10:36 a.m. – Sessions ends his questioning. Liveblogging will continue in a new post.
10:27 a.m. – Sessions cites Stuart Taylor of the National Journal on the Ricci case. Says Sotomayor wasn’t bound by the case that she claims she saw as a precedent when she made her decision in that case; she must have simply agreed with the earlier verdict.
10:26 a.m. – Sotomayor repeats her earlier claim that the Supreme Court established “a new standard” with its Ricci verdict.
10:23 a.m. -Sessions questions Sotomayor on the Ricci firefighters case. (For background, see Judicial Watch’s statement on the Ricci reversal.)
10:21 a.m. – Sotomayor on “wise Latina comment”: “I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.” Says she was playing on a statement made by Sandra Day O’Connor. But she used the statement repeatedly and published it in a journal — it wasn’t just an offhand comment. Sessions calls her on this — notes that she used the statement many times.
10:17 a.m. – Sessions counters by quoting a “troubling” statement that Sotomayor made yesterday, and notes that she has said in the past, “My experiences affect the facts I choose to see.” He says, “How is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts but not others?”
10:13 a.m. – Sessions is pressing Sotomayor hard on her many past statements on how personal sympathies should influence a judge’s decision-making. She is contradicting him, saying that she meant just the opposite — that personal sympathies should not affect a judge’s decisions.
10:10 a.m. – Sotomayor’s tone seems resentful as she responds to Sessions. She is practically spitting out her words. Re her statement that the courts are “where policy is made”: “I think if my speech is heard outside of the minute and a half that you present, … it’s very clear that I was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent …”
10:05 a.m. – Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the committee, begins his questioning. Says it’s “not just one sentence” of the nominee’s that causes difficulty — it’s her “body of thought.”
10:00 a.m. – In answer to a Leahy question, Sotomayor says “I understand how important the Second Amendment is to many, many questions.” Apparently, not to her! She notes that one of her godchildren is a member of the NRA. That doesn’t sound like it would reassure gun owners. Speaking of her Heller decision, she says, “In Supreme Court parlance, the right [to bear arms] is not fundamental.”
9:54 a.m. – Sotomayor continues her defense of her “wise Latina woman” comment: “I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gendered group has an advantage in sound judging. … What the words that I used, I used agreeing with the sense that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey.” Says O’Connor’s sentiment was that both men and women were equally capable of being both wise and fair judges. (But that’s not what Sotomayor herself said. She said she hoped a wise Latina woman would come to a better conclusion than a “white male who has not lived that life,” not an equally good conclusion. See her original statement, with a link to its source — the essay “A Latina Judge’s Voice” on AUL’s summary of her decisions and writings.)
9:53 a.m. – Sotomayor says she gave a variant of her speech to many different groups, most often young Latina lawyers and students. “I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different experiences and backgrounds always do.”
9:50 a.m. – Leahy raises the “outrageous charges of racism” that some commentators have applied to her. He quotes her “wise Latina” comment she made in a “speech” (which she also published in a journal article — it was no offhand comment) and quotes other comments from the same speech. “Here’s your chance — you tell us what’s going on here, judge.”
9:48 a.m. – Sotomayor claims the Supreme Court “applied a new standard” in overturning the Ricci decision.
9:46 a.m. – Leahy asks Sotomayor how she responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in the firefighters case, overturning her Second Circuit decision. Sotomayor says her court was “following precedent.”
9:40 a.m. – Sotomayor says it’s important to understand that, as a judge, she doesn’t make law. Clearly, she is conscious of having to counter her much-cited past statement that “the courts are where policy is made.”
9:38 a.m. – Leahy’s question about Sotomayor’s experience with Morgenthau gives her the opportunity to retell graphic details of the “Tarzan” murder case, detailing the killer’s “acrobatic feats.” She seems to have rehearsed this story very carefully; she declaims gravely and dramatically about how a family “was destroyed” by the criminal.
9:36 a.m. – In answer to a question about her experience in NYC prosecutor Robert Morgenthau’s office, Sotomayor talks about how she “became a lawyer” working for Morgenthau. She stresses again that each case is decided by the law according to “the facts before you.” (To learn why her record sparks concern that she judges based on feelings rather than facts, see AUL’s Sotomayor411.com.)
9:33 a.m. – Sotomayor answers by stressing a judge should understand the Constititution and the limited jurisdiction of the court. “The process of judging is the process of keeping an open mind,” she says, “… and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but understanding in all situations the facts … and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” She is clearly very conscious of the accusations that she judges based on feelings rather than facts, and is trying to reassure people that she judges based on constitutional principles.
9:33 a.m. – Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) begins questioning the nominee. His first question: “What are the qualities a judge should possess?”
