Those precedents must be given deference in any situation that arises before the court.

Sadly, this important quality seems to be in short supply.

The Democratic side is now, largely speaking, in favor of our president's nominee.

The questions being asked of you from the other side primarily are along the lines of: will you go too far in siding with minorities?

You face a much harsher judge . . . than this Committee and that is the judgment of history.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Despite the policy concerns that you and I share, you denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and you paved the way for the first Federal death penalty case in Manhattan in more than 40 years.

When Bush v. Gore was decided, then-Senator Biden and I wrote to Chief Justice Rehnquist asking that television be permitted and got back a prompt answer: 'No.'

The nine men and women on the Supreme Court serve lifetime appointments, and they resolve many of our most significant issues.

This has been an interesting exercise today for many of us who have been on the Judiciary Committee for a while.

I think that one of the great strengths of the United States is its diversity.

Do you feel that it has changed since 2005, when Judge Posner said the adjudication of these cases at the administrative level has fallen below the minimum standards of legal justice?

In this case where we have a minority woman seeking a position on the Supreme Court, it seems the question is, are you going to go too far on the side of minorities and not really use the law in a fair fashion?

I do not believe that Supreme Court Justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes.

I want a justice who will fight for people like Lawrence King, who, at the age of 15, was shot in school because he was openly gay.

It is important that we keep advancing the protections in our environment.

Precedent is that which gives stability to the law.

In my view because you have agreed with your Republican colleagues on constitutional issues some 98 percent of the time, I don't see how you can possibly be construed to be an activist.

The recent decision of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber is a classic example of the Supreme Court putting activism over common sense.

I think we all share that. One of my concerns is that we are seeing judicial activism in restricting the clear intent of Congress in moving forward on fundamental protections.

Absolutely not. I mean, I took one look at her resume, you know, summa cum laude at Princeton, the Yale Law Journal, and I said--and then I talked to her and--and I thought she had common sense and judgment and willingness to work.

Judge Sotomayor, I believe you are a warm and intelligent woman.

I think that the story of her life is one of achievement, overcoming some odds that many people have never faced in her family life and personal life.

I follow you and I understand the limitations on policy-related questions that you are facing.

Justice Stevens has said that it is worth a try. Justice Ginsburg at one time said that if it was gavel to gavel, it would be fine. Justice Kennedy said it was inevitable.