The Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up outside testimony in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings this evening, thus concluding the week's events.

Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has scheduled a committee vote for Tuesday, but ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., along with other Republicans have signaled that they will seek a week-long delay, which they are allowed to do under committee rules. Nonetheless, Sessions said earlier today that he is looking forward to a full Senate vote before the August recess.

Check this blog tomorrow for a video Q&A with National Journal's Stuart Taylor Jr. discussing his take from the hearings.

Frank Ricci, Ben Vargas and Peter Kirsanow (Credit: Rick Bloom)

New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci took the stand this afternoon to speak out against Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, the case that bears his name. But he wouldn't go so far as to pin his misgivings on the nominee herself.

"Despite the important civil and constitutional claims we raised, the Court of Appeals disposed of our case in an unsigned, unpublished summary order that consisted of a single paragraph that mentioned my dyslexia and thus led to everybody to think that this case was about me and a disability claim. This case has nothing to do with that," Ricci said in his statement. Fellow firefighter and Ricci plaintiff Ben Vargas, who was also called as a witness by ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was sitting beside him.

In response to a question by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., Ricci wouldn't speak out against the nominee herself. "Do you have any reason to think that Judge Sotomayor acted in anything other than good faith in trying to reach a fair decision in this case?" Specter asked Ricci.

"That's beyond my legal expertise," Ricci promptly responded. "I'm not a legal scholar." He went on to say that speaking before the committee this afternoon was "the first time we've gotten to testify about this story."

Both firefighters emphasized how much time and effort they put into passing the promotion test that was at issue in Ricci. The city of New Haven, Conn., decided to discard the results of the test because no black applicants qualified for promotions. The suit was brought by 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter -- Vargas -- who said they were discriminated against when the city threw out the tests.

In his statement, Vargas also disparaged Sotomayor's brief ruling in Ricci, which she joined as part of a three-person panel. "I expected Lady Justice with the blindfolds on and a reasoned opinion from a federal Court of appeals, telling me, my fellow plaintiffs and the public what that court's view on the law was and do it in an open and transparent way," Vargas said. "Instead, we were devastated to see a one-paragraph unpublished order summarily dismissing our case and indeed even the notion that we had presented important legal issues to that Court of Appeals."

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., made Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings a local issue today.

"My constituents in Oklahoma understand, as do most Americans, that the right to own guns hangs in the balance," Coburn told the nominee in his second round of questioning, referring to Sotomayor's role in the appellate Second Amendment case Maloney v. Cuomo. "It may very well hang in the balance with your ascendancy to the Supreme Court. For us, one wrong vote on what we consider -- regardless of what you consider -- but what we consider a fundamental right could gut the holding of [District of Columbia v.] Heller."

Sotomayor concluded her response: "I can assure your constituents that I have a completely open mind on this question. I do not close my mind to the fact and the understanding that there were developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on incorporation that will apply to this question or be considered. I have a completely open mind."

Coburn, who is up for re-election in 2010, was similarly focused on core GOP issues -- most notably gun rights and abortion -- Wednesday, as well. Today, though, he went a step further by explicitly mentioning his constituents.

The National Rifle Association has been active in the days leading up to and during the confirmation hearings. "As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee -- if confirmed -- would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote in a statement posted on the organization's Web site Wednesday.

This statement follows the NRA's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week expressing concern with the ruling of Sotomayor's 2nd Circuit panel in Maloney.

Conservative interest groups said before the hearings that red-state Democrats should be concerned with Sotomayor's ruling in Maloney. For their part, Democrats have maintained that Sotomayor and the panel were simply applying precedent the high court set in Heller.

In addition, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has highlighted the endorsement another gun rights group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, has given to Sotomayor.

UPDATE: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he expected Republicans will force a week delay on the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation vote, pushing it back to July 28. Hatch said voting this Tuesday would not give senators time to submit written questions.

Hatch, who has never voted against a Supreme Court nominee, said he was considering opposing Sotomayor. "I'm troubled," said Hatch, a former Judiciary chairman.

Updated at 3:00 p.m. on July 16.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has scheduled a committee vote on Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation for Tuesday, he said during a recess of today's hearings.

According to committee rules, Republicans can move to delay the vote a week, which means the latest a committee vote could occur is July 28. Ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was noncommittal on the date, but didn't explicitly say what Republicans were planning to do. He did make clear earlier today, though, that he wants a full Senate vote before Congress leaves for recess Aug. 7.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked Sonia Sotomayor this morning whether President Obama -- by getting elected in large part from private fundraising -- "can say with credibility that he's carrying out the mandate of a democratic society."

The question was asked in the context of campaign finance, specifically referring to a 1996 Suffolk University Law Review article in which Sotomayor raised concerns about the propriety of political contributions. At the time, she wrote:

Our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns raising again and again the question of whether -- of what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate.

Cornyn initially asked Sotomayor what she thinks that difference is. When she deflected the question, Cornyn rephrased it by mentioning the president.

She again dodged, saying, "That wasn't what I was talking about" in the article. Cornyn fired back: "What I'm getting at is, are you basically painting with such a broad brush when it comes to people's rights under the First Amendment to participate in the political process, either to volunteer their time, make in-kind contributions, make financial contributions? Do you consider that a form of bribery or in any way improper?"

Sotomayor simply replied: "No, sir."

Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., raised the same concern last week in remarks on the Senate floor. "The suggestion that such contributions are tantamount to bribery should offend anyone who's ever contributed to a political campaign -- including the millions of Americans who donated money in small and large amounts to the presidential campaign of the man who nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court," McConnell said.

Some legal experts predicted gay marriage would be a hot topic during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, considering the handful of states that have adopted laws allowing it in some form and the California Supreme Court's recent ruling against a challenge to its ban on gay marriage. But until today, only Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had mentioned the issue at all.

This morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham, S-C., argued that the high court has become more instrumental in social issues, taking cases that decide "who should get married." He went on to say that "people now understand the role of the court in modern society when it comes to social change. That's why we fight so hard to put people on the court who see the world like us." But this was more an assertion than a question; the senator didn't ask Sotomayor specifically about marriage or the court's role in it.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, then brought up the issue during his questioning, but he stressed he did so only to address his concern about a speech in which he said Sotomayor implied that judges can make policy. "If the Supreme Court holds that there is a right to same-sex marriage, would that be interpreting the law or would that be making the law?" Cornyn asked.

The nominee, as could be expected, deflected the question. "I understand the seriousness of this question," Sotomayor conceded. "I understand the seriousness of same-sex marriage. It's being hotly debated, debated in various courts on the state level. This is the type of situation where even the characterizing of whatever the court may do one way or another suggests that I have prejudged an issue and that I come to that issue with my own personal thoughts."

Later, Grassley also repeated his question from yesterday about whether the Baker v. Nelson ruling prevented the federal government from overruling the states in marriage cases. Sotomayor again demurred, saying that the question was pending in the courts.

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said this morning he is "looking forward" to voting on Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation before Congress recesses in August.

Prior to saying that, he emphasized that he "will not support a filibuster or any attempt to block" Sotomayor's nomination. Congress is scheduled to recess Aug. 7.

Sonia Sotomayor gave her definition of "identity politics" this morning in an exchange with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. She then sought to distance herself from the term.

While the term is a perennial in the national political conversation -- and especially in the weeks since Sotomayor was nominated -- senators had not brought it up during the hearings until today.

Identity politics is "politics based simply on a person's characteristics, generally referred to either race or ethnicity or gender, religion." Sotomayor said. Do you embrace it? Graham asked. "I don't as a judge," she replied. "As a person, I do believe that certain groups have and should express their views on whatever social issues may be out there."

She emphasized, though, that as she understands identity politics, it's a term that's "usually denigrated. And that I don't believe in. Whatever a group advocates, obviously it advocates on behalf of its interests, but I would never endorse a group advocating something that's contrary to some basic Constitutional right as it's known at the time."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went right up to the brink of saying he will vote for Sonia Sotomayor this morning. He has fired some of the most heated questions of the week at the nominee, but he is also the GOP senator who has come closest to signing on with her.

In a discussion with Sotomayor about Second Amendment rights and how they apply to the states, he said he believes that she will decide cases in a way that are contrary to her personal views.

"You are more acceptable as a judge and not an activist, because an activist would be chomping at the bit to take their view of life and impose it on the rest of us," Graham said. "You're broad-minded enough to understand that America is bigger than the Bronx, bigger than South Carolina."

To be sure, his last 20 minutes continued his tough questioning on what he sees as a discrepancy between Sotomayor's controversial speeches and what he called her "mainstream" 17-year judicial record. Still, he has also struck a continual tone of openness to the nominee's case, something he started on Monday.

In one of the frankest comments on the opening day, Graham remarked: "Now, unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed." He also hearkened back to the presidential election and his strong support of GOP nominee John McCain. He implied that, while he doesn't agree with Sotomayor's speeches, he may be inclined to defer to President Obama: "I don't know how I'm going to vote, but my inclination is that elections matter."

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., sparred with Sonia Sotomayor this morning over her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano. Democrats have continually said that Sotomayor was applying precedent in this case, so the Supreme Court's reversal shouldn't be a point against her. Kyl isn't so sure, though.

"Isn't it true that the result of your decision was to grant summary judgment against these parties, and secondly, that there was no Supreme Court precedent that required that result?" Kyl asked. "I don't know what the precedent would be in the 2nd Circuit."

After he pressed Sotomayor again and again to name a specific case, she finally repeated the precedent she has cited to senators in previous questions this week: the 2nd Circuit decision in Bushey v. New York State Civil Service.

In one sense, Kyl's questions today echoed his questions on Tuesday, when he chose to spend nearly a third of his time asking her whether or not as a Supreme Court justice she would recuse herself from the Second Amendment case Maloney v. Cuomo. Both times, Kyl focused on highly controversial rulings by Sotomayor but chose to delve into the legalistic aspects of those cases instead of their more contentious political aspects.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who followed Kyl, opened by defending Sotomayor. She emphasized that the high court's reversal in Ricci was a 5-4 vote, to illustrate the idea that the merits of the case were not as clear-cut as Republicans have portrayed it.

Lindsey Graham (Credit: Rick Bloom)

Sen. Lindsey Graham thinks Sonia Sotomayor has a "temperament" problem. The South Carolina Republican grilled the nominee Tuesday over complaints from attorneys who have appeared before her in 2nd Circuit cases, and he raised the issue again with reporters Wednesday.

During a recess Wednesday afternoon, NationalJournal.com's Amy Harder spoke with the senator about Sotomayor's temperament, and about charges that his questioning of the nominee on this issue had sexist undertones. Edited excerpts follow.

NJ: You've been one of the GOP senators to ask the toughest questions of Sotomayor. Yet you've also said you may very well vote for her. How do you reconcile those two?

Graham: What I have done is try to point out things that I think the public needs to know and she needs to answer, like her temperament.

NJ: Is that one of your main concerns?

Graham: Well, as something people who practiced in front of her had to say about her, that's different than anybody else on that Circuit.

NJ: How would you answer the charges that your questions on her temperament are sexist?

Graham: I think there are female judges on that court who didn't have those criticisms. I think it's unique to her. I think if a Republican president picked a female nominee who had those things said about her, in terms of her temperament, the Democrats would have every right to confront that person.

NJ: Do you think the same thing would happen with a male nominee?

Graham: Yeah, absolutely. How can you look at it and not say, 'Hey, wait, what's going on here?' There are women on the 2nd Circuit, there are men on the 2nd Circuit. She stands out like a sore thumb when it comes to temperament.

In the third day of her confirmation hearing Wednesday, Sonia Sotomayor continued to evade efforts by senators from both parties to pin her down on the sensitive legal issues of the day, including abortion rights, gun control and campaign finance.

She used the traditional argument that she could not comment on cases that are or could be coming before the court when she refused to say whether the Second Amendment provided a "fundamental right" to gun ownership that precluded state restrictions.

Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., insisted that a ruling she helped write for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and that gun ownership was not "a fundamental right."

"This is a big issue," said Sessions, who suggested she would have to recuse herself if the case came before the high court.

But Sotomayor said she had not "prejudged the case" and that she had not spoken to the question of "fundamental right."

She similarly avoided direct responses to questions whether the Roe v. Wade decision firmly established a woman's right to abortion, while noting that the court has found numerous times that the concept of privacy in the Constitution's equal justice clause applies to a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy.

When pressed by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., Sotomayor refused to comment on different views from current Supreme Court justices on separation of powers, but said, "I have a 17-year record of showing my deference" to the authority of Congress.

Subscribers to CongressDaily can continue reading the story here.

Ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., took Sonia Sotomayor to task this afternoon over her role as a board member in LatinoJustice PRLDEF for 12 years starting in 1980. Republicans are concerned with memos and briefs the organization has signed onto that take positions on abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

During questioning on Tuesday by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Sotomayor emphasized that the main duty of PRLDEF board members was fundraising. "To the extent that we looked at the organization's legal work, it was to ensure it was consistent with the broad mission statement of the fund," she said.

"But clearly, board members are supposed to serve other functions," Sessions countered today. Sotomayor reiterated that the legal memos in question were a "moment in our 12-year history" and that, as she said yesterday, her focus had been on the broader goals of the group.

Sessions also revisited nearly all of the GOP's other main concerns, including the "wise Latina woman" remark, judicial activism and gun rights. The next Republican up for his second round of questions -- Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah -- grilled Sotomayor on gun rights too, as well as the "empathy" question. Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has emphasized that he doesn't want the same senators to ask the same questions, but not surprisingly, his colleagues across the aisle have not complied. All 19 committee members will receive another 20 minutes each to ask questions of the nominee, if they want it.

When asked by reporters during a recess about the timetable of the hearings and the repetitive questioning, Leahy said that he is a "very patient man. I have a six-year term. I'll stay here as long as they want."

Once the second round of questioning is complete, the committee will hear from outside witnesses, including more than a dozen called on by Sessions and Leahy, and two from the American Bar Association.

Republican concerns about speeches given by Sonia Sotomayor appear unlikely to keep the nominee from winning unanimous Democratic and some GOP support.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said before the hearing today that he did not believe all the Republicans would vote against her, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has said he may back her.

"It's been going very well," Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said during a break this afternoon.

Leahy wants to wrap up the second round of questioning this afternoon and is encouraging committee members not to use all allotted time. But questioning still looks likely to slip into Thursday morning. After that, Sotomayor will be dismissed and witness testimony will commence.

While pressing Sotomayor, GOP senators took steps to extend courtesies.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., apologized to the nominee for anti-abortion protesters who have interrupted her testimony several times. "Anyone who values life as I do recognizes if you want to change someone's mind you don't yell at them," Coburn said.

Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and someone who represents a state with a large Hispanic population, told Sotomayor she will not face a filibuster "if I have anything to say about it."

But that promise may have limited impact. Any senator can and probably will force a cloture vote on the confirmation once it reaches the floor, but Democrats and some Republicans seem almost sure to have the votes to end debate.

Subscribers to CongressDaily can continue reading the story here.

Newly minted Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., likes the fictional defense lawyer Perry Mason just as much as Sonia Sotomayor does.

Franken opened up his questioning this afternoon with a reference to something Sotomayor said in her earlier exchange with the other Minnesota senator, Amy Klobuchar: that the popular 1950s and '60s TV series inspired her to become a prosecutor.

"I was a big fan of 'Perry Mason', too," Franken said. "It amazes me that you wanted to become a prosecutor based on that show, because in 'Perry Mason', the prosecutor lost every week." Sotomayor, along with the audience, got a good laugh. "That says something about your determination to defy the odds," Franken added.

Discussing a TV series in his first Judiciary Committee hearing may not have been the best way for the former "Saturday Night Live" star to distance himself from his previous career, but after this brief exchange, Franken touched on several noteworthy issues not yet discussed in the hearings. He asked the nominee about net neutrality, the Supreme Court's role in regulating Internet service providers, and the Voting Rights Act.

He also asked Sotomayor how she would define "judicial activism." She replied, "I don't use that term because I don't describe the work that judges do in that way. I assume the good faith of judges in their approach to the law come in good faith to an outcome that we believe is directed by the law."

Continue reading Franken On Judicial Activism And 'Perry Mason'

Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Cornyn of Texas (Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Republicans are zeroing in on Sonia Sotomayor's past speeches, expressing concern that they reveal how a Justice Sotomayor would rule once unrestrained by any higher court.

"We're trying to reconcile the Sonia Sotomayor that we've come to learn about in her speeches and that approach in judging and compare that with what we know about her judicial record," Sen. John Cornyn told reporters during a morning recess today. "And we're left with a lot of questions."

"As a district judge and a Court of Appeals judge, all of her decisions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court," the Texas Republican continued. "Whereas as a member of the Supreme Court she would have no one review her decisions and she would be free to do basically whatever she wants. And if that means she would embrace some of the policies and approaches she has in her speeches, that would be very troubling indeed."

Cornyn's concerns echo those raised by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham in his relentless questioning of Sotomayor on Tuesday. While he acknowledged that her 17-year record on the federal bench is impressive and "within the mainstream," he then said -- referring to her address that included the now-famous "wise Latina woman" remark -- that she has "speeches that just blow me away."

"Don't become a speechwriter if this law thing doesn't work out," Graham quipped to the nominee.

Democrats, for their part, are focusing on Sotomayor as a "mainstream judge," as Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., described her to reporters when the hearings recessed for lunch. Legal experts coming from both the right and left have said it's hard to predict how a judge will rule once he or she is on the court, as evidenced by former Justice David Souter's leftward drift after his appointment by President George H.W. Bush. It's just that unpredictability -- coupled with Sotomayor's speeches -- that worries conservatives.

Conservative interest group leaders have been making a similar case for weeks. Wendy Long, general counsel at the Judicial Confirmation Network, said the hearings only make her more worried. In a statement recapping Day Two, Long said that Tuesday's story should be called the "Two Faces of Sonia Sotomayor."

"The first face is the one we know from three decades of her life as a lawyer and judge," Long said. "The second face is like a mask she donned today, and can only be chalked up to a 'confirmation conversion': She is saying things today that are irreconcilable with what she's said for the last 30 years."

In the first significant mention of the economy in the confirmation hearings so far, Sonia Sotomayor said she would not answer a question on whether Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate financial markets.

"You've just raised the very first question that will come up when Congress passes an act," Sotomayor replied to the questioning senator, Ted Kaufman, D-Del. "Because I can assure you, knowing every time Congress passes an act, there's a challenge by somebody."

She dodged the question, though: "As soon as it's applied to someone and in a way that they don't like, they're going to come into court. So I -- I can't answer that question."

When Kaufman pressed her again -- albeit in a slightly more general way -- she said, "Congress has certain constitutional powers. One of them is to pass laws affecting interstate commerce."

The final two Republican senators in the first round of questioning for Sonia Sotomayor -- John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma -- have focused a good portion of their time on a topic that has largely been considered a non-issue in these confirmation hearings: abortion.

Coburn, who wrapped up the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee's questioning this morning, asked Sotomayor what she believes to be settled law on abortion. Sotomayor replied that the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey has "reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances."

Cornyn, the first questioner today, probed Sotomayor about her "scant record" on abortion and asked her if there was any reason the White House moved to reassure abortion rights groups that there was no need to worry about her record on the issue. "You just have to look at my record to know that, in the cases that I addressed on all issues, I follow the law," she said.

Anti-abortion sentiment has been present around the fringe of the hearings -- evidenced by signs and banners outside the Hart Office Building and the five protesters who have been escorted out of Hart 216. Coburn's and Cornyn's focus on the issue could be a sign they're focusing more on appeasing the GOP base than scrutinizing Sotomayor's judicial record. In fact, in opening up his questioning, Coburn said: "A lot of Americans are watching this hearing. I want to use words that the American people can truly understand."

A few minutes later when probing Sotomayor about her ruling in the Second Amendment case Maloney v. Cuomo, Coburn also looked beyond the beltway. He argued that her ruling in Maloney and the Supreme Court's ruling in D.C. v. Heller deny Oklahomans a fundamental right to bear arms. Sotomayor reiterated that in Maloney, she was simply following the precedent set by Heller, which was that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. The Heller decision fell short of addressing whether that is a right incorporated to the state, though, which was what generated Coburn's persistent questioning on the issue.

The lights briefly dimmed and the air conditioning in Hart 216 went off while Sonia Sotomayor was answering a question by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

"I have certain powers as chairman, but not that kind of power," quipped Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

With the air conditioning temporarily off, a sense of relief swept through media types, Senate staffers and others who have been here since Monday. Complaints about the cold temperature in the room have been common among regular attendees of the confirmation hearings.

Once Klobuchar completed her questioning, Leahy addressed the lack of air conditioning. "I'm sure it's welcome news for some of the press up in the sky boxes," Leahy acknowledged, "but it's not welcome news here with the crowd going on." He said it would be fixed as soon as possible.

Sonia Sotomayor insisted today that the White House -- including President Obama himself -- has never asked her about her views on abortion, or any other issue.

In the first interview round on Day Three of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, Texas Republican John Cornyn then asked the nominee if there was any reason the White House moved to reassure abortion rights groups that there was no need to worry about her record. "You just have to look at my record to know that, in the cases that I addressed on all issues, I follow the law," she responded.

Cornyn then brought up the law firm Pavia & Harcourt, where she worked from 1984 until 1992, when she left to become a federal trial judge. The firm's partner, George Pavia, said he "guaranteed she was for abortion rights. On what basis did he say this?" Cornyn asked Sotomayor.

She replied that she "never spoke to him about my views on any social issue." She then briefly mentioned her ruling in a case where she denied a claim in 2002 brought by a reproductive rights group challenging the constitutionality of the so-called Mexico City policy, which bans U.S. aid to organizations that perform or promote abortions abroad. While only barely touching on it, she has been the first to mention this case -- one of the few she's decided that deals with abortion -- since questioning started Tuesday morning.

Regarding Pavia's comment, Sotomayor said, "He's a corporate litigator, and my experience with corporate litigators is they only look at the law when it affects the case before them."

New Haven, Conn., firefighters file into Hart 216 as Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (right) greets well-wishers Wednesday. (Karen Bleier/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

Updated 8:30 p.m., July 15

Roughly a dozen New Haven, Conn., firefighters filed into Hart 216 this morning for the third day of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. Frank Ricci is among the firefighters in attendance, but he is not sitting with the rest; he is standing near a TV on the side of the room.

Ricci, the lead plaintiff in the discrimination case that has fueled much of the debate over Sotomayor, has been called upon as a witness by ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Ben Vargas, another firefighter from New Haven, is also scheduled to testify. The Judiciary Committee will begin questioning outside witnesses -- 15 for Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and 14 for Sessions -- on Thursday.

Nearly every senator who has questioned Sotomayor so far -- all but Tom Coburn, R-Okla. -- has probed her about the Ricci v. DeStefano case (though it has received less attention than her "wise Latina woman" remark). Sotomayor hasn't elaborated much beyond her participation on the three-judge panel ruling that reaffirmed (in a one-paragraph opinion) a lower court's ruling. She, along with the Democratic members of the committee, have emphasized that she is simply following precedent. In his questioning this morning, Texas Republican John Cornyn -- like Sessions on Tuesday -- touched on how short the panel opinion was.

CORRECTION: The original version of this report incorrectly reported that Sotomayor shook hands with the New Haven firefighters. She shook hands with several members of the armed services.

Following the path of other recent Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor dropped into a defensive crouch Tuesday afternoon, declining to offer her views on most legal issues raised by Senate Judiciary Committee members.

She sidestepped philosophical questions by citing pending court cases that come before the Supreme Court and avoiding the policy implications of her rulings by discussing only the limited legal questions she weighed and saying broader questions belonged to Congress.

"It is frustrating, I know for you and probably the other senators, when a nominee for the court doesn't engage directly with the societal issues that are so important to you," Sotomayor told Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., when he asked her views on the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

Subscribers to CongressDaily can continue reading the story here.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., fired off the toughest set of questions by any senator yet today, grilling Sonia Sotomayor on judicial philosophy, her temperament on the bench, abortion, the "wise Latina woman" comment, military law and her involvement with LatinoJustice PRLDEF -- a contentious issue not brought up in questioning until now. He cut her off time and again, switching from one topic to another quickly, while simultaneously appearing at ease, resting his head on his propped-up elbow.

Graham asked her if she was aware of a PRLDEF legal brief that supported taxpayer-funded abortions. "No," she replied. "I never reviewed those briefs." She went on to say that, as a board member, she didn't participate directly in the legal activities of the committee. The main duty of the group's board members is fundraising, she said. "To the extent that we looked at the organization's legal work," she added, "it was to ensure it was consistent with the broad mission statement of the fund."

Graham then asked her if that mission statement includes support for taxpayer-funded abortion. "Our mission statement was broad, like the Constitution," Sotomayor replied, almost with a chuckle. She was hearkening back to a comment she made earlier in her exchange with Graham, when she said that while the Constitution doesn't explicitly address abortion, it "does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision..." Graham had interrupted her at that point to assert that it was this interpretation of the Constitution, coupled with the "wise Latina woman" remark, that he and other Republicans find troubling. "That's what drives us here, quite frankly. That's my concern," the senator said.

Graham also expressed concern about Sotomayor's judicial temperament. He rattled off several negative anonymous comments that attorneys have made about her, according to the Almanac Of The Federal Judiciary: "terror on the bench," "not very judicial," "does not have a very good temperament."

Among the judges on the 2nd Circuit, "you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament," Graham said.

Sotomayor acknowledged that she does ask tough questions in oral arguments, but that she isn't the only judge to do so. "Do you think you have a temperament problem?" Graham asked. "No sir," Sotomayor answered. "I believe that my reputation is such that I ask hard questions, but I do it evenly on both sides."

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., spent the first eight minutes of his 30-minute window questioning Sonia Sotomayor about whether or not she would recuse herself from three gun rights cases, including Maloney v. Cuomo, that the Supreme Court may agree to hear next term.

While her confirmation may still not be set in stone, a Republican spending this much time on a matter that would only happen if she is confirmed does solidify the notion just a bit more. Kyl was one of the GOP senators many legal experts predicted would focus on Sotomayor's position on gun rights. And he did, but he chose to focus on procedural matters.

Next term, the high court may hear Maloney, which Sotomayor decided as part of a three-judge panel on the 2nd Circuit, and two similar cases from the 7th and 9th Circuits that touch on the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Kyl wanted to know whether Sotomayor would recuse herself if the high court chose to take up all three cases at once.

"I hadn't responded to that question [before], and you're right for posing it," Sotomayor told Kyl. She went on to say that the issue of recusal is always up to the individual judge or justice, but that she would recuse herself "on any case involving Maloney."

She stopped short of saying, though, when pressed further by Kyl, that she would recuse herself if the high court chose to address this issue by taking up any one or two of these three related cases.

"It's hard to speak about recusal in the abstract because there are so many different questions one has to look at," Sotomayor said. "I appreciate that," Kyl responded. "You shouldn't commit yourself to a particular decision in a case."

Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., pressed Sonia Sotomayor about speeches in which she questioned judges' ability to be fully objective. In 1999, she called impartiality "an aspiration rather than a description" and said "our experiences as women will in some way affect our decisions."

Sotomayor stopped short of those claims today, saying personal views have never affected her decisions and repeatedly saying her "record of 17 years" on the bench shows faithfulness to the law.

While leaving room for judges' experience to affect the evaluation of arguments, Sotomayor said recognition of bias is necessary to overcome it. "We have to recognize those feelings and put them aside," she said.

Subscribers to CongressDaily can continue reading the story here.

Sonia Sotomayor said this afternoon that she doesn't agree with the analysis of judicial decision-making laid out by then-Sen. Barack Obama in opposing the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice in 2005.

At the time, Obama said that "what matters on the Supreme Court is" the "5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

But today, in response to a question by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Sotomayor said that she "wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does," adding, "It's not the heart that compels conclusion in cases, it's the law."

A young man was escorted out of Hart 216 shortly after the lunch break today, becoming the fifth anti-abortion protester this week to be removed from Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. The man's outburst interrupted Sen. Charles Grassley's questioning of the nominee.

The protester, who managed to stay in the room several seconds longer than the four people removed on Monday, yelled "filibuster Sotomayor." Unlike the earlier protesters, who stuck to straight abortion comments, this man connected the issue to Republicans. "The GOP will lose the pro-life vote! The GOP is done!" he yelled.

Once the man was ushered out and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., requested Grassley resume his questioning, the Iowa Republican quipped: "People always say that I have the ability to turn people on." The audience erupted in laughter.

The morning was absent any similar outburst. In fact, abortion has yet to be mentioned by name with five senators having completed their 30-minute back-and-forth. But during questioning by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., Sotomayor did touch on the issue of whether the Constitution provides a right to privacy, the backbone of Roe v. Wade. When Kohl asked her if Roe is settled law, Sotomayor replied that Planned Parenthood v. Casey "reaffirmed the holding in Roe. That is the Supreme Court's settled interpretation of what the core holding is." She didn't elaborate beyond that.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, used the last few minutes of his allocated half-hour of questioning this morning to take a second jab at the left-leaning People for the American Way for its comments on Frank Ricci.

PFAW sent an e-mail on Friday claiming that the lead plaintiff in the Ricci v. DeStefano case (he's also a key GOP witness this week), has a "litigious" history that suggests he has continually sued claiming employment discrimination.

"There is this rumor that the People for the American Way, this organization has been smearing Frank Ricci. He is only one of 20 plaintiffs in this case," Hatch said. "I hope that's not true. And I know you have nothing to do with that. And don't think I'm trying to make this a point against you. That's the type of stuff that doesn't belong in Supreme Court hearings. And I know you would agree."

Sotomayor responded adamantly: "Absolutely. I would never endorse or approve or tolerate that kind of conduct." Hatch answered, "I appreciate that."

Hatch initially raised this concern in his opening remarks on Monday.

PFAW Executive Vice President Marge Baker responded to Hatch's remark in a statement to this blog: "With all due respect, I don't understand how pointing out that an individual used civil rights laws to protect their own interests is a smear. It's time to get past this distraction and have an honest discussion about the importance of anti-discrimination laws for all people."

Sonia Sotomayor said she would offer a "new voice to the discussion" of whether or not cameras should be allowed in the Supreme Court. "New voices often see new things and consider taking new approaches," she said.

She fell short of explicitly supporting the idea, but her response to a question by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., suggests she may be open to it. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., was the first to bring this issue up Monday.

"I have had positive experiences with cameras," Sotomayor said to Kohl. The Second Circuit has had cameras in its courtroom for quite some time. "When I have been asked to join experiments using cameras in the courtrooms, I have participated. I have volunteered," she added.

The first question Sonia Sotomayor deflected outright wasn't by a Republican senator, but by Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., the second most senior Democratic Judiciary member.

When Kohl asked Sotomayor which sitting Supreme Court judge she most admires and would most likely agree with if confirmed, Sotomayor gave a hesitant smile. Answering this question "would put me in the position that by picking one justice I was disagreeing or criticizing another," Sotomayor said. "And I don't wish to do that."

She did, however, offer a name she admires among former justices: Benjamin Cardozo, who was on the high court from 1932 until his death six years later. Sotomayor said she admires Cardozo for his diligence in applying precedent, something that she says is the backbone of her judicial decision-making as well.

Kohl's questions about property rights -- specifically the Supreme Court's ruling in the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London -- were also dismissed by Sotomayor. Kohl asked her about how she would have ruled in that case, and she simply replied: "I don't prejudge cases." In what was a friendly exchange of questions and non-answers, Kohl said: "That's good. Let's leave it at that."

Answering probing questions by ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Sonia Sotomayor said her "wise Latina woman" remark was "bad."

She explained that she was trying to "play" on the words of retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, referencing an axiom that "a wise old woman and a wise old man" would reach the same conclusions in a given case.

"I was trying to play on her words. My play fell flat," Sotomayor said. "It was bad. 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 not what I intended."

Sonia Sotomayor may be the one facing questions this morning about Ricci v. DeStefano, but liberal groups supporting her have made sure others involved in that case also come under scrutiny this week.

People for the American Way sent out an e-mail Friday claiming that Frank Ricci -- the lead plaintiff in the case and a key witness of Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. -- has a "troubled and litigious work history." A string of lawsuits brought on his behalf suggest he has continually sued claiming employment discrimination, the group claimed.

In an interview Monday outside of Hart 216, Marge Baker, the organization's executive vice president, said her group has "simply pointed out the fact that Frank Ricci, on his own behalf, has used employment discrimination laws to help him."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, doesn't see it that way. Speaking Monday during the hearings, he expressed concern that a "smear campaign" is forming against Ricci. "If that is true, and I hope it is not, it is beneath both contempt and the dignity that this process demands," he said.

Ricci is set to testify either Thursday or Friday, when the Judiciary Committee concludes its questioning of Sotomayor and begins with the outside witnesses Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sessions have called upon.

Baker said she doesn't think Ricci's litigation history should be the focal point of his testimony. Instead, she said, she wants a more frank discussion about the case that bears his name. "The hope is that we get away from these labels, this notion, buzzwords like 'reverse discrimination' and focus on what employment discrimination laws that are at the heart of the Ricci case."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., put all the criticism of Sonia Sotomayor on the table as hearings began today. After briefly talking about Sotomayor's record on criminal cases, Leahy pre-emptively asked her about many of his GOP colleagues' concerns, including the "wise Latina woman" remark, Ricci v. DeStefano and the gun rights case Maloney v. Cuomo.

After Leahy gave Sotomayor the floor to respond to critics of the "wise Latina" comment -- including the earlier charges of racism by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich -- Sotomayor smiled. The audience took in a collective breath, anticipating her response that has been building for the last several weeks.

"Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks," Sotomayor said. "No words have I ever spoken or written ever received so much attention."

She said the comment was meant as an encouragement to audiences of women lawyers and young Latino and Latina lawyers. "I was trying to inspire them that different life experiences and backgrounds would enrich the legal system, because different backgrounds always do."

"I want to give everyone assurances," she added. "I want to state up front unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging."

Leahy disparaged the critics who have called Sotomayor racist and maintained that she was simply applying precedent in Ricci and Maloney. Sotomayor didn't elaborate much beyond that on the two cases.

She did, however, go out of her way to demonstrate respect for gun owners when Leahy mentioned Maloney. "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans," Sotomayor said. "In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA, and I have friends who hunt." Ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has urged the National Rifle Association to mobilize during the hearings.

Sonia Sotomayor may be the one in the spotlight, but this is also a special moment for Sen. Amy Klobuchar. The Minnesota Democrat, one of two women on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is taking part in her first Supreme Court confirmation hearings, which she calls a "great honor." NationalJournal.com's Amy Harder caught up with Klobuchar for a few minutes after the committee recessed for the day on Monday to get her take on the Republicans' comments so far and what she plans to ask Sotomayor in the coming days. Edited excerpts follow.

NJ: What is your reaction to Day One? Was there anything that struck you?

Klobuchar: How well she did when she spoke. In very succinct words, she not only told her life story but also, most importantly, her view -- her judicial philosophy of applying the law. And I think people have to hear that directly from her because there have been all these attacks that just aren't warranted by her record....

I thought Senator [Charles] Schumer's words about her -- when he choked up talking about her mom and her background -- was also very moving.

NJ: Have you been surprised by some of the issues the Republicans have and have not focused on? They didn't bring up Ricci v. DeStefano as much as one may have thought, considering the attention that case has received.

Klobuchar: They've made some oblique references to it. The one thing that I see that was interesting -- even though they disagreed and were using this as something of a platform for some political issues -- I thought they treated her with dignity and respect, which is important. Secondly, I thought that Sen. [Lindsey] Graham's comments were extremely interesting, because he clearly remains open to supporting her.... Even though he again said that he disagreed with many of her opinions and some of her statements in speeches, he made a point of saying that overall her record wasn't cause-driven and that he was open to supporting her.

NJ. He also focused a good deal on President Obama, and referenced the notion that elections have consequences.

Klobuchar: No one more than him in this country worked to get John McCain elected. But, he said, in the end Obama won, and that goes into his decision in terms of the fact that this is the president's nominee.

Continue reading Klobuchar: GOP Treated Nominee With 'Dignity'

Sotomayor is sworn in during her confirmation hearing. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., wants TV cameras in the Supreme Court and wants to know what Sonia Sotomayor thinks about that. While she hasn't taken a position on this issue, as soon as Specter brought up the topic, a smile spread across the nominee's face.

During his opening remarks in the afternoon of Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, Specter touched on a variety of topics, including presidential powers and the high court's impact on cap-and-trade legislation. He concluded by addressing the especially relevant topic of TV cameras in the courtrooms. After all, dozens of TV cameras are flanking Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building -- the location of Sotomayor's hearings -- and the clicking of still cameras has been ubiquitous since 10 a.m.

House and Senate proceedings are televised, and "a lot of people are fascinated by this confirmation," Specter said, noting the number of cameras in the room. He added that Sotomayor should be accustomed to having cameras in the courtroom, since the Second Circuit has long allowed such coverage. He then hearkened back to something retiring Justice David Souter has said: that if a TV camera were ever allowed inside the Supreme Court, it would have to "roll over my dead body."

"If you're confirmed, they won't have to roll over his dead body," Specter quipped to Sotomayor, prompting laughter from the audience.

A protester is led away during the confirmation hearings. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Four anti-abortion protesters have already been escorted out of Hart 216 on Day One of the Sotomayor hearing. That doesn't surprise Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life and one of 14 witnesses called by ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Anti-abortion protesters have been demonstrating outside the Hart Building throughout the day as well.

The outbursts "underscore that the grassroots really are energized about this and are paying attention," Yoest said in an interview during the lunchtime break at today's hearing.

"They're grasping at straws," said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way. "But I guess it's something that feeds their base."

Yoest is scheduled to testify on Thursday, primarily to highlight Sotomayor's involvement with LatinoJustice PRLDEF and make the argument that, as she put it, "a vote for Sotomayor is a vote for unrestricted abortion on demand." PRLDEF has taken positions in opposition to parental notification and bans on partial birth abortion, Yoest said.

Yoest also said she has heard rumors that Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Al Franken, D-Minn., will be "pretty aggressive in their questions" when she takes the stand Thursday, but "we're welcoming the opportunity to get out her record."

"If people are surprised about how much abortion is coming into play, maybe that's because they haven't been paying attention to her record," Yoest said.

For more on abortion stakeholders' role in the hearings, see this NationalJournal.com video.

On the first day of Sonia Sotomayor's hearings, senators on both sides of the aisle have taken the opportunity to revive old battles, including the Democrats' successful filibuster of appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada in 2001.

"If a compelling life story, academic and professional excellence, and a top ABA [American Bar Association] rating make a convincing confirmation case, Miguel Estrada would be a U.S. Court Circuit Judge today," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "But he was fiercely opposed by groups, and repeatedly filibustered by Democrat senators, the ones who today say these same factors should count in Judge Sotomayor's favor."

Hatch's argument was echoed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in his opening remarks, and later Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., briefly squabbled over what -- if anything -- Republicans could have done to make sure Estrada was confirmed.

Democrats filibustered Estrada, many say, because George W. Bush was likely to pick him for the high court down the road. Graham noted today that Estrada rather than Sotomayor might have been the nation's first Hispanic justice.

ABC News' Jan Crawford Greenburg has an interesting take on the revived battle here.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., smiles during the confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Sotomayor laughs during opening remarks by Leahy. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The man charged with keeping order in Hart 216 has managed to slip in a joke or two. After returning from a 10-minute break, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said to Sonia Sotomayor: "You may have a broken ankle, but you made it back to the hearing room before me." Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., may be thinking the same thing: His seat remained empty this morning.

To be sure, though, Leahy is also keeping order. When a protester yelled out "abortion is murder" during the opening remarks of Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., police quickly ushered him out and Leahy declared, "No outbursts are allowed in this committee, either for or against the nominee, or for or against any position. This is a hearing in the United States Senate. We will have order."