“Empathy does not play a role in the judicial process,” Curiel wrote in response to questions from Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), contradicting the perspective of President Obama. “A judge protects the ‘little guy’ — and the ‘big guy’ — by applying the law fairly and evenhandedly to all of the parties whether they are ‘little’ or ‘big.’”

Curiel also differed from Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who defended justices’ citing precedents in foreign laws and asked, “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”

“Foreign law does not constitute binding precedent for a U.S. judge. In general, foreign law should not be considered in making decisions or rulings,” Curiel told the committee. “However, in certain limited circumstances, such as international commerce cases involving contracts governed by laws of other countries, it may become necessary to consider foreign law to properly decide a case.”

He added he was “committed to following precedent faithfully even if I disagree with such precedent.”

Curiel’s record over ten years on the state and federal bench doesn’t give a lot of evidence to support claims of a pro-Latino bias or political partisanship. Curiel has not held any elected office or given services to any party or political campaign. In 2008 and 2010, he endorsed four candidates to be elected judges in the Superior Court of San Diego. Three won, one lost; candidates are not listed on the ballot by party.