[1] When nominated, Sotomayor was a sitting judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a position to which she had been appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998.

In his prepared remarks, the president called Sotomayor "an inspiring woman," noting that she "has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.

[13] Former President George H. W. Bush defended Sotomayor and blasted former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for accusing her of being racist, calling it "not fair" and "not right".

[14] Accusations of racial bias stemmed from a 2002 publication, in which Sotomayor said that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

When the Judiciary Committee convened on July 13, Senator Charles Schumer proclaimed that the opportunity that Sotomayor has could not have happened "anywhere else in the world", saying that America is "God's noble experiment".

In that case, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor ruled that a promotion test for firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut was discriminatory and thus void.

During her speech, Sotomayor also narrated her life story from her high school years while she lived in the projects, praising her mother: "She set the example, studying alongside my brother and me at our kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) began the session, and largely focused on Sotomayor's judicial record.

The nominee took the opportunity to explain her ideals, and described herself as impartial and deferential to precedent, noting "It's important to remember that, as a job, I don't make law."

Sotomayor stated that the ruling was based on precedent, and that it would have come out differently in light of the standard subsequently established by the Supreme Court on appeal.

Sotomayor stated that it was "meant to inspire" young people of Latino ancestry, and that she "was trying to play on Sandra Day O'Connor's words.

In regard to her comments about her personal experiences and sympathies when interpreting the Constitution, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) questioned her ability to rule on issues such as the second amendment.

"[30] Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) again questioned his interpretation that her statements meant she was ruling by her feelings or experiences rather than by law, by stating that the "job (of Supreme Court Justice) is not to impose their own personal opinions of right and wrong."

[31] Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) then questioned her on "post-9/11 policies," as well as her opinions on such cases as the Court's decisions in Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan and Boumediene.

Sotomayor responded that "the events of that day [...] were sometimes used to justify policies that depart so far from what America stands for" and that "A judge should never rule from fear.

[37] As the final questioner of the day, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) asked Sotomayor about her opinions on Justice Blackmun's quote that he will cease to tinker with the death penalty, and on his regret concerning the disparity in crack/powder cocaine sentencing for which Congress, and he, had voted.

Durbin followed up on his death penalty question emphasizing his concern about courts following up on assuring appeals plaintiffs about DNA evidence that may have come to light since their convictions, and he also brought up the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in stating that "the recent decision of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber is a classic example of the Supreme Court putting activism over common sense," in reference to statements made by Republican critics who had labeled her as an activist judge.

In closing his statement, Cardin finally asked about Sotomayor's opinion on privacy, in terms of technology, and how it should be interpreted under the Constitution, which was "written in the eighteenth century."

[43] In reacting to the outbursts by anti-abortion advocates, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asked numerous questions in regard to abortion under the law.

[44][45] Coburn then went on to inquire about the Second Amendment, and referenced District of Columbia v. Heller, in asking if it was or was not the fundamental right of Americans to bear arms.

Whitehouse then asked about Sotomayor's role in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, inquiring if there was a vetting process in deciding the board members.

[48] Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) went back to previous statements made by Sotomayor, as to whether rulings should be based on personal feelings or on law.

Kaufman then referenced a case in which she ruled for legal immunity for the New York Stock Exchange, despite Sotomayor's statement that their "behavior was egregious".

[55] The newest member of the committee, Senator Al Franken (D-MN), noted that the "hearings are a way for Americans to learn about the court, and the impact on their lives."

He transitioned to free speech in regard to the internet, and noted the value of such tools as Twitter to convey the facts on the ground of the recent Iranian election protests.

[59] The committee then adjourned to a closed session to review a Federal Bureau of Investigation background check, which is a part of the regular vetting process.

Then, after reconvening, Senator Jeff Sessions began his second round of questioning by bringing up the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and asked if she had been involved in fundraising.

Senator Kohl then brought up arguments mentioned by Ted Kaufman in regard to antitrust laws, and Sotomayor responded by stating that she would, at the "court's precedent, [...] apply it" to the situation.

Third-round questioning continued with Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, Tom Coburn, and Patrick Leahy briefly raising their concerns, and getting short answers from Sotomayor.Witness testimony began with Kim Askew and Mary Boies, representing the Standing Committee of the American Bar Association, who reviewed Sotomayor as "highly qualified".

Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity[65] as well as firefighters Frank Ricci and Lieutenant Ben Vargas[66] testified in opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation.