During the recent Judiciary Committee hearings, it became clear that I could not in good conscience support Sotomayor’s confirmation and would vote against it if I were in the Senate today. I reached this conclusion on the basis of a fair and thorough analysis.

As a whole, Sotomayor’s record reflects a view that judges can and should inject personal experiences and biases into what should be the objective interpretation and application of the law. While her comments about the “better conclusions” a “wise Latina woman” would bring to the bench are universally known, I have more specific concerns about her case history and testimony regarding the Second Amendment at the state level, eminent domain takings and the so-called constitutional right to privacy that resulted in the Roe v. Wade decision. Together, these and other cases point to a nominee who would bring an activist approach to the highest court in the land…

I believe the greatest disservice we could offer the Hispanic community and the nation as a whole is to avoid a serious, principled discussion about the role of the judiciary. I reject the notion that judges should be representative of their sex, race or class. For these reasons, the suggestion that senators who have fundamental concerns about Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy should not dare oppose her for fear of being branded anti-Hispanic is disappointing…

In the final analysis, we are not worthy of Hispanics’ trust or the support of any other Americans if we abandon our principles or cease articulating our philosophical disagreements on the role of the judiciary. I would rather lose an election than diminish the rights afforded by the Constitution. By consenting to a judge whose record demonstrates an inclination to set policy from the bench, we would be undermining our governing document.