Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sonia Sotomayor Faces Senate For Her Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Aired July 13, 2009 - 14:00   ET

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

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If we could get back and have order in the room.

And, Judge, good to have you back here. As I recall, we left at Senator Klobuchar. You're next.

And I will yield to Senator Klobuchar.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D), MINNESOTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Judge. It's a pleasure to see you again. I enjoyed our conversation and what I most remembered about that is you confess to me that you once brought a winter parka to Minnesota in June.

(LAUGHTER)

And I promise I will not hold that against you during this week.

I know you have many friends and family here, but it was really an honor for me to meet your mom. When President Obama first announced your nomination, I love the story about how your mom saved all of her money to buy you and your brother the first set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood.

And it reminded me of when my own parents bought us Encyclopedia Britannica that always held its hallowed place in the hallway and for me, they were a window on the world and a gateway to knowledge, which they clearly were to you, as well.

From the time you were nine years old, your mom raised you and your brother on her own. She struggled to buy those encyclopedias on her nurse's salary, but she did it because she believed deeply in the value of education.

You went on to be the valedictorian of your high school class and to be tops in your class in college and go to law school. After that, and this is an experience that we have in common, you became a local prosecutor.

And then there's Justice Blackmun, who grew up in a St. Paul working class neighborhood in my home state of Minnesota. He was able to attend Harvard College only because at the last minute, the Harvard Club of Minnesota got him a scholarship, and then he went on to Harvard, where he worked as a tutor and a janitor.

Through four years of college and three years of law school, his family was never able to scrape up enough money to bring him back to Minnesota for Christmas.

Each of these very different justices grew up in challenging circumstances. No one can doubt that, for each of these justices, their life experiences shaped their work, and they did -- that they did on the Supreme Court. This should be unremarkable, and in fact it's completely appropriate. After all, our own committee members demonstrate the value that comes from members who have different backgrounds and perspectives.

For instance, at the same time my accomplished colleague, Senator Whitehouse, a son of a renowned diplomat, was growing up in Saigon during the Vietnam war, I was working as a carhop at the A&W Root Beer Stand in suburban Minnesota. And while Senator Hatch is a famed gospel music songwriter, Senator Leahy is such a devoted fan of The Grateful Dead that he once had trouble taking a call from the President of the United States because the chairman was on stage with The Grateful Dead.

We've been tremendously blessed on this committee with the gift of having members with different backgrounds and different experiences, just as different experiences are a gift for any court in this land. So when one of my colleagues questioned whether you, Judge, would be a justice for all of us or just for some of us, I couldn't help but remember something that Hubert Humphrey once said. He said, "America is all the richer for the many different and distinctive strands of which it is woven."

Along those lines, Judge, you are only the third woman in history to come before this committee as a Supreme Court nominee. And as you can see, there are currently only two women on this committee, Senator Feinstein and myself.

So I think it's worth remember that, when Justice O'Connor graduated from law school, the only offer she got from law firms were for legal secretary positions. Justice O'Connor, who graduated third in her class from Stanford Law School, saw her accomplishments reduced to one question -- "Can she type?"

Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. When she entered Harvard Law School, she was one of only nine women in a class of more than 500. One professor actually demanded that she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. Later, she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite impressive credentials.

Nevertheless, both of them persevered, and they certainly prevailed. Their undeniable merits triumphed over those who sought to deny them opportunity.

The women who came before you to be considered by this committee helped blaze a trail. And although your record stands on your own, you also stand on their shoulders -- another woman with an opportunity to be a justice for all of us.

And as Justice Ginsburg's recent comments regarding the strip search of a 13-year-old girl indicate, as well as her dissent in the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay case, being a justice for all of us may mean bringing some real-world practical experience into the courthouse.

As we consider your nomination, we know that you are more than a sum of your professional experiences. Still, you bring one of the most wide-ranging legal resumes to this position -- local prosecutor, civil litigator, trial judge and appellate judge.

Straight out of law school, you went to work as a prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.'s office, and you ended up staying there for five years. When you're a prosecutor, the law ceases to be an abstract subject. It's not just a dusty book in the basement. It's real, and it has an impact on real people's lives, whether it's victims and their families, defendants and their families or the neighborhood where you live.

It also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. You never forget the big and difficult cases. I know in your case, one of those is the serial burglar turned murderer, the Tarzan murder case. In my case, it was a little girl named Taisha (ph) Edwards, an 11-year-old girl shot by stray gang fire as she sat at her kitchen table doing her homework.

As a prosecutor, you don't just have to know the law, you also have to know people.

So Judge, I'm interested in talking to you more about what you've learned from that job, and how that job shaped your legal career and your approach to judging. I'm also interested in learning more about your views on criminal law issues. I want to explore your views on the Fourth Amendment, the confrontation clause and sentencing law and policy.

I'd like to know in criminal cases, as well as in civil cases how you would balance the text of statues and the Constitution and the practical things you see out there in the world. It seems to me, in cases like Falso, Santa and Howard, that you have a keen understanding of the real world implications of your decisions.

I often get concerned that those pragmatic experiences are missing in judicial decision making, especially when I look at the recent Supreme Court case, in which the majority broadly interpreted the confrontation clause to include crime lab workers. I agree with the four dissenting justices that the ruling has vast potential to disrupt criminal procedures that already give ample protections against the misuse of scientific evidence.

Your old boss, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau called you a fearless and effective prosecutor. This is how he put it once in an interview: We want people with good judgment, because a lot of the job of a prosecutor is making decisions. I also want to see some signs of humility in anybody that I hire. We're giving young lawyers a lot of power, and we want to make sure that they're going to use that power with good sense and without arrogance.

These are among the very qualities I'm looking for in a Supreme Court justice. I, too, am looking for a person with good judgment -- someone with intellectual curiosity and independence, but who also understands that her judicial decisions affect real people. With that, I think, comes the second essential quality, humility.

I'm looking for a justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility that she will be given, if confirmed; a justice who understands the gravity of the office and who respects the very different roles that the Constitution provides for each of the three branches of government.

Finally, a good prosecutor knows that her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. Likewise, a Supreme Court justice must interpret the law without fear or favor. And I believe your background and experiences, including your understanding of front-line law enforcement, will help you to always remember that the cases you hear involve real people with real problems, who are looking for real remedies.

With excellent justice and excellent judgement and a sense of humility, I believe you can be a justice for all of us.

Thank you very much.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Amy Klobuchar is the Democratic senator from Minnesota. She just wrapped up her opening statement.

All seven Republican senators, they delivered their opening statements earlier in the day. Three more Democrats are slated to speak before we hear directly from Sonia Sotomayor.

By the way, one of those Democrats, Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota, in his debut performance as a member of the Judiciary Committee.

CNN.com is streaming all of these hearings uninterrupted.

We'll take a quick break. We'll continue our coverage of this historic moment in Washington right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: The opening statements are continuing. Getting ready to wrap them up. At issue, the next Supreme Court associate justice, Sonia Sotomayor. She's getting ready to deliver her opening statement as well. You'll see that, of course, live, here on CNN.

Also standing by for Arlen Specter, the newest Democrat, Al Franken, who just was sworn in the other day. Both members of the Judiciary Committee. They will be making their opening statements momentarily.

Earlier, the number two Republican in the United States Senate, Jon Kyl. he spoke out in his opening statement, and he spoke about the president of the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: I respectfully submit that President Obama is simply outside the mainstream in his statements about how judges should decide cases. I practiced law for almost 20 years before every level of state and federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and never once did I hear a lawyer argue that he had no legal basis to sustain his client's position so that he had to ask the judge to go with his gut or his heart. If judges routinely started ruling on the basis of their personal feelings, however well- intentioned, the entire legitimacy of the judicial system would be jeopardized.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Jon Kyl speaking out.

Jeff Toobin, he was making a reference to the fact that as a senator, Barack Obama voted not to confirm Samuel Alito as a justice of the Supreme Court. And explain the background.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: There's really a "Whose ox is gored?" quality here, because the party putting forth a nominee, the president always says this is something that should be just about qualifications. And that's pretty much what Obama has said about Sotomayor. But the party out of power often says, well, no, we've got to look beyond qualifications, we have to look at the ideology of the nominee.

And Obama, when he was a senator and Bush was the president, he wanted to look at the ideology of Roberts and Alito. Now the shoe's on the other foot. It's the outside senators. It's the senators from the other party who are saying, no, we have to look at the ideology of Sonia Sotomayor, and it's the Obama administration saying, well, just look at her qualifications, that's all you need to do.

BLITZER: But the Republicans make the point that the Democrats really started this because they voted overwhelmingly to confirm two Democratic nominees, Stephen Breyer, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They were confirmed overwhelmingly with a lot of Republican support.

TOOBIN: Well, you know, it's gone back and forth, weirdly.

In 1987, the big Supreme Court fight of all of our lives was Robert Bork. And he was defeated, no doubt about it, because of his ideology by a Democrat Senate.

Clarence Thomas was four years later. That didn't really have much to do with ideology. I think we all remember it had to do with other things.

But after that, there was a period of kind of quiet, where the Republicans sort of gave in and said, "OK, Clinton's the president." But it is true that the Democrats have raised the stakes and fought hard on both Chief Justice Roberts and Samuel Alito.

BLITZER: All right, guys. Hold that thought. We're getting ready to hear from Arlen Specter and Al Franken.

You'll hear those opening statements. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania now speaking.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D), PENNSYLVANIA: ... a century later, there were only 161 signed opinions. In 2007, there were only 67 signed opinions.

I start on the cases which are not decided, although I could start in many, many areas. Could start with the Circuit splits, where one Court of Appeals in one section of the country goes one way, another Court of Appeals goes the other way. The rest of the courts don't know which was the precedents are, and the Supreme Court decides not to decide.

But take the case of the terrorist surveillance program, which was President Bush's secret, warrant-less wiretaps and contrast it with congressional authority exercised under Article I on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing the exclusive way to have wiretaps, perhaps the sharpest conflict in the history of this great country on the Article I powers of Congress and the Article II powers of the president as Commander-In-Chief. The Federal District Court in Detroit said the terrorist surveillance program was unconstitutional.

The Sixth Circuit decided two-to-one that the plaintiffs did not have standing. I thought the dissenting opinion was much stronger than the majority opinion. And standing, as we all know, is a very flexible doctrine and, candidly, at least as I see it, used frequently by the court to avoid deciding a case.

Then, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, decided not to hear the case, didn't even decide whether the lack of standing of standing was a justifiable basis. This has led to great confusion in the law, and it's as current as this morning's newspapers reporting about other secret programs which, apparently, the president had in operation.

Had the Supreme Court of the United States taken up the terrorist surveillance program, the court could have ruled on whether it was appropriate for the president not to notify the chairman of the Judiciary Committee about the program. We now have a law which says all members of the Intelligence Committees are to be notified. Well, the president didn't follow that law. Did he have the right to do so under Article II powers? Well, we don't know.

Or within the past two weeks, the Supreme Court denied hearing a case involving claims by families of victims of 9/11 against Saudi Arabia, of Saudi Arabian Commissions and four princes in Saudi Arabia. The Congress decided what sovereign immunity was in legislation in 1976 and had exclusions for torts. But the Supreme Court denied an opportunity for those families who had suffered grievously from having their day in court.

SPECTER: And one of the questions, when my opportunity arises, will be to ask you what would be the standards that you would employ in deciding what cases the Supreme Court would hear.

There is currently a major matter, an issue, on the Voting Rights Act. And the conflict has been present for many years between the authority of Congress to decide what is the factual basis for legislation, the standard which Justice Harlan decided in the Woods (ph) case, was a rational basis.

The Supreme Court more recently has adopted a standard of congruency and proportionality, a standard which Justice Scalia has said is a flabby test, which invites judicial lawmaking. You'll hear a lot of that in this hearing, about a judge's responsibility to interpret the law and the statutes, and not to make laws.

And during the confirmation hearing of Chief Justice Roberts, he said in pretty plain terms that the Court ought to allow the Congress to decide what the factual basis is. and for the Court to do otherwise is to engage in judicial legislation.

The Voting Rights case was decided on narrow grounds. But it certainly looks, if you read the record, that the Court is about ready to upset the Voting Rights case, just like it did in Derrick (ph) v. Alabama on the Americans With Disabilities Act, notwithstanding a vast record establishing the basis.

So, I would like to know what your standard will be, if confirmed: a rational basis, which had been the traditional standard, or congruence and proportionality? And if you tell me congruence and proportionality, then I'll ask you what it means, because it slips and slides around so much, that it's impossible to tell what a constitutional standard is.

And we senators would like to know what the standards are, so we know what to do when we undertake legislation.

Your decision on the circuit court in a case captioned Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Incorporated, involving the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Water Act, has a special prominence, now that we are debating climate control and global warming.

In the 2nd Circuit opinion, you were in the majority, deciding that it was the best technology. The Supreme Court reversed 5-4, saying that it turned on a cost-benefit analysis. It, I think, is worthy of exploration, although what you answer, obviously is a matter of your discretion as to whether -- on a 5-4 decision it's hard to say who's really right, the five or the four, as a matter of interpreting the Constitution or the statute.

Having a different view, I'd be interested to know, if you'd care to respond when the time comes, as to whether you'd be with what had been the minority. And perhaps a voice as strong as yours in the conference room would produce a different result. It could have a real impact on what we're legislating now, on cap-and-trade.

With the few seconds I have left, I'd like to preview some questions on televising the court.

SPECTER: I don't know why there is so much interest here today. I haven't counted this many cameras since just Alito was sitting where you're sitting.

You've had experience in the district court with television. You're replacing Justice Souter, who said that if TV cameras were to come to the court, they'd have to roll over his dead body.

If you're confirmed, they won't have to roll over his dead body.

(LAUGHTER)

But the court decides all the cutting-edge questions of the day. The Senate is televised, the House is televised. A lot of people are fascinated by this hearing.

I'd like to see the Court televised. You -- you -- (inaudible). Thank you very much, Judge Sotomayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Specter.

Just so we understand, the next statement will be by Senator Franken, and then we'll call forward the two people who are going to introduce you and you'll then, Judge, have a chance to say something.

Senator Franken has been waiting patiently all day. I appreciate having you here. Please go ahead.

FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an incredible honor to be here less than a week into my term as United States Senator. My first major responsibility is here at this historic confirmation hearing.

I am truly humbled to join the Judiciary Committee, which has played and will continue to play such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice.

Chairman Leahy, for several years now, I have admired your strength and integrity in leading this committee. I am grateful for your warm welcome and the consideration that you have given me, sir, and I am honored to serve alongside of you.

Ranking Member Sessions, I want you to know that I plan to follow the example of my good friend and predecessor, Paul Wellstone, who was willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work of the American people.

I look forward to working over the years with you and my other Republican colleagues in the Senate to improve the lives of all Americans.

To all the members of this committee, I know that I have a lot to learn from each of you. Like so many private citizens, I have watched at least part of each and every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since they've been televised and I would note that this is the first confirmation hearing that Senator Kennedy has not attended...

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: ... since 1965.

LEAHY: The senator will suspend.

Officers, please remove whoever is causing the disturbance.

Again, as Senator Sessions and I have said, this is a meeting of the United States Senate. We'll show respect to everybody who is here... (CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: ... we will show respect to everybody, including to Judge Sotomayor, to the Senators on both sides of the aisle, and we will have order in this room.

FRANKEN: Thank you, Senator Leahy.

LEAHY: Senator Franken, please continue.

FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I was saying was that this is the first hearing since 1965 that Senator Kennedy has not been present. And I know he's off the committee now, but we do miss his presence.

These televised hearings over the years have taught Americans a lot about our Constitution and the role that the courts play in upholding and defending it.

FRANKEN: I look forward to listening to all of your questions and the issues that you and your constituents care about.

To Judge Sotomayor, welcome. Over the next few days, I expect to learn from you, as well. As been said, you're the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years. And after meeting you in my office last week, I know that you're not just an outstanding jurist, but an exceptional individual. And as others have said, your story is inspirational and one which all Americans should take great pride in.

And I welcome your family, as well.

As most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. That may mean I'm the most junior senator, but it also means that I am the senator who most recently took the oath of office. Last Tuesday, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to it.

I take this oath very seriously as we consider your nomination, Judge Sotomayor.

I may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of Americans. Yet all of us, regardless of our backgrounds and professions, have a huge stake in who sits on the Supreme Court, and we are profoundly affected by its decisions.

I hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern the people of Minnesota and the people of this nation. This hearing will help folks sitting in living rooms and offices in Winona and Duluth and the Twin Cities to get a better idea of what the court is, what it does, and what it's supposed to do, and, most importantly, how it affects the everyday lives of all Americans.

Justice Souter, whom you will replace -- if you are confirmed -- once said, "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we're doing, at the end of our task, some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right."

I believe Justice Souter had it right.

In the past month, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of Americans and reading and consulting with some of Minnesota's top legal minds. And I believe that the rights of Americans, as citizens and voters are facing challenges on two separate fronts.

First, I believe that the position of Congress, with respect to the courts and the executive, is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believe that the framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.

I am wary of judicial activism, and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to the Congress and not make policy by itself.

FRANKEN: Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years, and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.

I agree with Senator Feingold and with Senator Whitehouse. We hear a lot about judicial -- judicial activism when politicians are running for office and when they talk about what kind of judge they want on the Supreme Court. Well, it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. For example, during the Rehnquist court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer combined.

Second, I am concern that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can -- and can seek to right a wrong. It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against, because of age or gender or color. It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.

It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from security fraud. It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the Internet. It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote. It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.

Yet, from what I see on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend themselves.

As I said before, Judge, I'm -- I'm here to learn from you. I want to learn what you think is the proper relationship between Congress and the courts, between Congress and the executive. I want to learn how you go about weighing the rights of the individual, the small consumer or business owner and more powerful interests. And I want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of important issues like voting rights and open access to the Internet and campaign finance reform.

We're going to have a lot of -- more time together, so I'm -- I'm just going to start listening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LEAHY: Thank you very, very much, Senator Franken.

And what we're going to do, move a couple of chairs in or just stay there, please, Judge, and we're going to have two people who will speak each for five minutes to introduce you. I will then administer the oath of -- of -- the oath of the committee to you.

(LAUGHTER)

How about that -- administer the oath, the other of -- before the committee. And then we will hear your testimony.

So, going as we go by seniority, Senator Schumer, you are recognized for five minutes. And then Senator Gillibrand, you are recognized for five minutes.

SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And today is a great national opportunity. It's an opportunity to recognize that the nomination of one of the most qualified candidates to the Supreme Court in American history could not have happened anywhere else in the world.

Judge Sotomayor's story is a great American story and, I might add, a great New York story as well. Consider this: in no other country in the world could a woman from a minority group who grew up in a working class family have received an education at the best institutions and, having thrived there, gone on to be a judge, and now a nominee to the highest court in the land. This is because we don't have a caste system in this country, or even a class system.

Two-hundred fifty years ago, we threw away the centuries-old framework of gentry and nobility. We started fresh with no ranks and no titles. Less than fourscore and seven years later, a farmer and self-taught lawyer from Illinois became perhaps our greatest president.

And so the American story goes, and Judge Sonia Sotomayor from the Bronx, daughter of a single parent practical nurse, has written her own chapter in it. Judge Sotomayor embodies what we all strive for as American citizens. Her life and her career are not about race or class or gender, although, as for all of us, these are important parts of who she is.

Her story is about how race and class, at the end of the day, are not supposed to predetermine anything in America. What matters is hard work and education, and those things will pay off no matter who you are or where you have come from.

It's exactly what each of us wants for ourselves and for our children. And this shared vision is why this moment is historic for all Americans.

Judge Sotomayor was born to parents who moved to New York from Puerto Rico during World War II. Her father was a factory worker with a third grade education. He died when she was nine.

Her mother worked and raised Sotomayor and her brother, Juan, now a doctor practicing in Syracuse, on her own. Sonia Sotomayor graduated first in her high school class from Cardinal Spellman High School in 1971. She has returned to Cardinal Spellman to speak there and to encourage future alumni to work hard, get an education and pursue their dreams the same way she did.

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 2009, there are many more role models for a young Cardinal Spellman student to choose from, with Judge Sotomayor foremost among them.

Judge Sotomayor went on to employ her enormous talents at Princeton, where she graduated summa cum laude, received the Pine Prize, the highest honor bestowed on a Princeton student. This is an award that is given not just to the smartest student in the class, but to the most exceptionally smart student who has also given the most to her community. She graduated from Yale Law School, where she was a Law Review editor.

And because we have such an extensive judicial record before us, I believe that these hearings will matter less than for the several previous nominees or, at the least, that these hearings will bear out what is obvious about her -- that she is modest and humble in her approach to judging.

SCHUMER: As we become even more familiar with her incisive mind and balance views, I am certain that this hearing will prove to all what is already clear to many.

This is a moment in which all Americans can take great pride -- not just New Yorkers, not just Puerto Ricans, not just Hispanics, not just women -- but all Americans who believe in opportunity and who want for themselves and their children a fair reading of the laws by a judge who understands that, while we are a nation of individuals, we are all governed by one law.

Mr. Chairman, people felt that the founding of America, that we were, quote, "God's noble experiment." Judge Sotomayor's personal story shows that today, more than 200 years later, we are still God's noble experiment.

Thank you.

LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Schumer.

And now, Senator Gillibrand, the other senator from New York, and please -- please go ahead, Senator Gillibrand.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and the other distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, for the privilege to speak on behalf of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

President Obama has chosen one of the country's outstanding legal minds with his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. As a New Yorker, I take great pride in Judge Sotomayor's nomination, along with the rest of my state and our delegation, including Senator Schumer, and my colleagues from the House, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who was first person to introduce me to Judge Sotomayor and her record, and Congressman Jose Serrano.

As a woman, I take great pride in this historic nomination. In the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it took a very long time, about 171 years, to get the first woman on the Supreme Court, and I thought that we'd very likely always have two and eventually more.

I am very thankful for President Obama in his recognition of the importance of women's voices on the nation's highest court.

Sonia Sotomayor's life and career are a study in excellence: a commitment to learning, a dedication to the law, and the constant pursuit of the highest ideals of our country and Constitution.

Her story is also the quintessential American and New York story: born to a Puerto Rican family, growing up in public housing in the South Bronx, and raised with a love of country and a deep appreciation for hard work.

Judge Sotomayor demonstrated a devotion to learning, graduating summa cum laude from Princeton and serving as an editor on the Yale Law Journal before pursuing her career in the law.

The breadth and depth of Judge Sotomayor's experience makes her uniquely qualified to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor's keen understanding of case law and the importance of precedent is derived from working in nearly every aspect of our legal system as a prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge, and as an appellate judge.

As prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor fought the worst of society's ills, prosecuting a litany of crimes, from murder to child pornography to drug trafficking. The Manhattan D.A., Bob Morgenthau, described her as fearless and an effective prosecutor and an able champion of the law.

Judge Sotomayor's years as corporate litigator exposed her to all facets of commercial law, including real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law.

Judge Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George Herbert Walker Bush, presiding over roughly 450 cases, and earning a reputation as a tough, fair-minded and thoughtful jurist. She would replace Judge Souter as the only member on the Supreme Court with trial experience.

At the appellate level, Judge Sotomayor has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions, with only seven being brought up to the Supreme Court, which reversed only three of those decisions, two of which were closely divided.

With confirmation, Judge Sotomayor brings more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years and more over judicial experience than any justice confirmed in the court in 70 years.

As a testament to Judge Sotomayor, many independent national legal and law enforcement groups have already endorsed her nomination, including, among them, the ABA, voting unanimously in giving her the highest rating of well qualified, complementing not only her formidable intellect, but her material legal mind and her record as deciding cases based on the precise fact and legal issues before her, also faithful in following the law as it exists, and that she has a healthy respect for the lucid role of judges and the balance of power with the executive and legislative branches.

The president of the Fraternal Order of Police also stated, "She's a model jurist, tough, fair-minded, and mindful of the constitutional protections afforded to all U.S. citizens."

A nominee's experience as a legal advocate for civil rights certainly must not be seen as a disqualifying criterion for confirmation, but instead as the hallmark of an individual's commitment to our founding principles of equality, justice and freedom.

Like Ruth Bader Ginsberg's participation in the ACLU women's rights project or Thurgood Marshall's participation on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Judge Sotomayor's leadership role in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund demonstrates her commitment to the Constitution, constitutional rights and core values of equality as being an inalienable right, an inalienable American right and should not be ascribed based on gender or color.

Judge Sotomayor's entire breadth of experience uniquely informs her ability to discern facts as she applies the law and follows precedent. Judge Sotomayor's commitment to the Constitution is unyielding, as she describes her judicial philosophy, saying, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

Judge Sotomayor's record on the second circuit demonstrates the paramount importance of this conviction.

The importance of Sonia Sotomayor's professional and personal story cannot be understated. Many of our most esteemed justices have noted the importance of their own diverse backgrounds and life experiences in being an effective justice.

Like Judge Sotomayor, they also understand that their gender or ethnicity is not a determining factor in their judicial rulings, but another asset which they bring to the court, much like education, training and previous legal work.

Justice Anthony Scalia said, quote, "I am the product of the melting pot in New York, grew up with people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. I have absolutely no racial prejudices and I think I am probably at least as antagonistic as the average American and probably much more so towards racial discrimination."

Justice Clarence Thomas said, "My journey has been one that required me to, at some point, touch on virtually every aspect, every level of our country, from people who couldn't read and write to people who were extremely literate."

LEAHY: Senator? Senator, we're going to have to put your full statement in the record so that Judge Sotomayor can be heard.

GILLIBRAND: May I conclude my remarks?

LEAHY: If it can be done in the next few seconds, Senator.

GILLIBRAND: One minute?

LEAHY: Well, how about...

GILLIBRAND: Twenty seconds.

I strongly support Judge Sotomayor's nomination and firmly believe her to be one of the finest jurists in American history.

LEAHY: Thank you.

Judge, now we will administer the oath, and I'll let the two senators step back, if they'd like, if we can.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

SOTOMAYOR: I do.

LEAHY: Thank you. Please be seated.

And I thank my two colleagues from New York for the introduction.

And I -- I appreciated it, because I know both have known you for some time. Judge, you've also introduced a number -- members of your family. And now the floor is yours.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for their kind introductions.

In recent weeks, I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting 89 senators, including all of the members of this committee. Each of you has been gracious to me, and I have so much enjoyed meeting you. Our meetings have given me an illuminating tour of the 50 states and invaluable insights into the American people.

There are countless family members and friends who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. I am deeply appreciative for their love and support. I want to make one special note of thanks to my mother. I am here, as many of you have noted, because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother, Juan, and me.

Mom, thank you.

I am very grateful to the president and humbled to be here today as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.

The progression of my life has been uniquely American. My parents left Puerto Rico during World War II. I grew up in modest circumstances in a Bronx housing project. My father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, passed away when I was 9 years old.

On her own, my mother raised my brother and me. She taught us that the key to success in America is a good education. And she set the example, studying alongside my brother and me at our kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse.

We worked hard. I poured myself into my studies at Cardinal Spellman High School, earning scholarships to Princeton University and then Yale Law School, while my brother went on to medical school. Our achievements are due to the values that we learned as children, and they have continued to guide my life's endeavors. I try to pass on this legacy by serving as a mentor and friend to my many godchildren and to students of all backgrounds.

Over the past three decades, I have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives -- as a big-city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge, and as an appellate judge. My first job after law school was as an assistant district attorney in New York.

There I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the needless death of loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement has in protecting the public.

In my next legal job, I focused on commercial instead of criminal matters. I litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses and advised them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks. My career as an advocate ended, and my career as a judge began, when I was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a trial judge, I did decide over 450 cases and presided over dozens of trials, with perhaps my most famous case being the Major League Baseball strike in 1995.

After six extraordinary years on the district court, I was appointed by President Clinton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On that court, I have enjoyed the benefit of sharing ideas and perspectives with wonderful colleagues as we have worked together to resolve the issues before us.

I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions. Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interests of impartial justice.

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

And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent, and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my circuit court.

In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand. The process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged.

That is why I generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our judicial system. My personal and professional experiences helped me to listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.

Since President Obama announced my nomination in May, I have received letters from people all over this country. Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggle. Each letter has deeply touched me. Each reflects a dream -- a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to New York all those years ago. It is our Constitution that makes that dream possible, and I now seek the honor of upholding the Constitution as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Senators, I look forward in the next few days to answering your questions, to having the American people learn more about me, and to being part of a process that reflects the greatness of our Constitution and of our nation.

Thank you all.

LEAHY: Thank you, Judge.

I thank all senators for their opening statements this morning. I especially thank Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for their introduction of you.

But especially Judge Sotomayor, I thank you for your statement. I -- by looking at the faces of your family, they appreciate it. We all do.

We will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

Thank you very, very much.