On Tuesday evening, Republicans went on the offensive against Sonia Sotomayor on the Senate floor. Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, raised the issues of Sotomayor's membership in the LatinoJustice PRLDEF (formerly the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund), her rulings in cases like Ricci v. DeStefano and Hayden v. Pataki, and the "empathy" question.

Less reported in various stories this morning were remarks by three Democratic senators in reaction to the GOP's coordinated speeches -- Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

The senators sought to refute various claims made by the Republicans, and they stuck firmly to their July 13 date for beginning the confirmation hearings.

See excerpts after the jump.

Leahy:

My initial reaction to their [Republican senators'] effort is to note that they have doubly demonstrated why a hearing should not be delayed. In fairness, no one should seek to delay her opportunity to respond to their questions and concerns and to answer their charges. As I said when I set the hearing date after consulting with Senator Sessions, I wanted it to be fair and adequate -- fair to the nominee and adequate to allow Senators to prepare. To be fair to her, we need to give her the earliest possible opportunity to answer. As for preparedness, those Republican critics were prepared to air their grievances and concerns and to discuss her record and her cases three weeks before the scheduled date of the hearing. What they clearly demonstrated today is that they are prepared to proceed with the July 13 hearing. ...

I wish Republican senators would pay less attention to the agitating from the far right, take a less selective view of a handful of Judge Sotomayor's cases to paint her -- inaccurately -- as an activist and, instead, consider her record fairly. ...

I am sorry that some critics are seeking to caricature Judge Sotomayor and mischaracterize her involvement with respectable mainstream civil rights organizations. Judge Sotomayor was a member of Board of Directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), now known as LatinoJustice PRLDEF, from 1980 until her resignation in 1992. Today, Republican critics chose to malign PRLDEF. ... Financial support for PRLDEF comes from widely regarded foundations like Ford and Carnegie, and corporate contributions from businesses like Time Warner. These foundations and corporations are not radical. Neither is PRLDEF. ...

So let's stop delegating our work to special interest groups. Let's delegate our work to ourselves. Let's do what we're paid to do. Let's do what we've been elected to do. I know during the week of the Fourth of July, I've canceled practically everything on my schedule just to work on going through this record to prepare for this hearing. I'd recommend other senators do the same.

Schumer:

The entirety of her record gives us a more accurate picture of her judicial philosophy than the "outcome" of any one case. She rejected discrimination claims in 81 percent of the cases she considered, and in those 78 cases rejecting discrimination claims, she dissented from the panel that she was on only 2 times. When my office looked at her record on immigration cases, she sided with the immigrant in asylum cases only 17 percent of the time -- which is the average for the entire 2nd Circuit. This should put to rest any notion that she is swayed by outcomes rather than the law.

She is not a "judicial activist," someone who reaches beyond the proper role of a judge to impose her personal preferences. ...

Her life experience will only serve to enrich the views of the other 8 justices, each of whom brings with him or her individual lessons -- lessons taught by a hard-working grandfather in Pinpoint, Georgia; by an independent, studious-minded mother who died the day before her daughter graduated high school; by a hotel-owner in Chicago, Illinois; or by a single, Spanish-speaking mother who told her daughter that she could do anything through hard work and a good education.

Let's be reasonable and realistic. These experiences do not turn a good judge into a bad one, or an impartial one into whatever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are suggesting.

Menendez:

[This nomination is] proof that the American Dream is in reach for everyone willing to work hard, play by the rules and give back to their communities, regardless of their ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic background. It's further proof of the deep roots the Hispanic community has in this country.

But let's be clear: We get to be proud of this nominee because she is exceptionally qualified. ...

I think it really says something, that the worst her ideological opponents can accuse her of is being able to understand the perspectives of a wide range of people whose cases come before her.