Sonia Sotomayor

Chevron speaks to agency action or interpretation, but ultimately the task of a court is to give deference to what Congress wants.

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.

I do not believe a judge should act in an unprincipled way, but I recognize that both the Doctrine of Starry Decisis starts from a presumption that deference should be given to precedence.

As I said, Senator, I just haven't looked at those cases to analyze it.

In some situations, the Court looks at the action and applies a stricter scrutiny to the government's action.

It may have. I haven't read it recently enough to remember exactly.

All precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law subject to the deference with doctrine of stare decisis would counsel.

I would be, again, if I was fortunate enough to be confirmed, a new voice in the discussion.

The Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the core holding of Roe.

Kelo is now a precedent of the Court. I must follow it.

I do ask tough questions at oral argument.

Enough women and people of color in enough cases will make a difference in the process of judging.

Exactly, sir. We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts.

The job of a judge is to apply the law.

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.

The court of appeals is where policy is made.

I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged answered a different question.

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.

The process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind

I owe who I have become as a lawyer and who I have become as judge to Mr. Morgenthau

I believe what my record shows is that I follow the law.

I accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge.

I wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all in even most cases, and I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men, or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society.

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's simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law. It's to apply law.