home

Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement

After being introduced by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand, Judge Sonia Sotomayor presented her opening statement. The key part from Judge Sotomayor's opening statement:

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the 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 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 by 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 justice system. My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.

The complete statement on the flip.

OPENING STATEMENT OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

July 13, 2009

As Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for that kind introduction.

In recent weeks, I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting eighty-nine gracious Senators, including all the members of this Committee. I thank you for the time you have spent with me. Our meetings have given me an illuminating tour of the fifty states and invaluable insights into the American people.

There are countless family members, friends, mentors, colleagues, and clerks 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 mom. I am here today because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother Juan and me. Mom, I love that we are sharing this together. 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 nine 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 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 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, a corporate litigator, a trial judge and 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 suffering of victims’ families torn apart by a loved one’s needless death. And I learned the tough job law enforcement has protecting the public safety. 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 decided over four hundred and fifty cases, and presided over dozens of trials, with perhaps my best known case involving the Major League Baseball strike in 1995.

After six extraordinary years on the district court, I was appointed by President William Jefferson 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 seventeen years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the 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 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 by 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 justice system. My personal and professional experiences help me 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 struggles. Each letter has deeply touched me. Each reflects 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.

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.

< Action Alert for Weds. Hearing on Pass I.D. Act | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    She thanked her mom (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    He mom was crying (I am too sitting at my desk)

    I think she also corrected Sen. Schumer (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:01:34 PM EST
    when he referred to her as being raised by a single mother.

    Parent
    Her mother is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    extraordinarily beautiful.  In every way -- but it has to be said that the woman has incredible bones and beauty, perhaps more so with advancing years.

    Parent
    So self-serving :\ (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    It speals volumes to challenges she faces to her objectivity. (Since she claimed perfection for her rulings.)

    Please Sonia.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    And I learned the tough job law enforcement has protecting the public safety

    Please don't forget it ain't all peaches and cream protecting the public safety and public liberty from law enforcement.

    A wise Latina in her situation (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    would hardly be likely to bring that up, wouldn't you say?

    Of course, she'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know it.

    Parent

    Especially growing up... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    in the Bronx when she did, when the NYPD was hard to differentiate from the mafia...I hope she ain't forgotten.

    But that power bubble does funny things to people...you can willfully make yourself blind to it, even subconciously, once you're in the power club.  

    Parent

    If you believe the GOP judiciary comm. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    members, her being on the board of that civil rights non-profit proves she will be soft on crime.

    Parent
    Needless to say I don't... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    they'd call Sherrif Joe soft on crime if he tried to get a job with a D after his name.

    Parent
    Her mom is still alive, so I (none / 0) (#12)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    doubt very much that Sonja would find herself in that power bubble without constant reminders of the real world.  After all, she's been in that bubble for some time and so, where's the evidence?

    Parent
    Just healthy skepticism... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    I like the pick overall and think she will breeze through...former prosecutor is always troubling though...maybe Ron Kuby will get the next nomination:)

    Parent
    kdog, I'd suggest you, (none / 0) (#22)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    but very few folks listen to me!

    Parent
    Thanks bro... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:27:40 PM EST
    but I chose my side long ago...on other side of the bench being asked how I plead...much easier on my constitution:)

    Parent
    Could she have perhaps been referencing (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    their tough job protecting in regards to the victims she mentions just prior to that sentence? The exploited children etc?

    Parent
    She sounded very much like almost every (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    prosecutor I've ever met.  Children are frequently victims of criminal conduct, most often at the hands of their parents.  She also prosecuted murder cases where she felt a special responsibility to the surviving family members.  Nothing wrong with those sentiments.  

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    I just get nervous when people in a position to make the job of law enforcement easier get to saying how tough a job it is.

    It is a tough job by design...when law enforcement is an easy gig you are living under tyranny.

    Parent

    Good point. n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    Seems like a decent statement to me. (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    Throughout my seventeen years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.

    In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the 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 my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.

    But as a non-lawyer I tend to think the supremes should be more like umpires "calling balls and strikes" than seems to be the common sentiment on this site...

    The cases as simple as requiring the (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    judge to call "balls and strikes" usually are settled before trial.

    Parent
    "I'm going to call balls and strikes."

    No?

    Parent

    Cyrpto talk for I'll stick to my job. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:03:53 PM EST
    Sen Kaufman said it best (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    It's not just the job of justices to be umpires who call "balls and strikes" - it's also their job to define the strike zone.

    Parent
    I doubt she will hit the ground running (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    If/when confirmed, i wonder how long it will take her to get up to speed with her Brethren on the Court.

    I think she'll be fine (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    She's been a judge for a long time.  If anything, the Supreme Court moves at a much slower pace than a district court or federal appellate court.

    Parent
    is it just me, or (none / 0) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    does she remind you of Hugo Black? I mean that in every possible positive way.

    Yes, pray tell, similar how? (2.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    With her mooring to the "exploited children" meme, she strikes me as yet another functionary for segregation, in this case, further perpetuating age apartheid, and the whole vicious Orinn Hatch thing, that is extreme shaming into culture, as a neuroweapon for mind control.

    They might as well have installed Oprah Winfrey.

    In that sense, she does not strike me as a Hugo Black. Props to Alabama, for giving us Hugo Black, though.

    Parent

    What on earth (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    are you talking about?

    Parent
    Are you sure you really want to know? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    I'm so confused.

    Parent
    lol!~ (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    I'm so darn glad to see it wasn't just me!!  {grin}

    Parent
    In what way? Lots younger. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    Perhaps he means (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    that Judge Sotomayor serves good bourbon?

    Parent
    Her circuit court hearings (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:27:50 PM EST
    make her sound TOO MUCH like Hugo Black.

    Parent
    jeffinalabama compared Sot. to Hugo Black (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    Hugo Black was born in Alabama and served as a Senator from there.

    I saw that Alabama deserved recognition for placing one of their own on the Court. That is why I gave "props to".

    annotating (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sumner on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 05:55:30 PM EST
    Abbreviating Sotomayor "Sot.", in order to make it fit on the subject-line, seemed less pejorative than "SS", and of itself, should not be read as a dis on the jurist.

    A notion was promulgated at the hearings, that ideally, all judges should be interchangeable with one another and all end up at the same decisions. That seems to belie the premise that the nominee is the best selection for the job. Why else make a big fuss?

    These hearings seem all entirely scripted, we learn but little, and look what that has wrought in the past. The time to drill down is now. If we would learn just how Cases and Controversies is interpreted today, now is the time to explore that.

    Ofc the Senators would each like to put their spin, their charge, on the nominee, i.e., the "evil of drugs", the "evil of pornography", etc. To understand Orrin Hatch's plans for National Security, you've got to possess at least a modicum of second and third order thinking.

    I remember explaining the "overview" to a lawyer friend of mine, immediately upon 9/11, that it was "to see the Big Picture". I said "in order to see the Big Picture, it involves seeing all these disparate elements and then connecting the dots". The IC immediately seized upon that language and it became the instant catch-phrase. It has been repeated so much, it seems utterly obvious by now. It was a fresh notion back then.

    I was once informed that the Supreme Court lacks the Security Clearance to handle the nation's highest secrets.

    Do you accept as mere coincidence that Goldman Sachs' stock soared today, or do you suspect it was manipulated? Do you see how things are connected? Can you see how that is child abuse, the looting of the economy?

    This nominee has failed to impress me yet that she has genuine and meaniningful discernment. Her statement was prepared, so hopefully the give-and-take will reveal more, in the days to come.

    Parent

    The hearings are just a formality (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    Kabuki theater at its finest.

    Why not just confirm her and get on with other business.

    Does anyone think there's even a snowball's chance that she won't be confirmed?

    As Lindsay Graham said, not "unless (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    there's a meltdown" on her part at the hearing.

    That could be read as concern that some of the crazier Repubs are going to try to get her to melt down.  I think she has the history to handle them.

    Parent

    I shared your optimism (none / 0) (#35)
    by mg7505 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 05:27:45 PM EST
    until I witnessed the blunders this new Democratic majority has committed on such a variety of seemingly-obvious issues. The Right may be in disarray, but they can always come up with some way to intimidate Dems into doing what they want -- that is, if the Dems don't do themselves in first. I'm also worried that if something (heaven forbid) does fracture the Dems, there isn't strong enough leadership to pull them together in time.

    Of course if the vote were held today she'd fly through.

    Parent

    One of the protestors removed from (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    the hrg. room was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade.  link