Sonia Sotomayor

I do believe in those things absolutely, and that's what I have proven I do as a judge.

The history of a particular holding of the Court and how the Court has dealt with it in subsequent cases would be among one of the factors.

The fact that the law says that you can do this doesn't always mean that you as a person should choose to do this.

In rational basis there is a broader breadth for the States to act.

You do not deserve this, sir. I am deeply sorry for you and your family, but I have no choice.

No, sir. In that case we were talking about, and deciding, an issue of whether the agency had followed its own procedures in changing policy.

the goal of justice to be impartial, that is the central role of a judge.

I wish to describe just myself.

My career as a judge has shown me that regardless of what my desires were, that my life, what I have accomplished, does serve as an inspiration for others.

The decision of the Court in Heller is--its holding has recognized an individual right to bear arms as applied to the Federal Government.

I have to accept, because it is precedent, that as precedent and so I can't comment further than to say that I understand the questions.

The role of the court is never to make the policy. It is to wait until Congress acts.

The First Amendment commands that we respect people's rights to engage in hateful speech.

It improves both the public's confidence that there are judges from a variety of different backgrounds on the bench.

intrusions by a judge upon the functions of other branches of government should only be done as a last resort and limitedly.

All precedent of the Court is entitled to the respect of the doctrine of stare decisis.

I would never, ever endorse, approve or tolerate, if I had any control over individuals, that kind of conduct.

In short, I accept the proposition that difference will be made by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see.

I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases.

I would tell them to look at my decisions for 17 years and note that in every one of them, I have done what I say that I so firmly believe in.

Never their prejudices. I was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal biases and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case.

It is inconceivable to me today that a decision permitting the detention/arrest of an individual solely on the basis of their race would be considered appropriate by our government.

Given the announcements of certain groups and the messages that have been sent with videotapes, et cetera, announcing that intent, then the answer would be on--based on that, yes.

The best way to live in our society is to follow the command of the Constitution, provide equal opportunity for all.

I believe my 17-year record on the two courts would show that in every case that I render, I first decide what the law requires under the facts before me.