Sotomayor Defends Speeches

On Second Day of Questioning, Supreme Court Nominee Defends Comments on Diversity, Judicial Duties

(CBS/ AP)  Republicans returned to their deep scrutiny of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's comments from various speeches on day three of her Senate confirmation hearings.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn asked the judge about a speech in which she said, "judges may develop a novel approach to a... set of facts... that pushes the law in a new direction."

"Do you believe judges ever change the law?" Cornyn asked.

Sotomayor explained she meant that judges do not change the law but how to interpret certain laws. That interpretation can change, she said, based on changing laws from Congress, social norms, or technological developments that change the facts in a case.

"I'm passionate about the practice of law and judging," she said, "passionate in the sense of respecting the rule of law."

She intended to tell her audience in that speech, she said, "Don't participate in the cynicism that people express of our legal system."

Cornyn also asked about a 2001 speech in which she spoke about how difference between men and women can affect their professional lives.

A different life experience, Sotomayor said, "helps you listen and understand."

"It doesn't change what the law is and what the law commands," she added.

She explained how one's experience as a prosecutor may be applicable in a criminal case but not an antitrust suit.

"It improves the public confidence that there are judges with a variety of different backgrounds on the bench," she said, ensuring that "all arguments will be understood."

As on Tuesday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are using Sotomayor's confirmation hearing to raise doubts about her fairness, while Democrats are portraying the 55-year-old New Yorker as a model jurist.

"I suspect the White House is delighted with the nominee's first day under questioning," CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen says. "She didn't make any gaffes, she kept her cool, she didn't reveal many hints about her positions in future cases and she explained patiently all those out-of-court statements that got her in a bit of trouble."

Under questioning Tuesday, Sotomayor tried to take away one line of Republican attack when she distanced herself from the man who nominated her, President Barack Obama.

Asked whether she shared Mr. Obama's view - stated when he was a senator - that in some cases, the key determinant is "what is in the judge's heart," Sotomayor said she does not.

"I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does," she said. "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law."

Time and again, she put her record on display to answer charges of bias.

Sotomayor backed away from perhaps the most damaging words that had been brought up since Mr. Obama nominated her seven weeks ago - a comment she made on several occasions suggesting that a "wise Latina" judge would usually reach better conclusions than a white man. She called the remark "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat."

"It was bad because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge," Sotomayor said.

Republicans were not satisfied with her answers.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he could end up voting for Sotomayor but wants to make sure she is the judge with what he called a moderately liberal record, not a liberal activist.

"That's what we're trying to figure out - who are we getting here?" he said.

Despite the Republican attacks, Cohen says, "you get the sense that even they don't really have a ton of ammunition to use against her - remember she was twice confirmed by this same Committee in the 1990s."

More coverage of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings:

Sotomayor Pressed on Gun Rights

Republicans Aren't Sold on "Wise Latina" Explanation

Sotomayor Goes to Rope-a-Dope Strategy

Analysis: Sotomayor Has Been Very Cautious

Sotomayor: Abortion Law Is "Settled"

Sotomayor Treads Lightly On Gun Issue

Sotomayor Hearings Update: Is She a Prop for Larger Fight?

Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law"

Sotomayor Hearings as Partisan Platform

Sotomayor's Confirmation To-Do List

[beaumuff]

Sky, you poor ol azzz kissing Obunglerbot. He could have put his pal Rev Wright in and you would have agreed. Get your own opinions because Obamas are not always right. One good example his cabinet of tax cheats that resigned, pay as you go, but I think you even a had a good laugh over that lie.

[credibility2]

Double-speak.

[endurorob]

chonder2 July 15, 2009 12:34 PM EDT
I just finished my house. It's a nice one. It has four walls that all face south. A bear tried to break in last night, what color was the bear?


The bear is actually black with transluscent hair that, since it lives at the north pole, looks white.

[beaumuff]

Just another one of the great choices by the community organizer from the Chicago thug politics.

[beaumuff]

How can she defend these speeches? She either lied when she made them or she is lying now. Maybe she just needs to be asked simple yes or no answers instead of figuring her way out. Next canidate please.

[chonder2]

I just finished my house. It's a nice one. It has four walls that all face south. A bear tried to break in last night, what color was the bear?

[beaumuff]

Noticed when I read this that every comment she makes she says one thing but meant another. Pull your head woman and say what you mean or shut up.

[TryTakingMyMoney]

Sonia, do you believe that citizens have the right to personal self defense with a gun when their life is threatened??? babble, babble, babble = NO!

[TryTakingMyMoney]

Why are we wasting so much time on this!!! She meets all of Obama's qualifications. Highly educated liberal lawyer skilled in the art of spinning words, biased towards minorities and their love for socialism, hides that she really hates America and is willing to go against the constitution, favors foreign law, promotes community organizing and activism, and like Obama, has strong ties to the corrupt group ACORN. So what's the problem? She's hired! And there's nothing you can do about it! WILL THE REAL AMERICA PLEASE WAKE UP!

[skyk-2009]

You sound so bitter but like a GOOD little Ditto Head you hit so many of your hate targets. Could you explain to all my Hispanic Friends what ACORN has to do with the Judge? I know you freaks get desperate some times but COME ON!! She's an APPOINTED Judge for crying out loud!! Are ALL the Ditto Heads just Uneducated People who can't or won't think for themselves?

[ramos1129]

These hearings are a torture to watch and it must be more so for Sotomayer but you would never know it from her demeanor.

One GOP Senator will question her at length just about everything that has been public regarding the nominee. After he is finished, his fellow GOP Senator will repeat the very same questions just as if the prior Senator had never asked them in the first place. Cronyn's questions were almost identical as the questions asked by Sessions yesterday. Don't they coordinate these things.

As to right wing talk show hosts - This morning, one ridicued the conviction that Sotomayer would add to the SC diversity on the insane grounds that she and the current SC justices went to Ivy league colleges. So, according to him, the face that she is Hispanic counts for nothing as to diversity. How stupid.

[cattiej]

How can anyone who has had 8 of 10 cases over turned by the Supreme Court expect to be allowed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court....well, because Obama nominated her....she is Latino, a women and all the hoopla about pulling herself up by the bootstraps in a bunch of bunk....Thousands of poor young people were able to go to college on Afirmative action...just like the Obama's...and many others. Obama lies to pick women for a lot of these jobs, also it helps if your latino or black....reverse discrimination.....We are doomed econimally because of all the money being spent on programs that are unnecessary..one of them is spending all this money on Sotomeyer when we all know the Senator's will bow down, kiss her feet and elect her...they have no choice and neither do the people of America..or what will soon be know as the North American states. the UNITED word will be withdrawn from our nation...we have not been United for years..we reap what we sow.....

[skyk-2009]

DUH! Ditto brain! The Court ONLY takes cases it's going to look at to overturn! The REST they refuse to hear...in effect UPHOLDING the lower Court. Honest now tell us the truth here. Did you actually get through the 6th grade? My Granddaughter, who is standing right here beside me knew THAT and she's only 13. Oh she says "Hi" and "Go back to school". I agree with her!! LOL Wow!! LOL

[culturechang]

You know I thought she said that Latino woman/white male thing only once. I understand from last night's news that she said it many times.

Also, Sandra O'Conner said "a wise old man and a wise old woman, given an equal set of facts, will come to the same conclusion"

Sotomayour specifically disagreed with O'Conner's statement and reiterated that a Latina woman would come to a better conclusion.

I have changed my mind. I no longer support this bigot on the highest court.

[skyk-2009]

So because YOU cooked up in your SMALL little MIND what this VERY INTELLIGENT Woman meant, in the FACE of what she SAID she meant and YOU think we're all just going to turn on her? Yep... time for a Tin Foil Change here!!

[skyk-2009]

Of course I do bannednancy. Now is there something about the post that YOU do not understand? I'd be very happy to print in in smaller words if you would like?

[mick7744]

Anyone with a reputation for being nasty to lawyers can't be all bad.

[bpai99]

As the monopoly on power enjoyed by Caucasian-Christian males over the last several centuries of Western Civilization goes on the ashheap of history, it's inevitable that many of them will not willingly give up "the good old days" when their rule was unquestioned and they could dole out crumbs to the "inferior" races and "weaker" sex as they wished.

To ease their sense of loss of entitlement and reduce the chance that they will react violently, it's therefore advisable that those in the forefront of the change to a more representative society need to be very "clean" (Biden's misspeak on Obama during the campaign actually spoke volumes), "nice", suitably respectful and unthreatening to the degree possible (of course their appearance alone makes them a threat). It seems analogous to the introduction of black players into Major League Baseball - one of the primary reasons Jackie Robinson was chosen to be first was because he was "clean" and could withstand the abuse from fans and some white players without losing his cool.

Whether or not Sodomayor is racist or unqualified are only convenient excuses for the GOP Caucasian-Christian males grilling her - her ultimate crime is that she symbolizes their loss of dominance, as does Obama. They've seen the future where they no long rule by fiat, and they don't like it. :)

[dennisall77]

They are replacing Souter, for heavens sake, what do they expect? a Scalia? Decisions are often 5-4, therefore judges disagree. Do they really expect to get here to falter? She is a brilliant woman with more experience in the courts than all of her questioners combined. She is a strong candidate and that is all that is required. All this will be forgotten in a few weeks and in a few years we will be debating who will replace Thomas or Scalia or Alito for some reason (hopefully). THEN you will have some REAL squabbling!

All you CONservs are complaining about her when you have a REAL idiot on the bench: Thomas. We all should be campaigning for him to retire. He never EVER asks questions or makes comments during sessions of SCOTUS and he RARELY writes an opinion (no real ideas). He is in the arm chair position for the ride to the end. I am surprised he has the energy to cast a vote

[imprisoncheney]

Hmmmm . . . interesting . . .

The fascist trolls realize that attacking Sotomayor jeopardizes their Fascist Christian agenda . . . so they're backpeddaling like crazy on this site . . .

Hahahahahaaaa!! It's too late, losers!!!! the damage has already been done!!!!

Liz Cheney/Jeb Bush 2012!!!!!

[alien_view]

Seems to me having the most corrupt government in the history of the USA quiz a judge on her ethics on international tv is the height of irony to me. It only fits that the corrupt administration lead by the corrupt and judged by the corrupt. Now we might have the most corrupt and radical president in history, the most corrupt house, most corrupt senate and now getting a corrupt judicial branch. Three strikes folks the normal Americans are screwed. The Government was for sale and it looks like the Radicals had the most money. The even bought off most of the media.

[pubsnomore]

Loser,

Couldn't you just have used your charlie860 login to write this?

[skyk-2009]

You are truly a sad person! You don't care about this nation UNLESS we do things your way! Why not show some HONOR and at least ADMIT it!

[pubsnomore]

Well, we spent the past 8 years with a complete moron for president, now we get to spend the next 25 years with at least one confirmed moron on the SCOTUS.

[skyk-2009]

Now I seriously doubt that.. but didn't YOU support the Worst in our History?? I'll bet YOU voted FOR him TWICE now didn't you? What was it you frauds used to say??? "The lesser of two evils"? Now We have ONE who ran against the Worst who has won the Nobel Prize. The OTHER is serving in the Senate and the attack against him has become a symbol of what is wrong with our Politics. For some reason that makes you claim a little less important. I've listened to the woman for two days and she has the entire Republican Party twisted in knots! LOL

[olyboy]

What she is saying is that she varies her answers and positions based on the group she is addressing. Doesn't seem like a real strong candidate for the Supreme Court to me.

[skyk-2009]

Where did she say that?? I NEVER read that in ANY of her speeches. I just can't understand the Fringe Right in this Nation... are they just to stupid to HEAR and READ what another American says?

[spiritwalk]

Sadly, this seems to be a racially based appointment and it is being defended with racially based rhetoric.

It is impossible to find a human that does not have some bias on some subject, but as a jurist thy must be able to put them aside when rendering a decision. There have beem may notable jurist who have done that, however Sotomayor's record seems to indicate that she has not been able to do that. It is not a judge's job to enforce or change the law. Those powers are for the executive and legislative branch and a jurist who willfully and knowingly ries to usurp the powers of those other branches should not be on the bench.

[skyk-2009]

What record would that be Spiritwalk? I have listened to TWO solid days and the ONLY people I hear talking about her HUGH Case History is the Democrats. So far the ONLY thing that seems to upset the Fringe is her position on the Abortion Issue and the 2nd Amendment. That position CERTAINLY is NOT outside the Democratic Party or their views. You DO realize it's the Democrats who are picking this justice don't you?

[spiritwalk]

Ricci v. DeStefano. In 2003, the New Haven Fire Department decided to base promotions to the positions of captain and lieutenant primarily on a written exam. But the next year the city threw out the test results when all but one of the eligible candidates for promotion proved to be white. New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci, a high scorer on the test who is white, sued for reverse discrimination. When the case came before the appeals court on which Sotomayor sat rejected the appeal by white firefighters. Which, on its own may or may not indicate that her decision was racially motivated. What is more concerning is that the evidence seem to indicate that she made a deliberate attempt to keep the case off the docket, by ?losing the file? and keeping the case from being heard.

If, as a jurist she chose to reject the appeal from the bench that was proper, even if her opinion was more or less based on a biased agenda. If she did in fact try to keep a case from being heard that is judicial misconduct which would make her a questionable candidate at least.

Personal bias, should not be an automatic reason for rejection of a Supreme Court appointee. Hugo Black, an acknowledged member of the KKK, was appointed by Roosevelt. Though he certainly had a definite personal bias, there never was any indication that he let that bias overshadow a juridical overview of any case that came before the court and his decision reflected opinions based on a strict interpretation of the law.

Sotomayor has shown that she has not stayed to an unbiased interpretation of the law, but has made her decisions based on personal bias and even attempted to circumvent the judicial process in order to do so.