Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sonia Sotomayor Faces Members of Senate in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Aired July 13, 2009 - 09:58   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I think the chairman is beginning to speak.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), CHAIR, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: ... the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor, welcome to the Senate Judiciary Committee. You've been before us twice before when President George H.W. Bush nominated you to district judge. And, of course, we nominated you as a -- and when President Clinton nominated you as a Court of Appeals judge. Before we begin the opening statements of the senators, I know you have family members here. And I think your -- I don't know if your microphone is on or not, but would you be -- would you please introduce the members of your family?

SOTOMAYOR: If I introduced everybody that's family like, we'd be here all morning.

LEAHY: Oh, OK.

SOTOMAYOR: So I'm...

LEAHY: I'm going to -- you know what I'm going to do?

SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEAHY: Because some day, this will be in the archives as transcript, introduce whomever you like and then we will hold the transcript open for you to add any other names you want. (LAUGHTER)

SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will limit myself to just my immediate family. Sitting behind me is my brother, Juan Sotomayor. Next to him is my mom, Celina Sotomayor. Next to her is my favorite husband of my mom, Omar Lopez.

(LAUGHTER)

Next to him is my niece, Kylie Sotomayor. And next to her is her mom and my sister-in-law, Tracey Sotomayor. Then there's Corey, Conner -- Corey and Conner Sotomayor. I shouldn't have said -- I should have said their last name first together.

And the remainder of that row is filled with God's children and dear friends. That's -- but this is my immediate family.

LEAHY: Thank you very much. I remember reading about the -- the marshals being surprised at your swearing in as a district court judge because they'd never seen such a large crowd of friends and supporters arrive.

What we're going to do is each -- each senator will give a ten- minute opening statement. I would hope that all senators would be able to be here today. If they're not, then we will have -- if they want to give an opening statement, it will have to come out of their question time tomorrow. Senator Schumer will give a shorter opening statement than the others because he's going to reserve some of his time as a later introduction. I would note, for the record, we are considering the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a justice of the United States Supreme Court. The Constitution is interesting in this regard. We have over300 million Americans but only 101 people get a chance to say who's going to be on the Supreme Court. First and foremost of the - the president, this is President Obama, who made the nomination. And then 100 senators have to stand in place of all 300 and almost 20 million Americans in considering the appointment. The president has done his part. He's made an historic nomination. Now, the Senate has to do its part on behalf the Senate people -- of the American people.

President Obama often quotes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s insight that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. Each generation of Americans has sought that arc towards justice. We have improved upon the foundation of our Constitution through the Bill of Rights, the Civil War Amendments, the 19th Amendment's expansion of the right to vote to women, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 26th Amendment's extension of the right to vote to young people.

These actions have marked progress toward our more perfect union, and I believe this nomination can be another step along that path. Judge Sotomayor's journey to this hearing room is a truly American story. She was raised by her mother, Celina, and nurse in the South Bronx. Like her mother, Sonia Sotomayor worked hard. She graduated the valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York

She was a member of just the third class Princeton University in which women were included. She continued to work hard including reading classics that had been unavailable to her when she was younger and arranging tutoring to improve her writing.

She graduated summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa. She was awarded the M. Taylor Senior Pyne Prize for Scholastic Excellence at the university. I mention that's an honor that's given from outstanding merit.

After excelling at Princeton, she entered Yale Law School where she was an active member of the law school community. Upon graduation, she had many options, but she chose to serve her community in the New York District Attorney's Office. I might say, parenthetically, every one of us who've had the privilege to be a prosecutor knows what kind of a job that is and how hard it is.

There, she prosecuted murders, robberies, assaults, and child pornography. The first President Bush named her to the federal bench in 1992. She served as a trial judge for six years. President Clinton named her to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where she served for more than ten years. She was confirmed each time by a bipartisan majority in the Senate.

Judge Sotomayor's qualifications are outstanding. She has more federal court judicial experience than any nominee to the United States Supreme Court in nearly a hundred years. She is the first nominee in well over a century to be nominated to three different federal judgeships by three different presidents. She is the first nominee in 50 years to be nominated to the Supreme Court after serving as both a federal trial judge and a federal appellate judge.

She will be the only current Supreme Court justice to have served as a trial judge. She is a prosecutor and a lawyer in private practice. She brings a wealth and diversity of experience to the Court. I hope all Americans are encouraged by Judge Sotomayor's achievements and by her nomination to the nation's highest court.

Hers is a success story in which all -- all Americans can take pride. Those who break barriers often face the added burden of overcoming prejudice, and it's been true in the Supreme Court.

Thurgood Marshall graduated first in his law school class. He was the lead counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He served as anation's top lawyer, the solicitor general of the United States. He won a remarkable 29 out of the 32 cases before the Supreme Court. But despite all of these qualifications and achievements, when he was before the Senate for his confirmation, he was asked questions designed to embarrass him, questions such as are you prejudice against the white people in the South.

I hope that's a time of our past. The confirmation of Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish-American to be nominated to the High Court was a struggle ripe with anti-Semitism and carriages that he was a radical. The commentary at that time included questions about the Jewish mind and how its operations are complicated by altruism.

Likewise, the first Catholic nominee had to overcome the argument that, as a Catholic, he'd be dominated by the Pope.

We are in a different era, and I would trust that all members of this committee here today will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor while belittling her record and achievements, her intelligence.

Let no one demean -- let no one demean this extraordinary woman, her excess (ph), her understanding of the constitutional duties she's faithfully performed for the last 17 years. I hope all senators will join together as we did when we considered President Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. There, every Democrat and every Republican voted to confirm her.

This hearing is an opportunity for Americans to see and hear Judge Sotomayor for themselves and to consider her qualifications. It's the most transparent confirmation hearing ever held. Our decisions and confirmation materials have been posted online and made publicly available. The record is significantly more complete than that available when we considered President Bush's nomination of John Roberts and Samuel Alito just a few years ago.

LEAHY: The judge's testimony will be carried live on several television stations, and also live via Webcast -- something that I have set up for the Judiciary Committee Web site.

Our review of her judicial record leads me to conclude she's a(inaudible) and restrained judge with a deep respect for judicial precedent and for the powers the other branches of the government, including the lawmaking role of the Congress. That conclusion is supported by a number of independent studies that have been made of her record. It shines through in a comprehensive review of her tough and fair record in criminal cases.

She has a deep understanding of the real lives -- the real lives-- of Americans, and the duty of law enforcement to help keep Americans safe, and the responsibility of all of us to respect the freedoms that define America.

Now, unfortunately, some have sought to twist her words and her record and to engage in partisan political attacks. Ideological pressure groups began attacking her even before the president made his selection. They then stepped up their attacks by threatening Republican senators who do not oppose her.

That's not the American way, and that should not be the Senate way.

In truth, we do not have to speculate about what kind of a justice she'll be, because we've seen what kind of a judge she has been. She is a judge in which all Americans can have confidence.

She has been a judge for all Americans. She'll be a justice for all Americans.

Our ranking Republican senator on this committee reflected on our confirmation process recently, saying, "What I found was the charges come flying in from right and left. They're unsupported and false. It's very, very difficult for a nominee to push back. So, I think we have a high responsibility to base any criticisms we have on a fair and honest statement of the facts. And that nominee should not be subjected to distortions of their records."

I agree with Senator Sessions. As we proceed, let no one distort the judge's record. Let's be fair to her and to the American people by not misrepresenting her views.

We are a country bound together by our magnificent Constitution. It guarantees the promise that our country will be a country based on the rule of law. In her service as a federal judge, Sonia Sotomayor has kept faith with that promise.

She understands it's not one law for one race or another. There's not one law for one color or another. There is not one law for rich and a different one for poor. There's only one law.

And, Judge, I remember so well. You sat in my office and you said that, ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their upbringing has been.

That's the kind of fair and impartial judging the American people expect. That's respect for the rule of law. But that's the kind of judge Judge Sotomayor has been. It's the kind of fair and impartial justice she'll be and the American people deserve.

Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to replace Justice Souter, whose retirement last month has left the Court with only eight justices. Justice Souter served the nation with distinction for nearly two decades on the Supreme Court with a commitment to justice, an admiration for the law and an understanding of the impact of the Court's decisions on the daily lives of ordinary Americans.

And I believe that Judge Sotomayor will be in the same mold, will serve as a justice in the manner of Sandra Day O'Connor, committed to the law and not to ideology.

In the weeks and months leading up to this hearing, I've heard the president and senators from both sides of the aisle make reference to the engraving over the entrance of the Supreme Court. I look atthat every time I go up there. It's carved in Vermont marble, and it says, "Equal justice under law."

Judge Sotomayor's nomination keeps faith with those words.

Senator Sessions?

SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.

And I believe you set up some rules for the conducting of this hearing that are consistent with past hearings, and I believe will allow us to do our work together. And I've enjoyed working with you on this process.

I hope this will be viewed as the best hearing this committee has ever had. Why not? We should seek that.

So, I join Chairman Leahy, Judge Sotomayor, in welcoming you here today. And it marks an important milestone in your life. I know your family is proud, and rightly so, and it's a pleasure to have them with us today.

I expect this hearing and resulting debate will be characterized by a respectful tone, a discussion of serious issues, a thoughtful dialogue and maybe some disagreements. But we worked hard to do that, to set that tone from the beginning. I've been an active litigator in federal courts. I've tried cases as a federal prosecutor and as attorney general of Alabama. The Constitution and our great heritage of law I care deeply about. They are the foundation of our liberty and our prosperity.

And this nomination is critical for two important reasons. First, justices on the Supreme Court have great responsibility, hold enormous power and have a lifetime appointment. Just five members can declare the meaning of our Constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what the people intended.

Second, this hearing is important, because I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is the traditional American system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views. This is the compassionate system, because it's the fair system.

In the American legal system, courts do not make law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make law would strike at the heart of our democracy.

Here, judges take an oath to administer justice impartially. That oath reads, "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and to equal right to the rich and the poor, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God."

Judges have cited foreign laws, world opinion and a United Nations resolution to determine that a state death penalty law was unconstitutional.

I'm afraid our system will only be further corrupted, I have to say, as a result of President Obama's view that in tough cases the critical ingredient for a judge is, quote, "the depth and breadth of one's empathy," close quote, as well as his words, quote, "their broader vision of what America should be."

Like the American people, I have watched this process for a number of years, and I fear that this thinking empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist, results-oriented, relativistic world, where laws lose their fixed meaning, unelected judges set policy, Americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than as simply Americans, where the constitutional limits on government power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies.

I feel we've reached a fork in the road, I think, and there are stark differences. I want to be clear. I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality toward every person who appears before them.

And I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court.

In my view such a philosophy is disqualified. Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law. In truth it's more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom.

Some will respond Judge Sotomayor would never say it's never acceptable for a judge to display prejudice in that case, but I regret to say, Judge, that some of your statements that I'll outline seem to say that clearly.

Let's look at just a few examples. We've seen the video of a Duke University panel, where Judge Sotomayor says, "It's the Court of Appeals where policy is made, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that and should not think that."

And during a speech 15 years ago, Judge Sotomayor said, quote, "I willingly accept the way the judge must not deny the difference resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate," close quote.

And in that same speech she said, quote, "My experiences will affect the facts I choose to seek." Having tried a lot of cases, that particular phrase bothers me. I expect every judge to seek all the facts.

So I think it's noteworthy that when asked about Judge Sotomayor's now famous statement that a wise Latina would come to a better conclusion than others, President Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg declined to defend the substance of those remarks.

They each assume the nominee misspoke. But I don't think it -- but the nominee did not misspeak. She is on record as making this statement at least five times over the course of a decade. I am providing a copy of the full text of those speeches for the record.

Others will say that despite these statements, we should look to a nominee's record, which they characterize as moderate. People said the same of Justice Ginsburg, who is now considered to be one of the most activist members of the Supreme Court in history.

Some senators ignored Justice Ginsburg's philosophy and focused on the nominee's judicial opinions. But that is not a good test, because those cases where necessarily restrained by precedent and the threat of reversal from higher courts. On the Supreme Court, those checks on judicial power will be removed, and the judge's philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom.

But even as a lower court judge, our nominee has made some troubled rulings. I'm concerned by the Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case recently reversed by the Supreme Court, where she agreed with the city of New Haven's decision to change the promotion rules in the middle of the game. Incredibly, her opinion consisted of just one substantive paragraph of analysis.

Justice Sotomayor has said she accepts that her opinions, sympathies and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a fine organization, provides a clue to her decision against the firefighters?

While the nominee was chair of that fund's litigation committee, the organization aggressively pursued racial quotas in city hiring and in numerous cases fought to overturn the results of promotion exams. It seems to me that in Ricci, Judge Sotomayor's empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against another.

That is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.

Judge Sotomayor, we will inquire into how your philosophy, which allows subjectivity in the courtroom, affects your decision- making, like, for example, in abortion, where an organization of which you were an active leader argued that the Constitution requires taxpayer money to fund abortions; and gun control, where you recently noted it is settled law that the Second Amendment does not prevent a city or state from barring gun ownership; private property, where you ruled recently that the government could take property from one pharmacy developer and give it to another; capital punishment, where youpersonally signed a statement opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York because of the inhuman psychological burden it places on the offender and the family.

So I hope the American people will follow these hearings closely. They should learn about the issues and listen to both sides of the argument and -- and at the end of the hearing ask, if I must one day go to court, what kind of judge what I wish to hear my case? Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political or religious views to change the outcome? Or do I want a judge that impartially applies the law to the facts and fairly rules on the merits without bias or prejudice?

It's our job to determine which side of that fundamental divide the nominee stands.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEAHY: Thank you.

Another housekeeping thing...

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Jeff Sessions of the Republican, ranking member of the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, himself a former judge with some very, very strong words outlining a theme that he and no doubt other Republican will focus on during the course of the questioning of Judge Sotomayor that simply put, some of her comments are not appropriate for a United States Supreme Court justice. Specifically, the comment now widely publicized that she made at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law back in 2001 when she said these words, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Now, Jeff Toobin, let me start with you. Were you surprised by how robust Jeff Sessions' initial comments were?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I was. I thought he would wait a little bit, but this was bombs away from the get-go. And I just think what's worth thinking about here is that there's an issue before the Supreme Court now that's going to dominate these proceedings just below the radar. Which is, does the constitution allow affirmative action anymore? Does the constitution allow a university to consider race and admissions, to allow police department or a fire department to consider race as one factor in promotions? That issue really separates the liberals and the conservatives on the court.

Sotomayor is going to be asked about that in various ways. It was the underpinning of a case that Sessions was making. Chief Justice Roberts is making a big push on the court to create no more room for affirmative action under the constitution and I think that's just something to think about as we move forward.

BLITZER: And the whole issue of empathy came up as well, whether that would be appropriate for a Supreme Court justice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And this is, of course, an issue that was raised by President Obama before he asked Sotomayor to join the Supreme Court. He said he wants a judge with empathy and you heard today from Senator Sessions saying, I don't care what you call it, but I don't think it's appropriate. He said such a philosophy is disqualifying. Now, you can look back to the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito, for example, Republicans confirmed him. He was the Republican nominee.

And -- of George W. Bush, and he talked about how his Italian heritage informs everything that he does. But I think the point Senator Sessions was making was there's a difference in your background in forming what you do or swaying your judicial decision.

BLITZER: Maria, you're a wise Latina woman. So tell us why that comment, from your perspective, would be appropriate.

MARIA ECHAVESTE, DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT: Well, why I'm really upset with Senator Sessions is that he basically said that his opening statement that empathy equals prejudice, that somehow if you have any set of experiences that might open you up to considering different perspectives on the facts, that somehow that's a bias.

And if it's OK to - you don't leave your background. You are who you are. And all that she was saying was, she's got some experiences that are different than some of the other people on the bench and this is why we have...

BLITZER: A matter of human nature, Alex, people come with different life experiences and as much as you want to be objective and fair and responsible, you can't completely always, if you're a human being, ignore all of that.

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Certainly it's tough to do. But the question is, does she put her finger on the scales of justice to favor one group or another. And there seem to be some cases, the Ricci case, the affirmative action case where, that has come into action. Would she do that on the Supreme Court when there's no higher office, no other ambition to restrain her?

You know, President Obama said he wants judges who judge the real-world impact of their decisions, which sounds great except that it's a referee in football saying, well, I'm not going to call it by the fairness on the field. I'm going to call it by the impact on the team and maybe they worked hard, harder than the other team, and I'm going to give them that extra inch. That's not the referees' job. It's not the justice's job. It's really the job for Congress.

BLITZER: Guys, we are just getting started. The hearings are continuing. Historic hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee on potentially the next United States Supreme Court justice if, it fact, she is confirmed, and we do anticipate she will be confirmed.

We're going to have a lot more in CNN politics.com. So, you can get a lot more on that. We'll take a quick break. Our coverage of the Supreme Court nominee's hearings will continue right after this.

(COMMERICIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Former chairman of the committee, one of the top Republicans, Orrin Hatch of Utah, now getting ready to make his opening statement.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: ... I am confident that, under this committee's leadership from both you, Mr. Chairman, and the distinguished ranking member, this hearing will be both respectful and substantive.

Judge Sotomayor comes to this committee for the third time, having served in the first two levels of the federal judiciary and now being nominated to the third. She has a compelling life story and a strong record of educational and professional achievement.

HATCH: Her nomination speaks to the opportunities that America today provides for men and women of different backgrounds and heritage. The liberty we enjoy here in America makes these opportunities possible and requires our best efforts to protect that liberty.

Our liberty rests on the foundation of a written constitution that limits and separates government power, self government by the people and the rule of law. Those principles define the kind of judge our liberty requires. They define the role judges may play in our system of government. I've described my basic approach to the judicial confirmation process in more detail elsewhere. So I ask unanimous consent that my article published this year in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy titled, "The Constitution is the Playbook for Judicial Selection," be placed in the record.

Mr. Chairman, if I can.

LEAHY: Without objection.

HATCH: My approach includes three elements. First, the Senate owes some deference to the president's qualified nominees. Second, a judicial nominee's qualifications include not only legal experience, but more importantly judicial philosophy. By that, I mean a nominee's understanding of the power and proper role of judges in our system of government.

Third, this standard must be applied to the nominee's entire record. I've also found guidance from what may seem to be is an unusual source. On June 8, 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama explained his opposition to the Appeals Court nomination of Janet Rogers Brown, an African-American woman with a truly compelling life story, who then served as a justice on the California Supreme Court.

Senator Obama made three arguments that I find relevant today. First, he argued that the test of a qualified judicial nominee is whether she can set aside her personal views and, as he put it, quote, "decide each case on the facts and the merits alone. That is what our founders intended. Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on facts. They have to be based on precedent and on law," unquote.

Second, Senator Obama extensively reviewed Justice Brown's speeches off the court for clues about what he called her, quote, "overreaching judicial philosophy," unquote. There's even more reason to do so today. This is, after all, a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, will help change the very precedence that today bind her as a Circuit Court of Appeals judge. In other words, the judicial position to which she has been nominated is quite different than the judicial position she now occupies. This makes evidence outside of her Appeals Court decisions regarding her approach to judging more, not less, important.

Judge Sotomayor has obviously thought, spoken and written much on these issues. And I think we show respect to her by taking her entire record seriously.

Third, Senator Obama said that, while a nominee's race, gender and life story are important, they cannot distract from the fundamental focus on the kind of judge she will be. He said then, as I have said today, that we should all be grateful for the opportunity that our liberty affords for Americans of different backgrounds.

We should applaud Judge Sotomayor's achievements and service to her community, her profession and her country. Yet, Senator Obama called it, quote, "offensive and cynical," unquote, to suggest that a nominee's race or gender can give her a pass for her substantive views. He proved it by voting twice to filibuster Judge Janet Rogers Brown's nomination, and then by voting against her confirmation. I share his hope that we have arrived at a point in our country's history where individuals can be examined and even criticized for their views, no matter what their race or gender. If those standards were appropriate when Senator Obama opposed Republican nominees, they should be appropriate now that President Obama is choosing his own nominees.

But today, President Obama said that personal empathy is an essential ingredient in judicial decisions. Today, we are urged to ignore Judge Sotomayor's speeches altogether and focus only on her judicial decisions, which are extensive. I do not believe that we should do just that. I wish that other current standards had been applied to the past nominees.

Democratic senators, for example, offer us proof of Judge Sotomayor's moderation, that she has agreed with her Republican appointed Second Circuit colleagues 95 percent of the time. Joined by then -- for which I congratulate her.

Joined by then-Senator Obama, however, many of those same Democratic senators voted against Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation, even though he had voted with his Democrat-appointed Third Circuit colleagues 99 percent of the time during a much longer Appeals Court career. And although Justice Alito also received the ABA's highest rating, Senator Obama joined 24 other Democrats in even voting to filibuster his nomination. And when -- and then he joined a total of42 Democrats in voting against the confirmation of now-Justice Alito.

In fact, Senator Obama never voted to confirm a Supreme Court justice. He even voted against a man who administered the oath of presidential office, Chief Justice John Roberts, another distinguished and well-qualified nominee.

Now, if a compelling life story, academic and professional excellence, and a top ABA rating make a convincing confirmation case, Miguel Estrada would be a U.S. circuit judge today. He is a brilliant, universally respected lawyer, one of the top Supreme Court practitioners in America. But he was fiercely opposed by groups and repeatedly filibustered by Democrat senators, and ones who today say these same factors should -- should count in Judge Sotomayor's favor.

Now, whether I vote for or against Judge Sotomayor, it will be by applying the principles that I've laid out, not by using such tactics and standards used against these nominees in the past. Judicial appointments have become increasingly contentious. Some of the things that have been about Judge Sotomayor have been intemperate and unfair.

There are now newspaper reports that left-wing groups supporting Judge Sotomayor, specifically the extreme left People for the American Way, are engaged in a smear campaign against the plaintiff in one of her more controversial cases, a man who will be testifying here later in the week. If that is true, and I hope it is not, it is beneath both contempt and the dignity that this process demands.

But there must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge America needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feeling sin deciding cases? Is judicial impartiality a duty or an option? Does the fact that judicial decisions affect so many people's lives require judges to be objective and impartial? Or does it allow them to be subjective and sympathetic?

Judge Sotomayor's nomination raises these and other important issues. And I look forward to a respectful and energetic debate.

The confirmation process in general, and this hearing in particular, must be both dignified and thorough. There are very different and strongly held views about the issues we will explore, in particular the role that judges should play in our system of government.

HATCH: The task before us is to determine whether Judge Sonia Sotomayor is qualified by legal experience, and especially by judicial philosophy to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Doing so requires examining her entire record, her speeches and articles, as well as her judicial decisions. We must, at the same time, be thankful for the opportunity represented by Judge Sotomayor's nomination and focus squarely on whether she will be the kind of judge required by the very liberty that makes that opportunity possible.

Judge, I'm proud of you, and I wish you well. This'll be an interesting experience and I expect you'll be treated with dignity and respect throughout.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEAHY: Yield to the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee...

BLITZER: All right. So that was Orrin Hatch, a key Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a longtime senator, making it clear that he's going to have tough questions for Sonia Sotomayor. Even though he seems to be sympathetic to her nomination.

Let's bring in Candy Crowley, our senior political correspondent. Candy, a lot of people were looking to Orrin Hatch to get a sense of whether he would vote for or against this confirmation. Did you get an indication one way or the other?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean -- not from that. My guess is, yes. I think this was more of a tonal speech that he gave saying well, here's what we need to look at. It's going to be serious, we need to be respectful and also I'd like to complain about how some Republican president's nominees have been treated.

It's impossible to overestimate how much Republicans really do resent the way that some of the Supreme Court nominees -- Roberts, Alito -- were treated because Republicans say, "Listen, if they're qualified, they're qualified." Orrin Hatch is one of those Republicans... BLITZER: I suspect that...

CROWLEY: So I suspect he will vote for her.

BLITZER: And I expect, Jeff Toobin, that we'll be hearing a lot more from some of the other Republicans about the way then-Senator Barack Obama dealt with Supreme Court nominees.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. But it was really interesting. Unlike Sessions, Hatch really did seem undecided about this nomination. I'm also going to be looking for Lindsey Graham, also genuinely undecided about this nomination. Those two Democrat - are the Republicans who I think are the most likely possible votes...

BLITZER: Members of the Judiciary Committee?

TOOBIN: Correct.

BLITZER: Because there are other Republicans who are on the Judiciary Committee who are likely to vote in favor of her confirmation.

TOOBIN: Correct.

CROWLEY: And the question is, as Orrin Hatch pointed out, does the Senate owe deference to any qualified nominee? And he made it very clear that Barack Obama, in the speech on the Senate floor on the nomination of Samuel Alito, said, "I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve," but he voted against him.

BLITZER: All right, guys, we're going to take a quick break and continue our coverage. Go back to the Senate Judiciary Committee. These are historic hearings. Confirmation of the Supreme Court Justice nominee will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor continuing. The senator from California, Senator Feinstein, is now delivering her opening statements.

By the way, during the commercial break, there was a little outburst and someone was removed. We're not exactly sure what that outburst was about. But we do know that the chairman, Patrick Leahy and the ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions -- they were firm in saying that they will not tolerate any outburst during the course of these hearings.

Let's go to Dianne Feinstein.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA), CHAIR OF SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: ...where the court held that the government cannot restrict access to abortions that are medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. Some nominees responded by assuring that Roe and Casey were precedents of the court entitled to great respect. And in one of the hearings, through questioning by Senator Specter, this line of cases was acknowledged to have created a super-precedent. But once on the court, the same nominees voted to overturn the key holding in Casey that laws restricting a woman's medical care must contain an exception to protect her health.

Their decision did not comport with the answers they gave here, and it disregarded stare decisis and the precedents established in Roe, in Ashcroft, in Casey, in Thornburg, in Carhart 1, and in Iope (ph).

So, super-precedent went out the window and women lost a fundamental constitutional protection that had existed for 36 years.

Also, it showed me that Supreme Court justices are much more than umpires calling balls and strikes and that the word "activist" is often used only to describe opinions of one side.

FEINSTEIN: As a matter of fact, in just two years, these same nominees have either disregarded or overturned precedent in at least eight other cases. A case involving assignments to attain racial diversity in school assignments, a case overruling 70 years of precedent on the Second Amendment and federal gun control law, a case which increased the burden of proof on older workers to prove age discrimination, a case overturning a 1911 decision to allow manufacturers to set minimum prices for their products, a case overruling two cases from the 1960s on time limits for filing criminal appeals, a case reversing precedent on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a case overturning a prior ruling on regulation of issue ads relating to political campaigns, and a case regarding prior law and creating a new standard that limits when cities can replace civil service exams that they may believe have been -- have discriminated against a group of workers.

So, I do not believe that Supreme Court justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes. Rather, I believe that they make the decisions of individuals who bring to the Court their own experiences and philosophies.

Judge Sotomayor, I believe you are a warm and intelligent woman. I believe you are well studied and experienced in the law with some 17 years of federal court experience involving 3,000 appeals and 450 trial cases. So I believe you, too, will bring your experiences and philosophy to this highest court. And I believe that will do only one thing and that is strengthen this high institution of our great country.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Feinstein...

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue our coverage of these historic confirmation hearings. We just heard from Dianne Feinstein. Several more Republicans and Democrats getting ready to deliver their opening statements.

And then at the end of that, we'll hear from Sonia Sotomayor herself. Our coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We are continuing our coverage here in Washington of the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is now asked -- delivering his opening statement.

By the way, we just also confirmed here at CNN that the president has decided on a new surgeon general of the United States. Get ready to nominate Dr. Regina Benjamin as the surgeon general. We'll have live coverage of that coming up, I believe, at 11:40 a.m. Eastern.

But let's go back to Senator Grassley right now.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: ... good judges understand that their job is not to impose their own personal opinions of right and wrong. They know their job is to say what the law is rather than what they personally think that it ought to be.

Good judges understand that they must meticulously apply the law and the Constitution even if the results they reach are unpopular. Good judges know that the Constitution and law constrains judges every bit as much as they constrain legislators, executives, and our whole citizenry.

Good judges not only understand these fundamental principles, they live and breathe them. President Obama said that he would nominate judges based on their ability to empathize in general and with certain groups in particular. This empathy standard is troubling to me.

In fact, I'm concerned that judging based on empathy is really just legislating from the bench. The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics, feelings, and preferences. President Obama's empathy standard appears to encourage judges to make use of their personal politics, feelings, and preferences. This is contrary to what most of us understand to be the role of the judiciary.

President Obama clearly believes that you measure up to his empathy standard. That worries me.

I've reviewed your record and have concerns about your judicial philosophy. For example, in one speech, you doubted that a judge could ever be the -- ever be truly impartial. In another speech, you argued that it is a disservice both to law and society for judges to disregard personal views shaped by one's, quote, unquote," differences" as a woman or man of color.

In yet another speech, you proclaimed that the court appeals -- court of appeals is where policy is made.

Your -- your "wise Latina" comment starkly contradicts a statement by Justice O'Connor that a wise, old man and a wise, old woman would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case.

These statements go directly to your views of how a judge should use his or her background and experience when deciding cases. Unfortunately, I fear they don't comport with what I and many others believe is the proper role of a judge or an appropriate judicial method.

The American legal system requires that judges check their biases, personal preferences, and politics at the door of the courthouse. Lady Justice stands before the Supreme Court with blindfold, holding the scales of justice. Just like Lady Justice, judges and justices must wear blindfolds when they interpret the Constitution and administer justice.

I'll be asking you about your ability to wear that judicial blindfold. I'll be asking you about your ability to decide cases in an impartial manner and in accordance with the law and the Constitution. I'll be asking you about your judicial philosophy, whether you allow biases and personal preferences to dictate your judicial methods.

Finally, or ideally, the Supreme Court shouldn't be made up of men and women who are on the side of one special group or issue. Rather, the Supreme Court should be made up of men and women who are on the side of the law and the Constitution.

I'm looking to support a restrained jurist committed to the rule of law and the Constitution. I'm not looking to support a creative jurist who will allow his or her background and personal preferences to decide cases.

The Senate needs to do its job and conduct a comprehensive and careful review of your record and qualifications. You're nominated to a lifetime position on the highest court. The Senate has a tremendous responsibility to confirm an individual who has superior intellectual abilities, solid legal expertise, and an even judicial demeanor and temperament.

Above all, we have a tremendous responsibility to confirm an individual who truly understands the proper role of a justice. So I'll be asking questions about your judicial qualifications. However, like all of my colleagues, I'm committed to giving you a fair and respectful hearing, as is appropriate for Supreme Court nominees.

I congratulate you once again.

LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Grassley.

And, Senator Feingold, I would yield to you.

FEINGOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to welcome you... BLITZER: All right, Senator Grassley wrapping up. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin beginning his statement. We'll go to him in a moment.