Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor told a panel of senators at her confirmation hearing that she may have chosen her words poorly when she delivered remarks over the years suggesting that impartiality may not be possible when judging cases.
Responding to a barrage of questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., about some of her speeches, Sotomayor for the first time seemed to back away from her own comments, which included the declaration that “a wise Latina woman” could reach a better conclusion in a case than a white man.
Sotomayor said she made the statement in an effort to inspire young Hispanic and Latino students and lawyers, characterizing them as “a rhetorical flourish that fell flat,” and she admitted it was “but 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.”
Half of the morning round of questions came from Republicans who were eager to force Sotomayor to explain why such remarks and some rulings appear to differ with her assertion that she is an impartial judge who is commanded by the law, not personal bias.
Sessions, the top Republican on the panel, said her explanation raised questions.
“I just am very concerned that what you’re saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making,” Sessions said.
Democrats for the second day in a row sought to portray Sotomayor as a highly qualified judge who is committed to using the law to make Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., gave Sotomayor an opportunity to explain her ruling in the Ricci v. DeStefano case involving a group of New Haven firefighters who sued the city when their promotional exams were thrown out because blacks did not earn qualifying scores. Republicans have criticized Sotomayor for upholding a lower court decision to reject the lawsuit.
Leahy premised his question by noting that Sotomayor was simply following precedent when she ruled on the case.
“Ironically, if you had done something other than follow the precedent, some would be now attacking you as being an activist,” Leahy said. “You followed the precedent. So now they attack you as being biased and racist. It’s kind of a unique thing. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”
Sotomayor agreed, and said when the Supreme Court threw out her ruling earlier this summer, it set new precedent.
“The issue was not what we would do or not do, because we were following precedent, and you, when on the circuit court, are obligated on a panel to follow established circuit precedent,” She said. “The issue in Ricci was what the city did or could do when it was presented with a challenge to one of its tests that for promotion. This was not a quota case; this was not an affirmative action case.”
