Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, once again, the Senate is being called upon to do its constitutional duty to consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the most significant that we cast.
I commend Chairman Leahy for the extraordinarily thorough and fair hearings the Judiciary Committee held on this nomination. It has given us a very extensive record upon which we can base our judgment.
I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament, and background to determine if she is likely to bring to the Court an ideology that distorts her legal judgment or brings into question her openmindedness. I believe it is clear that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of openmindedness and judicial temperament, and her decisions as a judge fall well within the mainstream of our jurisprudence.
Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. She was nominated first to the district court in the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. The Senate confirmed her nomination. President Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit court judge, and the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed her nomination to that position.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors, and community representatives from across the United States. They analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches, and other writings. They read reports of Reading Groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed, and they conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee:
The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that the nominee must possess exceptional professional qualifications. The significance, range, and complexity and nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will confront on the Court demands no less.
After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave Judge Sotomayor their highest rating unanimously, rating her ``well qualified.''
Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in language and ideas they thought they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a judge in the courtroom and as a citizen outside the courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing:
I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on the Federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals judge. And then there's the other picture that has emerged that--from your speeches and your other writings.
Our colleague went on to say the following:
I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making by district court judges and by court of appeals judges on the Federal bench.
And he said in conclusion then:
I guess part of what we need to do is to reconcile those--
Referring to the two different pictures he had.
Let's assume for a moment there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial judiciary. In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the very trait that she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door.
The Congressional Research Service has analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and has concluded the following:
Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e, the upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.
Well, that is the opposite of an activist judge imposing her views despite the law.
We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges, regrettably, can't lay those aside when making their judicial calls. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
So today, once again, the U.S. Senate is being called upon to do its constitutional duty and consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the most significant that we cast.
Article II, section 2 of the Constitution simply provides that: ``[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate shall appoint ..... Judges of the Supreme Court ..... Without specific constitutional guidance, each senator must determine what qualities he or she thinks a Supreme Court Justice should have, and what scope of inquiry is necessary to determine if the prospective nominee has these qualities.
This will be the twelfth Supreme Court nomination on which I will have voted. Each time, I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament and background to determine if the nominee is likely to bring to the court an ideology that distorts his or her legal judgment or brings into question his or her open-mindedness. I believe that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of open-mindedness and judicial temperament and her decisions as a judge fell well within the mainstream of our jurisprudence.
Judge Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She continued to excel at Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta
Kappa. She was a corecipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
In her 30-year legal career, Judge Sotomayor has been a Federal circuit and trial court judge, a civil commercial litigator in private practice, and a State prosecutor. She served as an assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and later worked in private practice.
Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. During the 102nd Congress, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a district judge on the Southern District of New York. On August 11, 1992, the Senate confirmed her nomination.
During the 105th Congress, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On October 2, 1998, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 67-29.
On May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by the departure of Justice David Souter. Recently, the American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors and community representatives from across the United States; they analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches and other writings; read reports of reading groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed; and conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee:
The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that the nominee must possess exceptional professional qualifications. The significance, range, complexity and nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will confront on the Court demands no less.
After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave Judge Sotomayor their highest rating, unanimously rating her ``well qualified.''
Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in language and ideas they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a judge in the courtroom, and as a citizen outside of the courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing,
I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on the federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals judge.
And then there's the other picture that has emerged that--from your speeches and your other writings.
He further stated,
You know, I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of--of judicial decision making by district court judges and by court of appeals judges on the federal bench. And while I think what is creating this cognitive dissonance for many of us and for many of my constituents who I've been hearing from is that you appear to be a different person almost in your speeches and in some of the comments that you've made. So I guess part of what we need to do is to try to reconcile those.
Assume there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom, and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial judiciary.
Senator Graham pointed that out when he said,
Her speeches, [while troubling], have to be looked at in terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we will find someone who has not carried out that speech.
In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the trait she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door. She has an extensive judicial record and we have had the opportunity to review that record. The Congressional Research Service analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and concluded:
Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.
That is the opposite of an activist jurist imposing her views despite the law. During her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked about the role of the courts numerous times. Her response makes clear that she adheres to the responsibilities of a judge:
..... look at my decisions for 17 years and note that, in every one of them, I have done what I say that I so firmly believe in. I prove my fidelity to the law, the fact that I do not permit personal views, sympathies or prejudices to influence the outcome of cases, rejecting the challenges of numerous plaintiffs with undisputably sympathetic claims, but ruling the way I have on the basis of law rejecting those claims. .....
We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges regrettably can't lay those aside. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
For these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters received by the Judiciary Committee from the AFL-CIO and from AFSCME be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source