Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings from PBS NewsHour and EMK Institute

US Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor defended her record and her speeches today it was day two of her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman as our lead story report right from the start Judge Sotomayor was called to defend past statements and she flatly denied any racial bias committee chair Patrick Leahy moved to preempt Republican criticism in his opening questions he asked Sotomayor about her much debated 2001 remark that I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life so tell us you've heard all these charges and counter-charges that why is latina and on and on here's your chance yuto's you tell us what's going on here judge thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks no words I have ever spoken or written have received so much attention as my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you referenced I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do I don't think that there is a quarrel with that in our society I was also in trying to inspire them to believe that they could become anything they wanted to become just as I had the context of the words that I spoke have created a misunderstanding and I want and misunderstanding and to give everyone assurances I want to state upfront unequivocally and without doubt I do not believe that any ethnic racial or gender group has an advantage and sound judging I do believe that every person has an ax equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences meet what the explanation did not satisfy Alabama's Jeff Sessions the committee's ranking Republican when he pressed the point Sotomayor said she had tried 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 it's clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process well I can see that perhaps as a lay persons approach to it but on as a judge who's taken this oath I'm very troubled that you would repeatedly over a decade or more make statements said I'm consistently any fair reading of these speeches consistently argues that this ideal and commitment I believe every judge is committed must be to put aside their personal experiences and biases and make sure that that person before them gets a fair day in court sessions also challenged Sotomayor's vow in her opening statement yesterday of simple fidelity to the law he raised her 2005 statement at Duke University that the Court of Appeals is where policy is made you said in another occasion the law that lawyers practice and judges declare is not a definitive capital L law that many would like to think exist close quote so I guess I'm asking today what do you really believe on those subjects that there is no real law and and that that judges do not make law or that the there is no real law and the Court of Appeals is where policy is made discuss that with us please I believe my record of 17 years demonstrates fully that I do believe that law that judges must apply the law and not make the law whether I've agreed with a party or not found them sympathetic or not in every case I have decided I have done what the law requires with respect to judges making policy I assume senator that you were referring to a remark that I made in a Duke law student dialogue that remark in context made very clear that I wasn't talking about the policy reflected in the law that Congress makes that's the job of Congress to decide what the policy should be for society in that conversation with the students I was focusing on what District Court judges do and what Circuit Court judges do and I noted that district court judges find the facts and they if I apply the facts to the individual case and when they do that they're holding their finding doesn't bind anybody else appellate judges however establish precedent they decide what the law says in a particular situation that precedent has policy ramifications because it binds not just the litigants in that case it binds all litigants in similar cases and cases that may be influenced by that precedent that led to an exchange over the nominees broader view of how a judges background could influence decisions but you have previously previously said this I'm will to accept that we who judge must not deny differences resulting from experiences and heritage but attempt as a Supreme Court suggests continuously to judge when those opinions sympathies and prejudices are appropriate so first I'd like to know do you think there's any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision making never their prejudices I was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal biases and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case what I was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome life experiences have to influence you we're not robots to listen to evidence and don't have feelings we have to recognize those feelings and put them aside that's what my speech was saying but that's our job but this statement was I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but continuously to judge when those opinions sympathies and prejudices are appropriate that's exactly opposite of what you're saying is it not I don't believe so senator because what I was saying is because we have feelings and different experiences we can be led to believe that our experiences are appropriate we have to be open-minded to accept that they may not be and that we have to judge always that we're not letting those things determine the outcome but there are situations in which some experiences are important in the process of judging because the law asks us to use those experiences several cases from Sotomayor's own experience as an appeals judge came in for close attention today in the so-called ritchie case white firefighters in New Haven Connecticut claimed they were denied promotions based on race last month the US Supreme Court ruled for the group and reversed an appeals court panel that included Sotomayor this was not a quote a case this was not an affirmative action case this was a challenge to attest that everybody agreed had a very wide difference between the pass rate of a variety of different groups the city here after a number of days of hearings and variety of different witnesses decided that it wouldn't certify the test and it wouldn't certify it in an attempt to determine whether they could develop a test that was of equal value in measuring qualifications but which didn't have a disparate impact and so the question before the panel was was the decision a of the city based on race or based on its understanding of what the law required it to do given second Circuit precedent bushi versus New York State New York State's Civil Services Commission the panel concluded that the city's decision in that particular situation was lawful under established law the Supreme Court in looking and reviewing that case applied a new standard in fact it announced that it was applying a standard from a different area of law and explaining to employers and the courts below how to look at this question in the future public so Tamiya also drew questions about gun rights another traditional topic of Supreme Court confirmation is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right is that correct yes sir thank you and in the Second Circuit's decision in Maloney versus Cuomo you in fact recognize the Supreme Court deciding heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restriction is that correct it is the hearing turns to property rights when it was Chuck Grassley Stearns the Republican of Iowa asked if the Supreme Court went too far in 2005 when it expanded the power to seize private property for public use the question of whether the supreme court overstepped the constitution as I've indicated the court at least my understanding of the majority's opinion believed and explained why it thought not I have to accept because it is precedent that as precedent and so I can't comment further than to say that I understand the questions and I understand what state legislatures have done and would have to await another situation or the court would to apply the holding in that case Zuma your also declined to say if the High Court was wrong to strike down anti-terror laws during the Bush era but she told Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin it was a mistake to uphold in turning Japanese Americans during World War two a judge should never rule from fear a judge should rule from law and the Constitution is inconceivable to me today that a decision permitting the detention arrest of an individual solely on the basis of their race would be considered appropriate by our government the judge affirmed a right to privacy as the basis for the Roe versus Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973 but toward the end of the day Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina pointedly turned to that subject and an exploration of the proper role of a judge do you think roe v wade changed American society Roe versus Wade looked at the Constitution and decided that the Constitution is applied to a claimed right applied is there anything in the Constitution it says a state legislature or the Congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester the holding of the court as I'm asking the Constitution does the Constitution has written prohibit a legislative body at the state or federal level from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester the Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment has a limiter is anything in the document written about abortion there the word abortion is not used in the Constitution but the Constitution does have a broad provision concerning a Liberty provision under the do axis that gets us to the speeches that broad provision of the Constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn no written statement that you can't voluntarily pray in school and on and on and on and on and that's what drives us here quite frankly that's my concern and when we talk about balls and strikes maybe that's not the right way to talk but a lot of us feel that the best way to change society is to go to the ballot box elect someone and if they are not doing it right get rid of them through the electoral process and a lot of us are concerned from the left and the right that unelected judges are very quick to change society in a way that's disturbing can you understand how people may feel that way certainly sir and graham went on from there to raise questions about whether Sotomayor is temperamentally suited to be a judge one thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the Almanac of the federal judiciary lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament and here's what they said about you she's a tear on the bench she's temperamental excitable she seems angry she's overly aggressive not very judicial she does not have a very good temperament she abuses lawyers she really lacks judicial temperament she believes in an out of control she behaves in out of control manner she makes inappropriate outburst she is nasty to lawyers she will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like she can be a bit of a bully when you look at the evaluation of the judges on the second circuit you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament what is your answer to these criticisms I do ask tough questions at oral argument are you the only one that asks tough questions and all are you know s-- no not at all I can only explain what I'm doing which is when I ask lawyers tough questions it's to give them an opportunity to explain their pursuit positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right missed an recess Sotomayor is expected back tomorrow to wind up her questioning by the committee

Channel: Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate

Views: 82,114

Keywords: sonia, sotomayor, supreme, court, justice, confirmation, hearing, elena, kagan, barack, obama, ted, kennedy, institute, senate, pbs, newshour, macneil, lehrer

Id: iMoatA0LWxI

Length: 17min 57sec (1077 seconds)

Published: Fri Jun 25 2010