|
||||||||||||
Text From the Congressional Record |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||
Senate Debate on Empathy
=====================================
|
||||||||||||
Text From the Congressional Record |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||
| Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I wish to first thank the Senator from
Washington for her excellent remarks on Judge Sotomayor. During this hour, we have heard from several of my colleagues, all strongly supporting Judge Sotomayor. I have talked about, first of all, her growing up and her difficult circumstances. I spoke about her work as a prosecutor and the support she has received from her prosecutorial colleagues. I have talked about her work as a judge and read extensively from a letter from Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI and former Federal judge, about her work as a judge. Now, in the final part of my talk, I wish to address some of the other issues that have been raised with respect to Judge Sotomayor. I have to say, I woke up this morning to the radio on my clock radio and heard one of my colleagues who decided he was not going to support her, in his words, because of the ``empathy standard.'' I kind of put the pillow over my head. I thought: He must not have been sitting in the hearing because she was specifically asked by one of the other Senators about how she views the cases. They specifically asked her if she agreed with President Obama when he said: You should use your heart as well as the law. She said: Actually, I do not agree with that. I look at the law and I look at the facts. So people can say all kinds of things about her, if they would like, but I suggest they look at her record. My colleagues in the Senate are entitled to oppose her nomination, if they wish; that is their prerogative. But I am concerned some people keep returning again and again to some quotes in the speeches, a quote she actually said, a phrase, that she did not mean to offend anyone and she should have put it differently. When have you 17 years of a record as a judge, what is more important--those 17 years of the record of a judge or one phrase which she basically said was not the words she meant to use. What is more important? In the words of Senator Moynihan: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. So let's look at the facts of her judicial record. This nominee was repeatedly questioned, and I sat there through nearly all of it. She was questioned for hours and days about whether she would let bias or prejudice infect her judgment. But, again, the facts do not support these claims. In race discrimination cases, for example, Judge Sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81 percent of the time. She also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues as a district court judge. She sentenced white-collar criminals to at least 6 months in prison 48 percent of the time; whereas, her other colleagues did so only 34 percent of the time. In drug cases, 85.5 percent of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least 6 months from Judge Sotomayor, compared with only 79 percent in her colleagues' cases. A few weeks ago, I was in the Minneapolis airport and a guy came up to me, he was wearing an orange vest. He said: Are you going to vote for that woman? At first, I did not know what he was talking about. I said: What do you mean? He said: That judge. I said: Actually, I want to meet her first. This is before I had met her. I said: I want to ask her some questions before I make a decision. He said: Oh, I do not know how you are going to do that because she always lets her feelings get in front of the law. This guy needs to hear these statistics. He needs to hear the statistics Senator Gillibrand was talking about, the statistics that when she had served on the bench with a Republican colleague, 95 percent of the time they made the same decision on a case. So then I guess you must believe that these same Republican-appointed judges are letting their feelings get in front of the law if you take that logic to its extreme. So 95 percent of the time she sided with her Republican-appointed judge colleagues. During her hearing, Judge Sotomayor was questioned about issues ranging from the death penalty to her use of foreign law. That was repeatedly mentioned that she might use foreign law to decide a death penalty case. What do we have as the facts? What do we have as evidence? There was one case she decided when the death penalty came before her, and she rejected the claim of someone who wanted to say the death penalty would not apply when she was a district court judge. She never cited foreign law. There was no mention of France or any kind of law anywhere in that decision. Those are the facts in her judicial record. In no place has she ever cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the U.S. Constitution. I believe that everything in a nominee's professional record is fair game [Page: S8794] to consider. After all, we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone for an incredibly important lifetime position. That is our constitutional duty and I take it seriously. But that said, when people focus on a few items in a few speeches that Judge Sotomayor has given, phrases which she has basically said she would have said differently if she had another opportunity, you have to ask yourself again: Do those statements--are they outweighed by the record? Are they outweighed by the facts? Check out all these endorsements of people who have actually looked at her record, have looked at how she has come out on decisions. You have an endorsement from the National District Attorneys Association supporting her; you have the support from the Police Executive Research Forum; you have support from the National Fraternal Order of Police, not exactly a raging liberal organization; you have the support of the National Sheriffs Association. Again, these are the facts. These are the facts my colleagues should be looking at. You have the support from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. You have the support of the Major Cities Chiefs Association; she has the support of the National Association of Police Organizations; she has the support of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; we have letters supporting her from the Detectives Endowment Association; from the National Black Prosecutors Association; from the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. The list goes on and on and on. Those are the facts: Unanimous top rating from the ABA, the American Bar Association. Those are the facts. I believe, if we want to know what kind of a Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be, our best evidence is to look at the kind of judge she has been. I wish to address one more matter that I mentioned at the Judiciary hearing, when we voted for Judge Sotomayor, and that has been a point that irritated me. There have been some stories and comments, mostly anonymous, about Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament. According to one newspaper story about this topic, Judge Sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brisk and curt with lawyers who were not prepared to answer them. Well, where I come from, asking tough questions, having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. As a lawyer, you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can be. When Justice Ginsburg was asked about these anonymous comments regarding Judge Sotomayor's temperament recently, she rhetorically asked: Has anybody watched Scalia or Breyer on the bench? Surely, we have come to a time in this country when we can confirm as many to-the-point, gruff female judges as we have confirmed to-the-point, gruff male judges. We have come a long way, as you can see from my colleagues who came here during the last hour. We know that when Sandra Day O'Connor graduated from law school 50-plus years ago, the only offer she got was from a law firm for a position as a legal secretary. Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. We have come a long way. But I hope my colleagues in this case will also come a long way and look at the record and look at the facts. As I have said, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. In short, I am proud to support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. I believe she will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. She knows the law, she knows the Constitution, but she knows America too. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. |