessons I learned also 
firsthand and did not come automatically to the bar with a sensitivity 
to.
  As much as I admire her work as a New York prosecutor, that 
experience alone, obviously, does not qualify her for confirmation to 
the Supreme Court. But I think it is an important experience, and it 
says a lot about her approach to the law and what she is willing to 
fight for.
  There are, obviously, few things we do that are as important as 
confirming a Supreme Court Justice, and especially now with the Court 
so evenly divided. So this is a pivotal moment for the Court. The 
direction our country will take for the next 30 years is being 
determined now by this debate.
  A vote for a Supreme Court nominee is a vote for each of our personal 
understandings of the Constitution, of the laws of the land, and of 
what we think is important with respect to the application of the 
rights and freedoms that define this country of ours. That is what this 
vote is. It is a vote to protect the basic rights and freedoms that are 
important to every American, and I would say, particularly, privacy, 
equality, and justice.
  Consider, for example, the case of Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine 
as an example of how just one Supreme Court appointment can affect the 
lives and freedoms of countless Americans. In the Ledbetter case, five 
of the Court's nine Justices granted immunity to employers who 
discriminate against workers in matters of salary. It took a new 
Congress and a new President to strike down the Court's ruling in the 
continuing effort to ensure that all Americans--women and men--receive 
equal pay for equal work.
  I have voted for Supreme Court nominees in the past, when it was 
clear to me they would protect those constitutional rights and 
freedoms. And I have voted against Supreme Court nominees, when it was 
clear to me they would not protect those rights and freedoms.
  So we have to ask ourselves: What direction will this nominee take 
the Supreme Court? Will this nominee protect the civil rights and 
liberties enshrined in the Constitution and protected by law that we 
have fought for so long and hard? Will this nominee support Congress's 
power to enact critical legislation--sometimes defining those rights? 
Will the nominee be an effective check on the executive branch?
  As a Senator, each of us has a right--not just a right, but an 
obligation, a duty--to protect the fundamental rights that are part of 
our Constitution. I think part of that means we have to preserve the 
incredible progress we have made with respect to civil rights and 
realizing those rights.
  Having reviewed Judge Sotomayor's extensive record, and having read 
some of her more important rulings, I have concluded that she will do 
exactly that, she will protect them. She is someone who understands 
what sets America apart from almost every other country is the right of 
any citizen--no matter what level they are at, in terms of their work, 
employment or pay, income, status--that no matter where they come from, 
no matter what is their lot in life, they have a right to have their 
day in court. Recently, in this country, over the last 15 or 20 years, 
we have seen those rights reduced, in some cases. We have seen the 
access of average citizens to the courts of America diminished.
  I believe Judge Sotomayor understands the real world, and how 
important it is to preserve that relationship of an individual citizen 
to access to the courts.
  It took a Supreme Court that understood the real world to see that 
the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' was anything but equal and, 
therefore, to break the Constitution out of the legal straightjacket it 
found itself in. I believe Judge Sotomayor meets the standard that was 
set by Justice Potter Stewart, who said:

       The mark of a good judge is a judge whose opinions you can 
     read . . . and have no idea if the judge is a man or a woman, 
     Republican or Democrat, Christian or Jew . . . You just know 
     that he or she was a good judge.

  For the last 17 years, she has applied the law to the facts in the 
cases she has considered, while always cognizant of the impact of her 
decisions before the court. I think she showed restraint, but she also 
showed fairness and impartiality in performing her duties under the 
Constitution.
  I believe, though, it is clear her years as a prosecutor prepared her 
for the Federal bench in ways that few jurists get to experience. After 
that she spent nearly 6 years as a district court judge and almost 12 
years on the appellate court demonstrating a very sophisticated grasp 
of legal doctrine and earning a reputation as a sharp and fearless 
jurist.
  Courage is one of the qualities that Judge Sotomayor's colleagues and 
friends often attribute to her. One of those colleagues who ought to 
know these things was her one-time boss and, I might add, somebody 
whom, when I was a prosecutor, we modeled much of what we did in 
Massachusetts on his approach to the New York District Attorney's 
Office, and that is Robert Morgenthau. He said she was a ``fearless 
prosecutor'' and ``an able champion of the law.'' The police with whom 
she worked so closely felt the same way. That is why her nomination to 
the Supreme Court has been endorsed by nearly every major law 
enforcement organization in the country.
  As a district court judge, she showed just how fearless she could be 
when, in 1995, she ended the Major League Baseball strike with an 
injunction against the league's powerful owners. All of her actions on 
the district court were important.
  Of all her actions on the district court, that was one of my 
favorites. Some experts suggested that she had saved baseball and, in 
doing so, she had, as Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, 
``joined the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and 
Ted Williams.'' I am not sure I would go as far as Ted Williams, but 
Judge Sotomayor's actions did get the Red Sox back on the field at 
Fenway Park.
  It is interesting to me that Judge Sotomayor would bring more Federal 
judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in the last 
100 years. That is a fact her critics conveniently ignore.
  In fact, she would bring more Federal judicial experience to the high 
court--more that 17 years all totaled--than any of the current 
associate justices.
  Chief Justice Roberts came to the court with just 2 years on the 
Federal bench, Justice Alito 16 years, Justice Scalia 4 years, Justice 
Thomas 1 year, Justice Kennedy 13 years, Justice Ginsburg 13 years, 
Justice Souter 1 year, Justice Brennan and Justice Breyer zero years.
  As we all know, Judge Sotomayor would be the first Latina to serve on 
the Supreme Court, just as she was the first Latina on the Second 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Much was made of this after her nomination by 
President Obama. And rightly so.
  Judge Sotomayor is a role model of aspiration, of discipline, of 
commitment, of intellectual prowess and integrity. Her story is an 
American story, a classic American story, an inspiring American story.
  How could anyone not be moved by the sight of Judge Sotomayor's 
mother, Celina, wiping away tears as the Judge paid loving tribute to 
her during her confirmation hearing? How could anyone not celebrate the 
journey that is the Judge's life story? An improbable journey, an 
extraordinary journey, a uniquely American journey.
  We should not underestimate the importance of the diversity Judge 
Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court. People from different 
backgrounds bring different perspectives to bear on decisions, and that 
produces better decisions. That is especially important for the Supreme 
Court, which is, after all, the ultimate champion of the rule of law 
and protector of rights in America.
  How important is diversity? The Supreme Court recently decided a case

[[Page 20865]]

and found that school officials violated the fourth amendment rights of 
a young girl by conducting an intrusive strip search of her 
underclothes while looking for the equivalent of a pain killer. During 
oral arguments in that case, one of the male Justices compared the 
search to changing for gym clothes. Several other Justices laughed, but 
Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the lone female on the court, pointed out how 
``humiliating'' such a search is to young girls.
  I know that the Judge's critics claimed that she would rely on 
``empathy'' rather than the law when deciding cases. But during her 
confirmation hearing, she made clear her commitment to the rule of law. 
``Judges can't rely on what's in their heart,'' she testified. ``They 
don't determine the law The job of the judge is to apply the law. And 
it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law.''
  She, in fact, has never used the word ``empathy'' in any of her 
decisions in more than 3,000 cases or the nearly 400 opinions she has 
written. Nor has she ever used it to describe her judicial philosophy 
in any speech or article. Her decisions have been based on established 
precedent and a respect for the limited role of a judge.
  But every judge, even Supreme Court Justices, are shaped by the 
experiences of their lives.
  One recent Supreme Court nominee testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee that he would bring to the court ``an understanding 
and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad 
spectrum.'' That was Justice Clarence Thomas.
  Another acknowledged being influenced by the fact he came from a 
family of immigrants. ``When I get a case about discrimination, I have 
to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination 
because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of 
gender. And I do take that into account,'' he said. That was Justice 
Samuel Alito.
  Another touted his status as a racial minority in expressing his 
commitment to a society without discrimination. ``I am a member of a 
racial minority myself, suffered, I expect, some minor discrimination 
in my years,'' he said. That was Justice Antonin Scalia.
  I don't know why anyone would think gender and ethnicity do not 
inform one's worldview. How could it be otherwise? ``We're all 
creatures of our upbringing,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once 
observed.
  So, too, is Judge Sotomayor. But that does not mean she will not 
judge fairly. There is nothing in her long career to suggest otherwise. 
Above all, in fact, Judge Sotomayor will bring to the court a keen 
legal mind to the court and an extraordinary record of following, 
defending and upholding the rule of law.
  It is no wonder that she earned a ``well qualified'' rating from the 
American Bar Association, the highest rating available in the ABA's 
evaluation of Federal judicial nominees' credentials, a process the 
organization of legal professionals has conducted for more than 50 
years.
  Our Nation's highest court will certainly benefit from Judge 
Sotomayor's scholarship, her years on the Federal bench and the 
uniquely American aspects of her life.
  But as I noted earlier, the High Court's Justices will also benefit 
from Judge Sotomayor's years as a prosecutor, from having someone among 
them who has been on the front lines in the fight against chaos and 
violence of the city, someone who has seen up close the awful toll 
crime exacts on its victims, someone who has stared down evil and who 
has sent the most evil to prison for life.
  Judge Sotomayor's experience on the bench and her experiences in life 
have given her a keen sense of compassion and an unique understanding 
of everyday Americans--qualities that will serve her well as an 
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, qualities that will serve 
our country well in the Court's deliberations.
  It is clear she understands that our Nation is defined by the great 
struggle of individuals to earn and protect their rights.
  I believe Judge Sotomayor will protect those rights, which did not 
come easily--access to the court house and the school house, civil 
rights, privacy rights, voting rights, antidiscrimination laws, all the 
result of bloodshed and loss of life, all written into law in a fight, 
all requiring constant vigilance to make sure they are enforced and 
maintained.
  Do I overstate the importance of vigilance? Hardly. Just a few short 
months ago, the Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the 
constitutionality of the reenacted Voting Rights Act. The act remained 
intact. But the fact that the Court heard the case is cause for concern 
that even a slight shift in the makeup of the Court could weaken or 
undo laws that protect the rights and well being of the American 
people.
  It was the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said that ``the arc of 
the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' I believe 
Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court--indeed, her entire 
career, as a prosecutor, as a district judge, as an appeals court 
judge--is part of that arc bending toward justice.
  Mr. President, I proudly support her nomination and urge all my 
colleagues to do the same. A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor will be a 
high mark in the history of the Senate and in the history of this 
country.
  Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I ask unanimous consent 
that a letter and statement of support for the nomination of Judge 
Sotomayor to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from the Lawyers' 
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Lawyers' Committee for


                                       Civil Rights Under Law,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.
     Chairman Patrick J. Leahy,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Jeff Sessions,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Sessions; As the Co-Chairs of the 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, we submit the 
     attached Statement in Support of the nomination of Judge 
     Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the United States 
     Supreme Court. This Statement is presented on behalf of our 
     organization and with the particular support of the 
     identified individual members of the Board of Directors and 
     Trustees, who have joined to highlight their commitment to 
     the Lawyers' Committee's position.
       We also enclose an 81 page Report analyzing Judge 
     Sotomayor's record pertaining to constitutional 
     interpretation and civil rights, issues which are of 
     paramount importance to the Lawyers' Committee.
       We believe that the members of the Lawyers' Committee who 
     have joined us in support of Judge Sotomayor have done so 
     because the record demonstrates that Judge Sotomayor is well 
     qualified to serve as an Associate Justice, with a record of 
     judicial service characterized by both its longevity and its 
     quality. Judge Sotomayor's record in the area of civil rights 
     reveals a balanced and considered approach to following 
     precedent and safeguarding the protections contained in our 
     nation's Constitution and civil rights statutes. We also 
     believe Judge Sotomayor brings needed diversity to the Court 
     based on her gender, ethnicity and experience as a prosecutor 
     and trial judge.
       We urge the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to 
     recommend Judge Sonia M. Sotomayor for confirmation by the 
     full Senate.
           Sincerely,
     Nicholas T. Christakos,
       Co-Chair.
     John S. Kiernan,
       Co-Chair.
                                  ____


  Statement Supporting the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an 
          Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

       The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the 
     undersigned members of its Board of Directors and Trustees, 
     write to support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
     the Supreme Court of the United States and to urge the Senate 
     to confirm that nomination.
       On May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Judge 
     Sotomayor, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Second Circuit, to replace retiring Justice David 
     Souter. The last vacancy on the Court occurred in 2005, when 
     Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme 
     Court, retired. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would be the 
     first Hispanic and the third female justice in the 219 year 
     history of the Supreme Court.

[[Page 20866]]

       Judge Sotomayor has impressive academic and professional 
     credentials. She has had a wide-ranging legal career as a 
     prosecutor, a corporate litigator, and both a district and 
     appellate court judge. These combined experiences would add a 
     perspective not currently available on the Supreme Court. In 
     addition, having sat for six years on the district court and 
     more than ten years on the court of appeals, Judge Sotomayor 
     has more federal judicial experience at the time of her 
     nomination than any Supreme Court nominee in the last hundred 
     years.
       This nomination is of special interest to us as directors 
     and trustees of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 
     Law because of our shared goal of promoting equal justice. In 
     recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a number of 
     decisions scaling back the critical protections against 
     discrimination that are afforded by the Constitution and our 
     nation's civil rights laws. This trend underscores the 
     pressing need for a Justice who understands the persistent 
     realities of discrimination and who interprets our civil 
     rights laws as they were intended--to provide meaningful 
     protections.
       We believe that the best evidence of Judge Sotomayor's 
     qualifications as a nominee is the judicial opinions she has 
     written over her long career on the bench. Analysis of her 
     opinions in civil rights cases and related areas prepared by 
     the Lawyers' Committee forms the primary basis for our 
     support for Judge Sotomayor's nomination. The Lawyers' 
     Committee also examined her speeches and other writings to 
     see whether they contained anything that should disqualify 
     her from serving on the Supreme Court or that might indicate 
     that she has a different judicial philosophy, particularly in 
     the civil rights arena, from that reflected in her judicial 
     opinions. The results of the Lawyers' Committee's analysis 
     are contained in its Report on Judge Sotomayor's nomination.
       Based on our review, we conclude that Judge Sotomayor's 
     record in civil rights cases demonstrates careful judicial 
     analysis, with full consideration of the relevant facts and 
     law, accompanied by a sensitivity to civil rights issues that 
     is consonant with constitutional and statutory provisions. We 
     have found nothing in Judge Sotomayor's speeches or non-
     judicial writings, which appropriately refer to her unique 
     life story and the perspective she has gained from her 
     background, that should disqualify her from serving on the 
     Supreme Court. Our review of her judicial decisions, as well 
     as her speeches and other writings, leads us to conclude that 
     Judge Sotomayor would bring to the Court an appropriate 
     regard for the importance of enforcement of the civil rights 
     protections of the Constitution and federal civil rights 
     laws. We further conclude that her performance as a Court of 
     Appeals judge clearly supports the proposition that she will 
     honor stare decisis and adhere to the rule of law.
       On the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has heard over 3,000 
     appeals and has written over 250 signed panel opinions. Her 
     opinions reveal a jurist who follows established precedent 
     yet is willing to raise concerns about the practical impact 
     of that precedent. Her opinions exhibit deference to the 
     discretion of trial judges. Judge Sotomayor's jurisprudence 
     in civil rights cases indicates that she carefully weighs the 
     facts and the law, and her rulings fall within the mainstream 
     of existing judicial decisions and legal scholarship. She 
     interprets civil rights laws in a manner that provides 
     meaningful protection from discrimination, while being 
     mindful of the need to grant early relief to defendants when 
     the facts and law justify a summary ruling.
       Judge Sotomayor possesses both the exceptional competence 
     necessary to serve on the Court and a profound respect for 
     the importance of protecting the civil rights afforded by the 
     Constitution and the nation's civil rights laws. 
     Additionally, we believe that having a diverse Court is 
     important for our nation. For these reasons, we support the 
     nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States and urge the Senate to confirm her nomination.
       By action of the Executive Committee, this statement has 
     been submitted to members of the Board of Directors and the 
     Board of Trustees of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law, for the individual signature of subscribing Board 
     members whose names are set forth below. The following 
     individual members of the Boards of Directors and Trustees of 
     the Lawyers' Committee hereby subscribe to the statement.
       Atiba D. Adams, David R. Andrews, Barbara R. Arnwine, 
     Jeffrey Barist, Daniel C. Barr, Lynne Bernabei, Victoria 
     Bjorklund, John W. Borkowski, Patricia A. Brannan, Steven H. 
     Brose;
       Paulette M. Caldwell, John A. Camp, Douglass W. Cassel, 
     Michael H. Chanin, Nicholas T. Christakos, Lisa E. Cleary, 
     Frank M. Conner, III, Michael A. Cooper, Edward Correia, 
     Peter J. Covington;
       Marion Cowell, Nora Cregan, Michael Birney de Leeuw, 
     Doneene K. Damon, Armand G. Derfner, John H. Doyle, III, Paul 
     F. Eckstein, Robert Ehrenbard, Joseph D. Feaster, Jr., Fred 
     N. Fishman;
       Marc L. Fleischaker, John H. Fleming, Alexander D. Forger, 
     Katherine Forrest, Eleanor M. Fox, Joseph W. Gelb, Peter B. 
     Gelblum, Susan M. Glenn, Jon Greenblatt, Peter R. Haje, 
     Gregory P. Hansel, Conrad K. Harper, Robert E. Harrington;
       David L. Harris, Mark I. Harrison, Amos Hartston, John E. 
     Hickey, Jerome E. Hyman, Blair M. Jacobs, Malachi B. Jones, 
     Jr., Michael D. Jones, James P. Joseph, Heather Lamberg 
     Kafele, Stephen Kastenberg, Laura Kaster;
       Kim M. Keenan, Frederick W. Kanner, Frank Kennamer, Andrew 
     W. Kentz, John S. Kiernan, Loren Kieve, Teresa J. Kimker, 
     Adam T. Klein, Alan M. Klinger, Naho Kobayashi, Daniel F. 
     Kolb, Edward Labaton, Gregory P. Landis;
       Brian K. Landsberg, Michael L. Lehr, Charles T. Lester, 
     Marjorie Press Lindblom, David M. Lipman, Andrew Liu, Jack W. 
     Londen, Robert MacCrate, Cheryl W. Mason, Christopher Mason, 
     Julia Tarver Mason, Gaye A. Massey;
       Colleen McIntosh, John E. McKeever, Kenneth E. McNeil, Neil 
     V. McKittrick, D. Stuart Meiklejohn, Charles R. Morgan, 
     Robert S. Mucklestone, Robert A. Murphy, Aasia Mustakeem, 
     Karen K. Narasaki, Frederick M. Nicholas, John E. Nolan, John 
     Nonna;
       Roswell B. Perkins, Bradley S. Phillips, Kit Pierson, 
     Bettina B. Plevan, Robert H. Rawson, William L. Robinson, Guy 
     Rounsaville, Michael L. Rugen, Lowell E. Sachnoff, Gail C. 
     Saracco, John F. Savarese, Jennifer R. Scullion;
       Richard T. Seymour, Valerie Shea, Jane C. Sherburne, 
     Richard Silberberg, Jeffrey Simes, Robert Sims, Marsha E. 
     Simms, John S. Skilton, Rodney E. Slater, Eleanor H. Smith, 
     Edward Soto, John B. Strasberger;
       Daniel P. Tokaji, Michael Traynor, Reginald M. Turner, 
     Suzanne E. Turner, Michael W. Tyler, Kenneth Vittor, Joseph 
     F. Wayland, Vaughn C. Williams, Thomas S. Williamson, Brenda 
     Wright, Erika Thomas-Yuille.

  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to confirm 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor. In doing so, we will not only make history, but 
we will stand witness to a coming of age of America.
  Our Founders devised a unique experiment in a new form of government 
built on tolerance, equal rights, justice, and a Constitution that 
protected us from the mighty sword of tyranny. It was a revolutionary 
notion that in this new Nation, no one--no one--would be bound by an 
accident of birth. No one would be limited by their economic or social 
circumstances. In America we have come to believe that all is possible.
  Today, on the anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act, at 
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is an African American sitting in 
the Oval Office. This is America.
  Across the street in that magnificent symbol of equal justice under 
law, a woman--a Latina--will take a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. 
This is America.
  In this Chamber, this Senator respectfully stands before you born in 
the same year as Judge Sotomayor and in similar circumstances--raised 
in a tenement in an old neighborhood in New Jersey, the son of 
immigrants, the first in my family to go to college. I never dreamed I 
would stand on this floor on this day to rise in support of an 
eminently qualified Hispanic woman who grew up in a housing project in 
the Bronx, as I was growing up in that old tenement in Union City. Yes, 
this is America. It is the America our Founders intended it to be.
  I said on this floor earlier in this debate that when Judge Sotomayor 
takes her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, we will only need to look at 
the portrait of the Justices of the new Supreme Court to see how far we 
have come as a nation, to understand who we are as a people. It is true 
that we are often divided by deeply held individual beliefs that too 
often prevent us from reaching compromise on the complex issues and 
challenges facing this Nation. But in America, we are entitled to our 
individual beliefs. We are entitled to hold them firmly, passionately, 
with resolve, reason, and fairness. We are free to fight for them with 
every fiber of our being; to express them, to shout them from the 
rooftops if we like. Put simply, all of us see the world differently. 
All we can ask of ourselves, all any of us can ask, is that wisdom, 
intelligence, reason, and logic will always prevail in every decision 
we make.
  I have said before on this floor, and I will say again: Who we are is 
not a measure of how we judge, it is merely

[[Page 20867]]

one part of the many-faceted prism through which we see and analyze the 
facts. The real test is how we think and what we do. I know in my heart 
and in my mind that Judge Sotomayor will do what is right for America.
  The worst her opponents have accused her of is an accident of 
geography that gave her the unique ability to see the world from the 
street view, from the cheap seats. I know that view well. I know it 
very well. It gives us a unique perspective on life. It allows us to 
focus a clear lens on the lives of those whose struggles are more 
profound than ours and whose problems run far deeper than our own. The 
view of the world from a tenement remains with me today, and it will 
remain with me all of my life, just as the view from that housing 
project in the Bronx will remain with Judge Sotomayor. It is a part of 
who she is. But let's be clear. It is not what she will do or how she 
will judge. It is the long view of America--a wide, inclusive view--
often profoundly moving, sometimes heartbreaking, and it gives her an 
edge where she may see what others cannot, and I truly believe that is 
a gift that will benefit the Nation as a whole.
  So I call on my colleagues to step back, take the long view, think of 
what our Founders hoped for this Nation, and let's vote. History awaits 
and so does an anxious Hispanic community in this country.
  I have made my decision, and I will proudly stand in the well of this 
Chamber to cast my vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Justice 
of the U.S. Supreme Court. When she places her hand on the Bible and 
takes the oath of office, the new portrait of the Justices of the 
Supreme Court will clearly reflect who we are as a nation, what we 
stand for as a fair, just, and hopeful people.
  Let that be the legacy of our generation, for this is America--the 
America our Founders intended it to be.
  Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee has received letters of 
support for Judge Sotomayor's nomination from local, national, and 
international law enforcement, including the chiefs of police of major 
cities, among others. I ask unanimous consent that those letters, as 
well as letters from national Latino and Hispanic rights organizations, 
such as MANA, ASPIRA, and others be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Metropolitan Police Department,

                                      Nashville, TN, July 7, 2009.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: After careful consideration of Judge 
     Sonia Sotomayor's established record of respect and 
     understanding for the work of law enforcement, I am today 
     writing to express my strong support of her nomination as the 
     next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
       In my nearly 30 years experience as a police officer and 
     police executive in three states, Louisiana, Washington, and 
     Tennessee, it is clear to me that our citizens are ultimately 
     best served and protected by members of the judiciary who are 
     committed to respect for the rule of law. I am encouraged 
     that Judge Sotomayor, through her work as a prosecutor in New 
     York, and later as a trial judge, learned first hand how 
     crime impacts a community and how members of law enforcement 
     are in the trenches every day working to make a difference 
     for safer neighborhoods. I believe that she understands the 
     challenges police agencies face in dealing with criminals, 
     and, if confirmed, will ensure that law enforcement is 
     treated with respect and fairness in matters coming before 
     the Supreme Court.
       Senator Leahy, I understand that you will explore and 
     consider a number of issues and factors before making your 
     confirmation decision. I have every confidence that Judge 
     Sotomayor's clear familiarity with how the courts impact law 
     enforcement and the criminal justice system will be given 
     full consideration. Thank you for your kind attention to this 
     letter, and thank you for your support of the men and women 
     in Tennessee, Vermont and our great nation's 48 other states 
     who wear the badge of protection and service.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ronal W. Serpas,
     Chief of Police.
                                  ____



                              Major Cities Chiefs Association,

                                                     June 7, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Messrs. Leahy and Sessions: On behalf of the Major 
     Cities Chiefs, representing the 56 largest jurisdictions 
     across the Nation, we are writing to support the nomination 
     of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United 
     States.
       We applaud her distinguished career in public service, a 
     record of achievement that began with her work as a 
     prosecuting attorney. During those early years as an 
     Assistant District Attorney, Sonia Sotomayor earned high 
     marks from law enforcement. She has been praised by those who 
     worked at her side on criminal cases as well as officials who 
     have taken cases to her courtroom in later years.
       Her record as a prosecutor and a judge both show a 
     commitment to public safety and sensitivity to the needs of 
     the community. She has made decisions that are both tough and 
     compassionate. Her record shows respect for the laws and 
     cases that enable the police to do their job.
       American law enforcement has always looked to you for 
     leadership and we again turn to you to move the nomination of 
     Sonia Sotomayor quickly through the confirmation process.
       Sincerely,

                                           William J. Bratton,

                                                  Chief of Police,
     President, Major Cities Chiefs.
                                  ____

                                         International Association


                                          of Chiefs of Police,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am pleased to 
     inform you of our support for the nomination of Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor to be the next Associate Justice on the United 
     States Supreme Court.
       As you know, the IACP is the world's oldest and largest 
     association of law enforcement executives. With more than 
     20,000 members in over 100 countries the IACP has, throughout 
     its 116 year history, been committed to advancing the law 
     enforcement profession and promoting public safety.
       It is for these reasons that the IACP is proud to endorse 
     the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United States 
     Supreme Court. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor has 
     consistently demonstrated a firm understanding of, and a deep 
     appreciation for, the challenges and complexities confronting 
     our Nation's law enforcement officers. As a prosecutor, and 
     at the District and Circuit Courts, Judge Sotomayor has 
     clearly displayed her profound dedication to ensuring that 
     our communities are safe and that the interests of justice 
     are served.
       The IACP believes that Judge Sotomayor's years of 
     experience, her expertise and her unwavering dedication to 
     the rule of law are evidence of her outstanding 
     qualifications to serve as the next Associate Justice of the 
     United States Supreme Court. The IACP urges the Judiciary 
     Committee and the members of the United States Senate to 
     confirm Judge Sotomayor's nomination in a timely fashion.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me 
     know how the IACP may be of further assistance in this 
     vitally important process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Russell B. Laine,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                         MANA,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate Office 
         Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Sessions: MANA, A National Latina 
     Organization, with headquarters in Washington, DC, twenty-six 
     chapters nationwide, and six affiliates across the nation 
     expresses wholehearted support for the appointment of the 
     Honorable Sonia Sotomayor to serve as a Supreme Court 
     Justice.
       Growing up in the Bronx after her parents moved from Puerto 
     Rico, Sotomayor's mother instilled the value of education 
     early in her life. After graduating valedictorian at her 
     Catholic high school, Sotomayor went on to Princeton, where 
     she continued to excel. She attended Yale Law School and 
     wrote for the Yale Law Journal.
       Judge Sotomayor has had an exceptional and diverse career 
     that will be an invaluable asset in a role as a Supreme Court 
     Justice. She began her career as an assistant district 
     attorney in the state of New York. Later, she worked in 
     private practice as a corporate litigator, dealing with cases 
     for both American and foreign clients. In 1992 she served as 
     a federal judge for the U.S. District Court, having been 
     nominated by President George H.W. Bush. In this position she 
     was the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York 
     and the first Hispanic federal judge in New York. During that 
     time she supported claims to freedom of religious expression 
     under the First Amendment. She

[[Page 20868]]

     continued in that position until her appointment as appellate 
     judge by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1998.
       The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor's perseverance, work ethic, 
     integrity, and tested and proven ability to excel demonstrate 
     her strength of character. Her commitment to nonpartisan, 
     fair decision making, and upholding the law without bias 
     makes Judge Sotomayor a clear choice for Supreme Court 
     Justice. We are confident that Judge Sotomayor will dutifully 
     represent the law as it is written, always serving in the 
     best interests of the nation. A true example of living the 
     American dream, she is an inspiration.
       Moving forward, we urge that the Senate follow the timeline 
     suggested by the White House, with an expeditious hearing by 
     mid-July. As is our established procedure, we will also be 
     submitting this legislative vote to the National Hispanic 
     Leadership Agenda for consideration on the Annual 
     Congressional Report Card, which tracks and publishes the 
     voting records of Members of Congress on issues relevant to 
     the Hispanic community. In the best interest of our nation, 
     we ask you to confirm the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor based on 
     her credentials, experience, and desire to honorably serve 
     our great nation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alma Morales Riojas,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                                          MANA de Albuquerque,

                                    Albuquerque, NM, June 2, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Semite Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy, On behalf of MANA de Albuquerque, its 
     thirty-five members, and it's affiliation with MANA, A 
     National Latina Organization that represents twenty-six 
     Chapters, six Affiliates, and individual members nationwide, 
     I would like to declare my support for the confirmation of 
     Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Justice of the Supreme Court.
       The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor has had an exceptional and 
     diverse career that will be an invaluable asset in a role as 
     a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Sotomayor's perseverance, work 
     ethic. veracity, and tested and proven ability to excel 
     demonstrate her strength of character. Her commitment to 
     bipartisan, fair decision making, and upholding the law 
     without bias makes Judge Sotomayor a clear choice for Supreme 
     Court Justice.
       Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination reflects an enormous 
     achievement for the Latina community. She is a woman of 
     astonishing achievement, keen intellect, and integrity. These 
     characteristics will aid her in making just decisions in 
     representing and reflecting the law of the United States of 
     America.
       As a member of your constituency, the Latino community, and 
     MANA de Albuquerque, I ask you to support Judge Sonia 
     Sotomayor's expeditious confirmation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Lydia Lopez Maestas,
     President.
                                  ____



                                           Women of El Barrio,

                                       El Barrio, NY, May 8, 2009.
     Re United States Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia 
         Sotomayor.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leahy: Women of El Barrio (WOES) proudly and 
     respectfully urge you to make Judge Sonia Sotomayor your 
     first appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States 
     of America. Our appeal is consistent with WOEB's mission to 
     develop the leadership and promote the contributions of 
     Puerto Rican grandmothers and young women from our community, 
     through efforts that extend from preserving a block, to 
     honoring the gifts of our precious Planet! Sonia Sotomayor, 
     is a star whose light shows working class boys and girls that 
     they can become men and women who achieve in order to serve.
       As a Latina, Judge Sotomayor's appointment addresses two 
     glaring deficiencies in the court's lack of diversity and 
     will bring our court system closer to real equality of 
     opportunity.
       In their appeal New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand 
     recognize that ``Latinos are a large and growing segment of 
     our society that have gone grossly underrepresented in our 
     legal system. Indeed, while Latinos comprise around 15 
     percent of the population, only about 7 percent of federal 
     judges are Latino. Moreover, not a single Latino has served 
     on the United States Supreme Court in the history of our 
     country.''
       While more than half the U.S. population is female, nearly 
     one-third of all U.S. lawyers are women. Approximately 30 
     percent of the judges serving on the lower federal courts are 
     women. It is truly shameful that the retirement of Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Conner should have resulted in the reduction of 
     the paltry number of women from two to one. Most recently the 
     lone remaining female, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has 
     battled serious health problems.
       In Judge Sotomayor you have a nominee of unquestioned legal 
     prowess and excellent academic credentials. She's a Princeton 
     University graduate, summa cum laude; a Juris Doctor from 
     Yale Law School, including Editor of the Yale Law Journal. As 
     a practicing attorney, she was a litigator in an 
     international law firm and served as Manhattan Assistant 
     District Attorney under Robert Morgenthauy 17 years on the 
     federal bench as trial judge in the Southern District of New 
     York and her current position on the 2nd Circuit.
       In its October 2008 issue of Esquire magazine found that 
     ``In her rulings, Sotomayor has often shown suspicion of 
     bloated government and corporate power. She's offered a 
     reinterpretation of copyright law, ruled in favor of public 
     access to private information, and in her most famous 
     decision, sided with labor in the Major League Baseball 
     strike of 1995. More than anything else, she is seen as a 
     realist. With a likely 20 years ahead on the bench, she'll 
     have plenty of time to impart her realist philosophy.''
       Just as importantly, we, the people want a Supreme Court of 
     men and women who uphold the Constitution of the United 
     States and the laws flowing from it; a court that is balanced 
     when it is called upon to scrutinize preemptive war, torture, 
     black prisons, warrantless surveillance, erosion of the 
     common wealth, and deemed the true arbiter of social, 
     economic and electoral justice for all.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra Talavera,
     Chair.
                                  ____



                                 The ASPRIA Association, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2009.
     Re vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayer to the U.S. Supreme 
         Court.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: ASPIRA, the largest national Latino 
     organizations in the United States and the only national 
     organization dedicated exclusively to the education of Latino 
     youth, urges you, as a member of the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, to vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor after a 
     thorough but swift confirmation process.
       Judge Sotomayor's outstanding academic credentials, keen 
     intellect, extensive judicial experience, and long history of 
     fairness and adherence to the law, make her an exemplary 
     candidate to serve on the Supreme Court. Raised by a single 
     mother in public housing in the Bronx, Judge Sotomayor went 
     on to graduate with honors from Princeton and Yale Law 
     School, two of the most prestigious universities in the 
     country. In her three-decade career, Judge Sotomayor has 
     served as an Assistant District Attorney, a litigator in 
     private practice, and served as U.S. District judge for six 
     years before serving eleven years on the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the 2nd District. She was appointed to the 
     District Court by Republican President George H.W. Bush and 
     to the appeals court by President Clinton. She has 
     participated in over three thousand court decisions, and has 
     written over 380 opinions. No other Supreme Court nominee in 
     the last 100 years has had the experience she will bring to 
     the court. Judge Sotomayor's compelling life experiences will 
     allow her to bring a range of experiences and perspectives to 
     the court's deliberations.
       We sincerely hope that you will join the majority of 
     senators, Republicans and Democrats to confirm this exemplary 
     American to the Supreme Court.
           Sincerely,
                                          Ronald Blackburn Moreno,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today. In a few 
hours, we will have achieved something truly great as a nation. Our 
first African American President has nominated the first Hispanic 
Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Times are changing.
  If there are two words that sum up this nomination, it is these: 
``It's time.'' It is time that we confirm a nominee to the Supreme 
Court who will improve its diversity. It is time that we confirm a 
moderate nominee to the Supreme Court who will pull it back into the 
mainstream and away from the extreme. It is time we confirm a nominee 
whose life story, personal history, intelligence, and experience 
represent the best America has to offer.
  Judge Sotomayor's story is a true American story, a true New York 
story, and a great story. When Sonia Sotomayor was growing up, the 
Nancy Drew stories inspired her sense of adventure, developed her sense 
of justice, and showed her that women could and should be outspoken and 
bold. Now, in

[[Page 20869]]

2009, there are many more role models for a young student from her alma 
mater, Cardinal Spellman, to choose from, with Judge Sotomayor foremost 
among them.
  If one listened to the debate over the last 2 days, one could easily 
think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not talking 
about the same person we are. Those who are voting for Judge 
Sotomayor's confirmation have focused, as they should, on her history 
and her record. Judge Sotomayor was a prosecutor and a commercial 
litigator. She was nominated to the district court bench by a 
Republican President. Her record shows she is a true moderate. She has 
agreed with her Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has 
ruled for the government and against the immigrant petitioner in 83 
percent of immigration cases. She has denied race claims in 83 percent 
of race cases. All of these numbers place her squarely in the middle of 
the judges on her circuit.
  But my Republican colleagues have chosen instead to focus on the 
speeches she has given outside the courtroom. They have zeroed in on a 
few choice quotes we have heard over and over again about the ``wise 
Latina woman'' quote. Is this the same person who has sat on 3,000 
cases in 17 years, who ruled against Hispanic and African American 
plaintiffs in a wide variety of cases, and who ruled in favor of a 
police officer who engaged in blatantly racist speech because the first 
amendment protected him? Should three words outweigh 3,000 cases? Only 
if you have something against her in the first place.
  ``Bias'' and ``activism'' are now code words for ``not hard right.'' 
My colleagues say they don't want activist judges. What they really 
mean is they don't want judges who disagree with them and who put rule 
of law ahead of moving America in ideological directions.
  We must and will continue to fight for mainstream judges. We must and 
will continue to free our unelected branch of government from 
ideologues and result-oriented extremism.
  With the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, we have an opportunity to 
restore faith in the notion that the Court should reflect the same 
mainstream ideals that are embraced by America.
  Judge Sotomayor is clearly a moderate. She is highly qualified. She 
is extremely intelligent. She represents the American ideal that at the 
end of the day, race and ethnicity and class aren't supposed to 
predetermine anything; through hard work and a good education, a girl 
from a Bronx housing project can rise to the highest Court in the most 
democratic country in the world.
  I am so proud to cast my vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New 
York for what are heartfelt words.
  I was able to spend some time privately with the judge to get to know 
her from a first impression. Usually, in my 37 years of public life, I 
have been able to size up a person, and it has proven to be a fairly 
accurate measure of a person. My sense from that private meeting is 
that here we have a judge who will use a lot of common sense in making 
judicial decisions.
  I think that is important. I think it is also important that a judge 
have deference in the rule of law to precedent that has already been 
established. I believe that to be the case with this judge.
  Since it is the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will also have 
the final determination on what a law does or does not say. In that 
case, I think we not only want a judge who is extremely sharp, 
intelligent, well schooled in the law, with a long history in the law, 
with common sense, but of moderate disposition.
  I think that is what Judge Sotomayor brings to this position of the 
U.S. Supreme Court. I believe Judge Sotomayor will be a fair, 
impartial, and an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. I am very proud 
that I will be able to cast my vote for her in a few minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by introducing 
into the Record a letter I wrote with Senator Olympia Snowe in May, 
after Justice Souter announced he would be retiring from the Supreme 
Court.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2009.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The announced retirement of United 
     States Supreme Court Justice David Souter--an outstanding 
     jurist--has left you with the crucial task of nominating 
     someone for a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest 
     bench.
       The most important thing is to nominate an exceptionally 
     well-qualified, intelligent person to replace Justice 
     Souter--and we are convinced that person should be a woman.
       Women make up more than half of our population, but right 
     now hold only one seat out of nine on the United States 
     Supreme Court. This is out of balance. In order for the Court 
     to be relevant, it needs to be diverse and better reflect 
     America.
       Mr. President, we look forward with great anticipation to 
     your choice for the Supreme Court vacancy.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Boxer,
       U.S. Senator.
     Olympia Snowe,
       U.S. Senator.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at that time, we wrote, in part:

       The most important thing is to nominate an exceptionally 
     well-qualified, intelligent person to replace Justice 
     Souter--and we are convinced that person should be a woman.

  That was the letter that was written by a Democrat and a Republican 
Senator who believe strongly that it does matter, when you only have 
one woman on a Court of nine, as we do right now--until we vote--it is 
just not enough.
  President Obama has nominated an exceptionally well-qualified and 
intelligent woman. She has more experience on the Federal bench than 
any Supreme Court nominee in the last hundred years.
  Judge Sotomayor received the highest rating from the American Bar 
Association, and she will be an outstanding addition to the high Court.
  When she is confirmed, she will become only the third woman ever to 
don the robes of a Supreme Court Justice. She will make history as the 
Nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
  This is a proud moment for our entire Nation, and especially for the 
13 million Latinos in California and the 45 million Latinos nationwide. 
She already is a role model for so many young women.
  As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a recent interview:

       About half of all law graduates today are women, and we 
     have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country 
     who are serving as lawyers. So they ought to be represented 
     on the Court.

  In the weeks since she was nominated, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has 
proven that she has the right judgment and the right temperament to 
serve on the Nation's high Court. This is a proud moment for our 
Nation, a very proud moment.
  She demonstrated, during a week of intense questioning before the 
Judiciary Committee, that she is tough, she is smart and, most 
importantly, she knows the law.
  During those hearings, she made clear that she understands the role 
of a judge, which is to apply the law to the facts of each and every 
case. She said:

       In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my 
     judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The 
     task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the law.

  Her 17-year record as a Federal judge demonstrates a respect for the 
law and for precedent.

[[Page 20870]]

  Let me read some comments from Judge Sotomayor's many supporters. 
Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney for the County of New York, said:

       Judge Sotomayor's career in the law spans three decades, 
     and [she] worked in almost every level of our judicial 
     system--prosecutor, private litigator, trial court judge, and 
     appellate court judge. . . . She is an able champion of the 
     law, and her depth of experience will be invaluable on our 
     highest court.

  Kim Askew, chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee 
on the Federal Judiciary, said:

       [Judge Sotomayor] has a reputation for integrity and 
     outstanding character. . . . Her judicial temperament meets 
     the high standards for appointment to the court.

  I have to say, having watched some of the very tough questioning of 
Judge Sotomayor--if I might say, questions that were asked and 
answered, asked and answered, and asked and answered--the judge showed 
she understood that the Senators had a right to be tough, had a right 
to ask her anything they wanted, and she stood her ground beautifully.
  Second Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs said:

       Sonia Sotomayor is a well-loved colleague on our court--
     everybody from every point of view knows that she is fair and 
     decent in all her dealings. . . . The fact is, she is truly a 
     superior human being.

  We all bring different experiences to our work. The judge has had 
experiences growing up as a young Latina that have shaped her life, and 
she has a firsthand appreciation of the American dream.
  She was raised in a South Bronx housing project. Her father, a 
factory worker, died when she was only 9 years of age. Her mother 
worked two jobs to support the family. From this humble background, she 
graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and became an editor of the 
Yale Law Review.
  As a woman, Judge Sotomayor will bring a different perspective than 
her male counterparts on the high Court. As we have said, those of us 
who feel it is important to have women represented, whether it is in 
the Senate, the House, or in corporate boardrooms or on the Supreme 
Court, a different perspective is important. I will give you an example 
of why I believe this.
  During oral arguments in a recent Supreme Court case involving a 13-
year-old girl who was strip-searched, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
pointed out that her male colleagues didn't understand the humiliation 
a teenage girl would feel from being strip-searched. Justice Ginsburg 
said the obvious:

       They have never been a 13-year-old girl. It's a very 
     sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, 
     some of them, quite understood.

  So Justice Ginsburg pointed out in that one case how important it is 
to have this type of diversity on the court. As the Nation's first 
Latina Supreme Court Justice, Judge Sotomayor will bring a unique set 
of experiences to her role; and the Court will be a richer place 
because of her perspective.
  I commend our President for selecting such an outstanding, well-
qualified nominee.
  I congratulate Judge Sotomayor for the very dignified manner in which 
she carried herself throughout this long, grueling process.
  As President Obama said when he nominated her:

       When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume 
     her seat on the highest Court of the land, America will have 
     taken another important step toward realizing the ideal that 
     is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.

  I look forward to seeing her sworn in as our next Supreme Court 
Justice.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Senators have an enormous responsibility 
when it comes to deciding whether to support or oppose a Supreme Court 
nominee.
  We must examine whether the person nominated to the highest court in 
the land will uphold and defend the principles contained in the 
Constitution, refrain from judicial activism, respect the rule of law, 
deliver blind justice to each and every litigant before the Court, and 
render reasoned decisions that adhere to precedent.
  This duty has been characterized by many of my colleagues as one of 
the most important and far reaching decisions a Senator will ever make. 
I couldn't agree more.
  I entered into the nomination process of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a 
woman with an impressive life story and resume, with an open mind and a 
steadfast resolve to evaluate the nominee's qualifications on an 
unbiased basis.
  In fact, having gone through the confirmation process myself before 
being sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture, I believe that a necessary 
amount of deference should be given to the President's choices.
  However, after carefully reviewing Judge Sotomayor's record and 
speeches as well as closely monitoring her hearing before the Judiciary 
Committee, I could not support her nomination.
  There are several areas that concern me with regard to Judge 
Sotomayor.
  First, I am concerned that she will not be a neutral umpire. You see, 
a judge has the duty to preside over a courtroom with no inclination to 
side with one team over the other.
  A judge must be able to put aside his or her personal or political 
agenda before sitting down on that bench. That is because no matter who 
you are--Black or White, woman or man, rich or poor--every person in 
this country is entitled to receive equal justice under the law.
  There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
  By now, most people are aware of Judge Sotomayor's comments that a 
``wise Latina woman'' would ``more often than not reach a better 
conclusion than a White male.'' However, I think it bears pointing out 
to those who claim the comment was made in isolation and taken out of 
context, that Judge Sotomayor has made a series of similar comments 
over the years.
  For example:

       In short, I accept the proposition that a difference will 
     be made by the presence of women on the bench and that my 
     experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a 
     judge.
       Our experiences as women and people of color affect our 
     decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's 
     an aspiration.
       I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the 
     differences resulting from experience and heritage but 
     attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, 
     sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.
       By ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do 
     a disservice both to the law and society.

  Nowhere in the history of our judicial system have judges been told 
to ``go with their gut'' as implied in the judge's statement. Such a 
standard would erode the legitimacy of the judicial system and would 
put every litigant in jeopardy of receiving an unfair trial.
  Rather, judges are expected to decide cases based on the rule of law, 
not on the basis of their feelings. Otherwise empathy towards one 
person would mean antipathy against another.
  A concrete example of my concern that Judge Sotomayor would not be 
able to set aside her personal preferences and biases is the Ricci v 
DeStefano case. In this case, Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues 
dismissed in a summary one paragraph unpublished opinion the claims of 
17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter. They alleged 
reverse discrimination based on New Haven's decision to discard the 
result of a promotional exam because not enough minorities would be 
eligible for promotion. Nearly half of the judges on the Second Circuit 
criticized the ruling as a ``perfunctory disposition.''
  However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court announced it was 
overturning the Second Circuit's ruling in the Ricci case. And while 
the final outcome appeared to narrowly overturn the Circuit's decision 
by a vote of 5-4, a deeper analysis is needed. All nine Justices 
unanimously rejected the lower court's specific holding and legal 
standard.
  It also bears mentioning Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the 
case:

       The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is 
     ``unfortunate'' and that they ``understandably attract this 
     Court's sympathy.'' But ``sympathy'' is not what petitioners 
     have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is 
     evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition 
     against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until 
     today's decision, has been denied them.


[[Page 20871]]


  Many of my colleagues questioned Judge Sotomayor about her decision 
in Ricci. Judge Sotomayor repeatedly indicated that she relied on 
precedent, but the Supreme Court disagreed, saying, there were ``few, 
if any, precedents in the Court of Appeals.''
  Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and there 
is no backstop, I cannot support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. She did 
not convince me, either through her past rulings or during her 
confirmation hearing, that she would carry out justice in an impartial 
manner. Impartiality is essential to our justice system.
  Beyond my concern that Judge Sotomayor will not be able to set aside 
personal views and prejudices, is her overall record before the Supreme 
Court. The Supreme Court has substantively reviewed 10 of Judge 
Sotomayor's decisions. Of those cases, eight have been reversed or 
vacated, one was upheld on a different legal standard and sharply 
criticized for using a flawed legal theory, and the last one was upheld 
on a slim 5-4 margin. This is a record that directly questions the 
nominee's legal reasoning and the ability to sufficiently apply the 
rule of law. A 10-percent success rate does not exude the confidence 
and mastery of the law that I feel is necessary of a Supreme Court 
Justice.
  The final point of concern that I would like to highlight is Judge 
Sotomayor's view of the Second Amendment. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Judge 
Sotomayor joined a panel opinion that decided in one paragraph that the 
Second Amendment did not apply to the states. Also, in United States v. 
Sanchez-Villar, she joined a summary panel opinion that, among other 
things, used a one-sentence footnote to conclude that ``the right to 
possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.''
  Judge Sotomayor believes that states have the authority to infringe 
on Second Amendment rights. This is fundamentally at odds with the 
Constitution.
  Although Judge Sotomayor attempted to disavow and reconcile her past 
comments during the hearing, her record speaks for itself. Even the 
Washington Post, which endorsed Judge Sotomayor, found her testimony 
``less than candid'' and ``uncomfortably close to disingenuous.''
  Ultimately, I came to the decision that too many uncertainties exist 
regarding whether Judge Sotomayor will uphold the rule of law equally 
for all people and adhere to the Constitution.
  While I respect and appreciate her impressive life story and 
accomplishments, I cannot support her nomination to the highest Court.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Judge Sotomayor has a compelling biography.
  As the first daughter of a young Puerto Rican couple, she grew up in 
a public housing project in the South Bronx.
  Her father, a factory worker, died when she was 9 years old.
  Her mother, a nurse, then raised her and her younger brother, and 
instilled in them a belief in the power of education.
  Judge Sotomayor excelled in school.
  She graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and 
at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York.
  She won a scholarship to Princeton University, where she continued to 
excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.
  She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor 
Princeton awards to an undergraduate.
  At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale 
Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public 
Order.
  Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor 
has worked at almost every level of our judicial system.
  Today, she serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit.
  An appointee of President Clinton on the Second Circuit Court, she 
has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions, and authored roughly 
400 published opinions.
  When I met with Judge Sotomayor last month, I found her to be a very 
likeable woman.
   She also displayed these traits during her Senate confirmation 
hearings.
  If she is confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court 
Justice--an ascendency that will mark a historical moment for our 
country.
  I have, throughout my career, been a strong supporter of Hispanic 
nominees for judicial appointments and confirmation.
  I am proud of the fact that, of the 40 judges I have had a role in 
nominating for the district courts in Texas, and the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, 30 percent have been Hispanic.
  Likewise, I was a strong supporter of Miguel Estrada, who, like Judge 
Sotomayor, had an incredibly compelling life story, but whose 
nomination for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Circuit was 
filibustered.
  I believe the decision of whether to support a nominee for the 
Federal courts--and especially the highest court--must be grounded in 
qualification and judicial philosophy.
  She certainly meets the academic and experience criteria for service 
on our country's highest court.
  The criteria for judicial philosophy for my concurrence is to apply 
the law, not make the law.
  A judge must interpret the Constitution, not amend it by judicial 
decree.
  One of the most important and recently confirmed constitutional 
rights is the right to keep and bear arms.
  The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they put the 
second amendment in the Bill of Rights. This wasn't an accident.
  They knew from their experience in the Revolutionary War that a free 
people must have the right to possess and bear arms.
  The second amendment clearly says: ``A well regulated Militia, being 
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to 
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''
  Although some people are confused by the word ``militia,'' it is 
clear that the Founders did not use the word ``militia'' to mean that 
gun rights could only be used in an organized army.
  The Framers did not intend for this right to be a ``collective'' 
right.
  If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with 
article 1 section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power 
``to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the 
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.''
  The Framers went further than that.
  They wanted to ensure that gun ownership was recognized by posterity 
as an ``individual right.'' So they included it as part of the Bill of 
Rights, which is a compilation of protected individual liberties such 
as free speech, freedom of religion, and a fair trial.
  The second amendment ensures that every American can secure his 
freedom, and defend his life and property, if necessary.
  In that sense, the right to keep and bear arms could very well be one 
of our most important rights--because it is the right from which all of 
our other rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, et cetera are 
secured.
  That's why, last year, I led a congressional effort to support the 
affirmation of the second amendment as an important individual right in 
the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller, which overturned Washington, 
DC's unconstitutional ban on handguns.
  In that case, Senator Tester and I, joined by 53 of our colleagues 
and 250 members of the U.S. House, filed a ``friend of the court'' 
brief in favor of Dick Heller, who simply wished to exercise his 
constitutional right to protect himself and his family.
  That brief was proof that a majority in Congress believe that the 
second amendment is a constitutionally secured individual right.
  It was the first time in history that a majority of the House and 
Senate sent this type of brief to the Supreme Court.
  In the case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed the right 
to keep and bear arms as an individual right

[[Page 20872]]

for the first time in almost seven decades.
  Unfortunately, however, just a few months ago, even after the Supreme 
Court's verdict in D.C. v. Heller, Judge Sotomayor issued an opinion in 
another case, Maloney v. Cuomo refusing to acknowledge that the second 
amendment is a fundamental right, and therefore may not be binding on 
the States.
  As a strong advocate of the second amendment, I cannot ignore this 
decision.
  I am very troubled by Judge Sotomayor's opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo 
because it appears to disregard an instruction by the Supreme Court in 
Heller specifically regarding fundamental rights.
  In Footnote 23 of the Heller decision, the Supreme Court stated: 
``With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a 
question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said 
that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not 
engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our 
later cases.''
  These ``later cases'' to which the court is referring held most Bill 
of Rights guarantees to be incorporated through the due process clause 
of the 14th amendment against State violation.
  This was a clear instruction to the circuits that in future second 
amendment cases they will need to confront the incorporation argument 
and do so following the Supreme Court's line of cases on incorporation.
  I must take issue with Judge Sotomayor's per curiam opinion in 
Maloney because while her opinion references the Heller footnote, it 
only acknowledges the portion noting the continued validity of Supreme 
Court precedent indicating the second amendment is not binding on the 
States.
  Her court failed to recognize the instruction to conduct the 
contemporary 14th amendment incorporation analysis the Heller footnote 
demands.
  As such, the Sotomayor opinion reaches the conclusion that the cases 
from the 1890s are still applicable--and therefore, basically, the 
second amendment is not binding on the States.
  When questioned by the Judiciary Committee about the Maloney case, 
Judge Sotomayor said she was following precedent.
  However, she did not follow the instruction of the Supreme Court in 
Heller on this point.
  In Maloney, the Second Circuit cites the Supreme Court cases of 
Heller and Presser v. Illinois, decided in 1886, and the Second Circuit 
opinion Bach v. Pataki, decided in 2005.
  Judge Sotomayor determines that Presser and Bach instruct the court 
to maintain Presser 's conclusion that the second amendment is not 
applicable to the States.
  But Heller's Footnote 23 asks the Court to ``engage in a Fourteenth 
Amendment inquiry.''
  I specifically asked Judge Sotomayor when we met why she did not 
follow this instruction, articulated just last year by the Court?
  I did not receive a satisfactory explanation to this very pivotal 
question, nor did I hear one in her testimony before the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Heller is precedent, and in this precedent, the Supreme Court tells 
the circuits to perform a 14th amendment inquiry.
  In April of this year, the Ninth Circuit considered the same second 
amendment incorporation question.
  While also looking to Presser for guidance, the Ninth Circuit turned 
to its own circuit precedent, Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van 
de Kamp, and--like the Second Circuit--it would have been inclined to 
conclude that the second amendment did not apply to the States.
  However, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it had not yet engaged 
``in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by [the Supreme 
Court's] later cases,'' and therefore undertook the due process 
incorporation analysis as envisioned by the Heller footnote.
  At the conclusion of the analysis, the Ninth Circuit finds that the 
second amendment right to keep and bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this 
Nation's history and tradition'' and ``compels [us] to recognize that 
it is indeed fundamental'' and is therefore incorporated by the due 
process clause of the 14th amendment and applied against the States and 
local governments.
  Let me repeat that. The Ninth Circuit's opinion holds that the second 
amendment protects an individual's liberty, and because that protection 
is enumerated and so fundamental, the due process clause guarantees it, 
and the second amendment is therefore binding on the States.
  We cannot escape the fact that both courts, each bound by the same 
Heller precedent, reached opposite conclusions, with Judge Sotomayor's 
opinion failing to subject the second amendment to the incorporation 
analysis required by the Supreme Court, and failing to identify the 
second amendment as a fundamental right, binding against the States.
  It is from this fact, this outcome, that I am unable to reconcile 
with my earnest desire to confirm the first Hispanic Justice to the 
Supreme Court.
  With the circuit courts split on the question of whether the second 
amendment is an individual right protected against State infringement, 
the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have this issue before it in the 
upcoming term.
  With the constitutional right to keep and bear arms hanging in the 
balance, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm a nominee whose 
judicial record indicates an unwillingness to protect and defend such a 
fundamental, individual right.
  For that reason, I must oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to 
the Supreme Court of the United States.
  I similarly opposed the confirmation of Attorney General Eric Holder 
earlier this year due to his stance on the second amendment embodying a 
collective right rather than an individual right.
  One added point. I am troubled by a line in her February 25, 2005, 
speech at the Duke Law School, ``Court of Appeals is where policy is 
made.''
  This is a troubling statement in the area of judicial philosophy.
  As I have stated earlier, I believe policy is made by elected 
officials who must be accountable through elections, not by Federal 
judges with lifetime appointments.
  Judge Sotomayor is without a doubt an intelligent, experienced, and 
capable nominee, and she will bring much needed diversity to the Court.
  But, after careful examination, I cannot support her confirmation to 
the highest court in the land.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3 
p.m. will be divided, with the following speakers controlling 15 
minutes each in the following order: the Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
Sessions; the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy; the Republican leader; 
and the majority leader.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when President Obama nominated Judge 
Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, I pledged that we would treat her with 
respect and that our questions would be tough but always fair. It is an 
important office. I believe we have lived up to that obligation.
  Again, I thank Chairman Leahy and the members of the Judiciary 
Committee for their efforts. I think it did help provide a basis for 
our full debate in the Senate. I thank Judge Sotomayor for her kind 
words regarding how the process has been conducted, and the way she 
conducted herself.
  We have had a robust debate on the Senate floor over these past few 
days, and we have addressed many important questions and issues.
  The debate over Judge Sotomayor's nomination began with President 
Obama's radical new vision for America's court system. According to the 
President, all nominees to the Federal bench would now have to meet an 
``empathy standard.'' This standard requires judges to reach their most 
difficult and important decisions through the ``depth and breadth of 
[their] empathy'' and ``their broader vision of what America should 
be.'' This is a stunning ideology. It turns law into politics. The

[[Page 20873]]

President of the United States is breaking with centuries of American 
legal tradition to enter a new era where a judge's personal feelings 
about a case are as important as the Constitution itself.
  The President's empathy standard is much more than a rhetorical 
flourish. It is a dangerous judicial philosophy where judges base their 
rulings on their social, personal, and political views. It is an 
attempt to sell 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 Allegiance because 
it contains the words ``under God,'' to interpret the Constitution on 
the basis of foreign laws, to create a new right for terrorists who 
attacked the United States while robbing American citizens of their own 
rights to engage in activities such as silent prayer.
  That philosophy also helps explain why Judge Sotomayor's panel of 
Federal judges allowed the city of New Haven to strip 18 firefighters 
of their eligibility for promotion on the basis of their race. It 
explains why judges have interpreted the second amendment to permit 
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 government 
to seize private property for private commercial development despite 
the Constitution's guarantee that private property may not be taken 
except for ``public use.''
  The empathy standard may sound nice, but in reality, it is cruel. It 
is, in truth, a bias standard. The power to rule on empathy is the 
power to rule on prejudice, and the power to deny the rights of some is 
the power to deny the rights of any or of all. A judge embraces empathy 
at the expense of objectivity and equality and fairness.
  Eighteen 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 unceremoniously 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 not effectively explain her ruling 
to deny these firefighters their day in court.
  She also did her best to distance herself from the activist 
philosophy she has so long spoken of and championed. But it was an 
unconvincing effort. I believe she failed to offer a credible 
explanation for her critically important rulings that would eviscerate 
gun rights and property rights. She failed to offer a credible 
explanation of her policy role in an advocacy group that took extreme 
positions 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. As one editorial page opined, her 
testimony was ``at times uncomfortably close to disingenuous.''
  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 used when selecting her. This process 
reflected a broad public consensus that judges should be impartial, 
restrained, and faithfully tethered to the law and the Constitution.
  I think it will now be harder to nominate activist judges. This is 
not a question of left versus right or Republican versus Democrat. This 
is a question of the true role of a judge versus the false role of a 
judge. It is a question of whether a judge follows the law as written 
or as they might wish it to be. It is a question of whether we live up 
to our great legal heritage or whether it is abandoned.
  Empathy-based rulings, no matter how well-intentioned, do not help 
society but imperil the legal system that is so essential 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 and 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 our legal system is fair, objective, and 
firmly rooted in the Constitution.
  Our 30th President, Calvin Coolidge, said of the Constitution:

       No other document devised by the hand of man ever brought 
     so much progress and happiness to humanity. The good it has 
     wrought can never be measured.

  I certainly believe he is correct. That document has given us 
blessings no people of any country have 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--a power over every 
man, woman, and child in our country. It is 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 nominations over quite a few years. We did not 
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. I 
thank the chairman. I think it did credit to the Senate.
  I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his 
kind comments. As he knows, I made similar comments about him this 
morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I reiterate them here today.
  We did decide, both Senator Sessions and I, at the beginning of this 
process that we would try to make sure everybody was heard. We may have 
different outcomes on how everybody would vote, but everybody was 
heard. That has been done. I compliment the leaders of the Senate for 
doing that.
  We are about to conclude Senate consideration of this nominee. I 
thank those Senators who evaluated this nomination fairly. I thank 
especially those Republican Senators who have shown the independence to 
join the bipartisan confirmation of this historic nomination. I thank 
all Senators on both sides of the aisle who spent hours and hours and 
days and days in our hearings.
  Some critics have attacked President Obama's nomination of Judge 
Sonia Sotomayor by contending he picked her for the Supreme Court to 
substitute empathy for the rule of law. These critics are wrong about 
the President; they are wrong about Sonia Sotomayor.
  Let's leave out the rhetoric and go to the facts. When the President 
announced his choice of Judge Sotomayor 10 weeks ago, he focused on the 
qualities he sought in a nominee. He started with ``rigorous 
intellect'' and ``a mastery of the law.''
  He then referred to recognition of the limits of the judicial role 
when he talked about ``an understanding that a judge's job is to 
interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular 
ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a 
respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law 
to the facts at hand.'' That is what President Obama said.
  Then he went on to mention experience. He said:


[[Page 20874]]

       Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by 
     hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, 
     and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience 
     that can give a person a common touch and a sense of 
     compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how 
     ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary 
     ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme 
     Court.

  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 everyday lives of Americans.
  In a subsequent radio and Internet address, the President reiterated 
the point when he said:

       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, fierce 
     intelligence, and the enduring faith that, in America, all 
     things are possible.

  President Obama did not say that he viewed compassion or sympathy as 
a substitute for the rule of law. In fact, he has never said he would 
substitute empathy for the rule of law. That is a false choice. The 
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 a 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 laws. The job of the 
     judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that 
     compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies 
     the law to the facts before that judge.

  Those who, after 4 days of hearing, would ignore 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 it is a record 
of applying the law, not bias.
  What she has said, and what we should all acknowledge, is 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 are all creatures of our upbringing. We bring whatever we are as 
people to a job like the Supreme Court.'' Everybody knows that, just as 
all 100 of us bring who we are to the Senate. Many recent Justices have 
spoken of their 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 
recognize the role of life experience not as a substitute for the law 
or in conflict with its mandates, but as informing judgment.
  What is really at play is not a new Obama ``empathy standard'' with 
respect to judicial selection, but a double standard being applied by 
those who supported the nominations of Justice Alito and Justice 
Thomas.
  Judge Sotomayor's career and judicial record demonstrate that she has 
always followed the rule of law. The point is, we don't have to guess 
at what kind of a judge she has been. She has 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, so we don't have to guess. Attempts at 
distorting that record by suggesting that her ethnicity or her heritage 
would 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, perspective, an 
understanding of how the world works and people live, and the effect 
decisions will have on the lives of people are very important 
qualifications. By striving for a more diverse bench drawn from judges 
with 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 and strength 
is not a weakness in achieving an impartial judiciary.
  I have voted on every member of the current U.S. Supreme Court. I 
have participated in the hearings of all but one of them, and that one 
I voted on the nomination having watched the hearing. I have sat in on 
the hearings of Justices no longer there, either because of retirement 
or death. I have conducted hundreds of nomination hearings--everything 
from courts of appeals judges, Federal district court judges, and 
Department of Justice appointees. I have been ranking member on two 
Supreme Court nominations and conducted this one. I mention that to 
thank the Senator from Alabama for his cooperation during it.
  After those hundreds of hearings, you get a sense of the person you 
are listening to. I met for hours with Judge Sotomayor, either in the 
hearing room or privately. You learn who a person is, you really do, in 
asking these kinds of questions. You have to bring your own experience 
and your own knowledge to what you are hearing. There are only 101 
people in this great Nation of 300 million people who get a say as to 
who is going to be one of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. 
First and foremost, it is the President who makes the nomination, but 
then the 100 of us in the U.S. Senate who must follow our own 
conscience, our own experience, our own abilities in deciding whether 
we will advise and consent to that nomination. It is 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 it very well--that in Supreme 
Court confirmations I will not meet with groups on either the right or 
the left about it. I will make up my mind through those hours and days 
and the transcripts of the hearing. I would urge all Senators to do 
that. I think it is unfortunate if any Senator of either party were to 
make up their mind on a Supreme Court nominee based on pressure from 
special interest groups from either the right or the left. That is 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 on Judge Sotomayor. This is an 
extraordinary nominee. I remember when President Obama called me a few 
hours before he nominated her. I was with our troops in Afghanistan, 
and he explained what he was going to do in a few hours. We talked 
about that and we talked about Afghanistan, but we talked especially 
about her. He said, you know, there are Web sites already developing 
opposed to her. And within hours, we had leaders calling her racist, 
bigoted, or being affiliated with a group akin to the Ku Klux Klan. 
Fortunately, Senators on neither side joined with that.
  We are almost at a time for a vote. I would hope every Senator would 
search his or her conscience and ask whether they are voting for this 
nominee based on their oath of office, based on their conscience, or 
are they reflecting a special interest group.

[[Page 20875]]

  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 us 
closer to our ideals. Our union is not yet perfected, but with this 
confirmation, we will be making progress.
  Years from now, we will remember this time when we crossed paths with 
the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor and 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 U.S. Supreme Court. I 
will proudly vote for her.
  Mr. President, I see the Republican leader is here, and I will 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, once again I wish to thank the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy and 
Senator Sessions, and their staffs, for conducting a dignified and 
respectful hearing. From the beginning of the process, I assured Judge 
Sotomayor that Republicans would treat her fairly. At the end of the 
process, I can say with pride that we kept that commitment.
  This particular nominee comes before us with an impressive resume and 
a compelling life story. Yet the question we must ask ourselves today 
is whether we believe Judge Sotomayor will fulfill the requirements of 
the oath that is taken by all Federal judges to administer justice 
without respect to persons; that is, to administer justice 
evenhandedly.
  President Obama asked himself a different question when he was 
looking for a nominee. The question he asked is whether that person has 
the ability to empathize with certain groups. And as I have said, 
empathy is a fine quality. But in the courtroom, it is only good if a 
judge has it for you. What if you are the other guy? When he walks out 
of the courthouse, he can say he received his day in court. He can say 
he received a hearing. But he can't say he received justice.
  At her hearings Judge Sotomayor was quick and even eager to repudiate 
the so-called empathy standard. But her writings reflect strong 
sympathy for it. Indeed, they reflect a belief not just that 
impartiality is not possible, but that it is not even worth the effort.
  Judge Sotomayor's record of complex constitutional cases concerns me 
even more. Because in Judge Sotomayor's court, groups that didn't make 
the cut of preferred groups often found they ended up on the short end 
of the empathy standard, and the consequences were real.
  One group that didn't make the cut in Judge Sotomayor's court were 
those who needed the courts to enforce their first amendment rights to 
support candidates for political office free from government 
interference. She is free to express her personal opinions on this 
issue, as she did when she wrote that merely donating money to a 
candidate is akin to bribery.
  But as a judge she was obligated to follow clear Supreme Court 
precedent. And when it came to this issue, she followed her political 
beliefs instead, voting not to correct her circuit's clear failure to 
follow the Supreme Court precedent in this area of the law.
  Ultimately, the Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 opinion authored by 
Justice Breyer, corrected this error by her circuit on the grounds that 
it had failed to follow ``well-established precedent.''
  Another group that didn't make the cut were those who need the courts 
to protect them from unfair employment preferences. As a lawyer, she 
advocated for--and, in fact, helped plan--lawsuits that challenged 
civil service exams for public safety officers. And as a judge, she 
kicked out of court--with just six sentences of explanation and without 
any citation of precedent--the claims of a group of firefighters who 
had been unfairly denied promotions they had earned. This past June, 
the Supreme Court reversed her ruling, making her 0 for 3 this term, 
with all nine Justices finding that she had misapplied the law.
  Gun owners didn't make the cut, and they haven't fared well before 
Judge Sotomayor either. She has twice ruled the second amendment isn't 
a fundamental right and thus doesn't protect Americans when States 
prevent them from bearing arms. And here too, she didn't even give the 
losing party's claims the dignity of a full treatment. In one case, she 
disposed of the party's second amendment claim in a one-sentence 
footnote. In the other, she did it with a single paragraph.
  Property owners weren't on the list either, and they too haven't 
fared well in Judge Sotomayor's court. In an important fifth amendment 
case--the amendment that protects against the government taking private 
property--Judge Sotomayor broadened even further the government's 
power, a ruling which one property law expert called ``one of the worst 
property rights decisions in recent years.''
  And her ruling in this case fit an all-too-familiar pattern: she 
kicked the aggrieved party's serious constitutional claims out of court 
in an unsigned, unpublished, summary order, with only a brief 
explanation as to why.
  These important cases illustrate the real-world consequences of the 
empathy standard, in which judges choose to see certain facts but not 
others, and in which it's appropriate for judges to bring their 
personal or political views to bear in deciding cases. Lieutenant Ben 
Vargas, one of the firefighters who did not fare well under the empathy 
standard, may have put it best. Speaking of himself and the other 
plaintiffs in that case, he said,

       We did not ask for sympathy or empathy. We asked only for 
     evenhanded enforcement of the law, and . . . we were denied 
     that.

  Lieutenant Vargas understands what most other Americans understand 
and what all of them expect when they walk into a courtroom: that in 
America, everyone should receive equal justice under the law. This is 
the most fundamental test for any judge, and all the more so for those 
who would sit on our Nation's highest court, where a judge's impulses 
and preferences are not subject to review. Because I am not convinced 
that Judge Sotomayor would keep this commitment, I cannot support her 
nomination.
  Mr. President, does our side have time left, I would ask?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the leader has time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the 
United States handed down a ruling that would begin to reroute America 
toward a more unified Union. When the Justices unanimously directed, in 
Brown v. Board of Education, that our children's schools must no longer 
be racially segregated, their decision echoed far beyond the walls of a 
courtroom in Washington, DC, or a classroom in Topeka, KS. The decision 
paved the way for countless future turns that would make our Nation 
more just and its people more equal.
  Not 6 weeks later after that opinion, Sonia Sotomayor was born in the 
south Bronx. In her lifetime, this Senate has sent to the Supreme Court 
the only two women and the only two Americans of color to ever sit on 
that bench.
  In the 10 weeks since President Obama made history by nominating 
Judge Sotomayor, many have emphasized the importance of putting the 
first Hispanic on the Nation's highest Court. This is truly historic 
for our entire Nation but especially for the young Latinos in this 
country who will see in Judge Sotomayor concrete evidence of the 
heights to which they can legitimately aspire.

[[Page 20876]]

  But it is no less significant that in a country where women represent 
half of our population, Judge Sotomayor will be the third woman, only 
the third woman to ever serve as a Justice and will be one of only two 
women serving on the Court today.
  In many ways, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
have made this day possible for Judge Sotomayor. Because of the trail 
these women; that is, O'Connor and Ginsburg and others like them, have 
forged, Judge Sotomayor has been recognized throughout her career for 
her intelligence, talent, and accomplishments rather than being defined 
by her gender.
  It was not easy. Justice O'Connor finished high school at age 16, and 
when she finished Stanford Law School, one of the finest law schools in 
the world, a year early--she did it in 2 years--she was third in her 
class, two behind Justice Rehnquist but no law firm in California would 
hire Justice O'Connor as an attorney because--because she was a woman. 
The most one firm would offer her was a position as a legal secretary.
  When Justice Ginsburg arrived at Harvard Law School, she was greeted 
by a dean who asked why the nine women in her class--it was a class of 
about 700 people--why nine women in her class were occupying seats that 
could otherwise be taken by men.
  Little did he know she would later join another group of nine legal 
experts whose membership was long restricted to men, the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Like Justice O'Connor, Justice Ginsburg did not 
receive a single offer from any of the 12 law firms with which she 
interviewed, even though she finished first in her law school class.
  When she was recommended for a clerkship to the Supreme Court, at 
least two of the Justices refused to hire her. Why? She was a woman.
  America is grateful that O'Connor and Ginsburg did not give up. We 
are fortunate that their voices and the real-world perspective they 
brought to the table were part of the debate during some of our 
Nation's landmark cases on gender equality.
  In the Lilly Ledbetter 2007 case before the Supreme Court, Justice 
O'Connor's successor, Samuel Alito, wrote the majority opinion in a 5-
to-4 ruling that made it virtually impossible for women and other 
victims of pay discrimination to fight back.
  Justice Ginsburg, who herself has been a victim of pay discrimination 
because she was a woman, read her powerful dissent aloud from the 
bench. It is rarely done. But she stood and proudly voiced her dissent 
in that 5-to-4 opinion. She invited Congress to correct this injustice, 
and we did that. We changed the law. After we passed the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act this year, it was the first piece of legislation 
that President Barack Obama signed into law.
  Similarly, when the Supreme Court heard the case of a 13-year-old 
honor student, a girl who had been strip-searched at school, Justice 
Ginsburg heard her colleagues minimize the humiliation the student had 
suffered. Justice Ginsburg noted that she was the only one on the Court 
who had ever been a 13-year-old girl and encouraged her colleagues to 
take into account the victim's perspective. The Court rightly ruled the 
search was unreasonable. That would not have happened but for Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg.
  Judge Sotomayor's life experiences will not dictate her decisions any 
more than Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, Scalia, or Alito have let their 
personal pasts prescribe their own rulings. But as the newest member of 
the Supreme Court, she will bring a perspective not only as a woman and 
a Hispanic, but also a former criminal prosecutor, commercial 
litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. She will share the depth 
and breadth of that experience with her colleagues, just as they will 
be able to share their own unique views on any case with her--their own 
views.
  Justice O'Connor has said that the first African-American Justice, 
Thurgood Marshall, opened for his colleagues a window into a different 
world and was able to relate to them experiences they could not know.
  Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg have done the same. Soon so will Judge 
Sotomayor. A more diverse Supreme Court is a better Supreme Court.
  Judge Sotomayor's journey to this day has not been without obstacles. 
But because of the struggles fought by those who came before her, she 
has been able to succeed. Today the Senate will make history by 
confirming the first Hispanic, the third woman, and the third person of 
color to the Supreme Court of the United States. But equally as 
important, we will also make history by confirming someone as qualified 
as Sonia Sotomayor.
  Her experiences come not only from the legal world but also the real 
world. Her understanding of the law is grounded not only in theory but 
also in practice. Her record is beyond reproach, her respect for the 
limits of the judiciary is resolute, and her reverence for the law is 
unwavering.
  Sonia Sotomayor is an American of tremendous credentials. Both her 
academic record and her career experience are second to none. She 
graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and excelled at 
Yale; again, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, all in the top three law schools 
in the country. She excelled at Yale where she was a member of the law 
review, the prestigious Yale Law Review.
  After she is confirmed, she will be the only Justice who has seen a 
trial from every single angle. She has seen a trial from prosecuting 
civil and criminal cases, she has presided over them as a trial judge, 
and handled them as an appellate court judge. That is precisely the 
kind of experience we need on the Supreme Court.
  I have had concerns for quite some time that we have far too few 
judges on the Court who have had trial experience. As a trial lawyer--I 
have tried more than 100 cases in front of juries--that experience to 
someone sitting on that Court is important. And she will bring that. 
That is so important.
  We have too many Supreme Court Justices who have never conducted a 
trial. Some of them have never been involved in a trial. They have 
looked at cases from the appellate purview. I wanted someone who has 
looked at a case from a trial court perspective.
  As the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said shortly after her 
nomination, Judge Sotomayor's nomination: ``She's got the kind of 
background you would look for, almost an ideal mix of private practice, 
prosecution, trial judge, circuit judge.''
  I could not agree more with my friend Jeff Sessions. Her experience 
as a trial judge will be invaluable to the Supreme Court. As a former 
trial lawyer, as I have indicated, a judge is more than just a 
political title to me. It is someone who understands the law and sees 
every day how it affects people, real people.
  When looking at Judge Sotomayor, I see someone who knows what happens 
in a courtroom, which is an arena unlike any other arena in the world. 
We tend to think of Supreme Court cases as major milestones that change 
the arc of our history and define our principles. And they do. But they 
often begin as ordinary, routine cases before a trial judge. It could 
be a traffic stop that winds up at the Supreme Court, it could be a 
protest in a park, it could be the placement of some monument in a park 
or some public place, it could be a dispute over money.
  Linda Brown was a girl trying to go to public school close to her 
house in Topeka, Kansas, setting in motion the beginning of the end of 
segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. Linda Brown was that little 
girl who wanted to go to school close to her home. Judge Sotomayor 
understands people like Linda Brown. She has developed a 17-year record 
as a moderate judge who is squarely in the mainstream.
  One of her colleagues on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for our 
country has credited Sotomayor with such an insightful and convincing 
understanding of the law that she changed his mind many times. He said: 
``I would read one of the memos she had written on a case and say, I 
think she's got it and I don't.''

[[Page 20877]]

  This is one of the reasons that both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents have nominated her to the Federal bench. It is the reason 
she has been confirmed twice by this body with strong bipartisan 
support. It is the reason that liberals and conservatives alike in the 
Senate will vote today to confirm her.
  This woman's brilliance was on display last month. Remember, she just 
broke her leg. But she stood 4 days of grueling testimony with some of 
the finest legal minds in our country, the Democrats and Republicans of 
that Judiciary Committee. She did a good job in a very difficult 
situation. She was asked tough questions and she gave honest answers. 
Judge Sotomayor, who has been credited with saving baseball in one of 
her opinions, hit it out of the park in her testimony and her presence 
before the Judiciary Committee. If there ever were a home run, she hit 
it.
  I thank Chairman Leahy, my dear friend, who has been so good to me 
for so many years. I think back with fondness of our time here together 
in the Senate. I thank Ranking Member Sessions, who has always been a 
gentleman to me. We have disagreed on many public issues, political 
issues, but never do we disagree on our friendship.
  I appreciate Chairman Leahy and Senator Sessions for running a 
thoughtful and thorough confirmation hearing. I appreciate the generous 
and genuine cooperation of my colleagues who support this nomination as 
well as the respect shown by those who dissent.
  But I commend Barack Obama, the President of the United States, for 
selecting such an accomplished, qualified, and experienced nominee to 
replace Justice Souter. It is with some sadness that I stand here today 
and recognize that David Souter will no longer be on the Supreme Court. 
I can say about no other Member of the Supreme Court what I can say 
about David Souter. David Souter was my friend. We did things socially. 
We had meals together. What a wonderful human being. I will miss him. 
He has always been a powerful defender of constitutional rights, 
whether it is the State of New Hampshire's constitutional rights or our 
country's constitutional rights. All Americans thank this good man for 
his decades of service to our Nation, and he has more to give. I am 
confident, though, that Judge Sotomayor will soon build upon her 
impressive record which is already very impressive when she is across 
the street at the Supreme Court.
  I am certain she will leave the writing of the law to those of us on 
this side of the street. That is our job, and she will impartially and 
faithfully fulfill her constitutional duty to apply only the laws that 
we pass here.
  I am also convinced that, when she soon takes the same oath every 
Justice before her has taken, she will ``administer justice without 
respect to persons, and do equal right to the rich and to the poor.''
  Sonia Sotomayor has risen remarkably from the trials of a modest 
upbringing in the South Bronx of New York to presiding over major 
trials on the Federal bench. All Americans, men and women of every 
color and background, can be confident that she will ensure equal 
justice under the law in our Nation's very highest Court.
  That is why I am so proud to cast my vote in a few minutes for the 
confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the United 
States Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Visitors in the galleries are reminded that 
expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted.
  Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Ex.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has concluded consideration of 
the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and has confirmed her as a Justice on 
the U.S. Supreme Court. The consideration of a nomination for a 
lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is one of our most 
consequential responsibilities. The consideration of the nomination of 
Sonia Sotomayor has been a credit to the Judiciary Committee and to the 
Senate.
  We could not give this process the attention it deserves without the 
help of dedicated staff. For 2\1/2\ months, the staff of the Judiciary 
Committee has worked long hours dutifully to help Senators in their 
review. I wish to thank the following members of the majority staff in 
particular: Jeremy Paris, Erica Chabot, Kristine Lucius, Roscoe Jones, 
Shanna Singh Hughey, Maggie Whitney, Sarah Hackett, Michael Gerhardt, 
Elise Burditt, Noah Bookbinder, Stephen Kelly, Kelsey Kobelt, Matt 
Virkstis, Anya McMurray, Juan Valdivieso, Curtis LeGeyt, Zulima 
Espinel, Tara Magner, Roslyne Turner, Erin O'Neill, Sarah Guerrieri, 
Brian Hockin, Joseph Thomas, Leila George-Wheeler, Laura Safdie, 
Kathleen Roberts, Aaron Guile, Matt Smith, Lydia Griggsby, Patrick 
Sheahan, Scott Wilson, Dave Stebbins, Sarah Hasazi, Kiera Flynn, Bree 
Bang-Jensen, Tom Wheeler, Eric Poalino, Brad Wilhelm, Lauren Rosser, 
Chuck Papirmeister, and Bruce Cohen. I also thank my staff for their 
hard work on this nomination, in particular, Ed Pagano, David Carle, 
Jennifer Price, and Kevin McDonald.
  I commend and thank the hard-working staffs of the other Democratic 
members of the Judiciary Committee for their tremendous contributions 
to this effort. I also want to extend considerable thanks to the 
Democratic leadership and floor staff, in particular Serena Hoy, Mike 
Spahn, Stacy Rich, and Joi Chaney.
  I also commend and thank Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking 
Republican, and his staff, in particular, Brian Benczkowski, Elisebeth 
Cook, Danielle Brucchieri, and Lauren

[[Page 20878]]

Pastarnack, for their hard work and professionalism.

                          ____________________