Patrick Leahy's first questions focused on Sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor, particularly her experience trying the "Tarzan murderer" case, in which the perpetrator used "acrobatic feats" to gain entry to people's homes. The case provided an opportunity for Sotomayor to emphasize her career as a prosecutor and show that "empathy" doesn't mean not following the law. She emphasized the plight of the victims, saying "[The Tarzan case] brought to life for me...the tragic consequences of needless death," adding that "[the case] taught me that prosecutors must be sensitive to the costs that crime imposes on our entire society".
Referring to her time as a prosecutor in Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office, Sotomayor said that "To this day, I owe who I have become as a lawyer, as a judge, to Mr. Morgenthau. She said that "law schools teach you in hypotheticals...when you work in a prosecutor's office, you understand the law is not legal theory, it's facts." The Democratic strategy here seems not only to show that "empathy" isn't mutually exclusive with following the law, but also to contrast Sotomayor's "real world experience"--not just her upbringing in the Bronx, but her time as a prosecutor--with Republican appointees who haven't dealt with similarly gritty circumstances.
Leahy then moved on to Ricci--I'll post on that exchange soon.
-- A. Serwer
