Still, it’s not completely clear if he’s warning conservatives or liberals.

In an op-ed in USA Today, he writes that “supporters of liberal judicial philosophy might find [Sotomayor's confirmation] a Pyrrhic victory,” adding that “during three days of careful questioning, Judge Sotomayor renounced the pillars of activist thinking.”

So liberals may be disappointed.

But they’re not the only ones, warns Sessions. “Pledging ‘fidelity to the law’ and practicing judicial restraint are different things,” he writes. “Which Sotomayor will we get?”

Sessions cites Sotomayor’s decisions in three cases that Republicans hammered her on during the confirmation hearings: a property rights case case that allowed the government to take property from one developer and give it to another; her Ricci decision rejecting white firefighters’ claims of race discrimination; and her decision this year finding that the Second Amendment does not provide a “fundamental right” enforceable against the states. Sessions says that “each was contrary to the Constitution.”

Those decisions, and not the statements at her confirmation hearing, show her true colors, he argues.

“I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism. She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent.”

After a lengthy dissertation denouncing Democrats for blocking the confirmation of previous Republican nominees, McConnell said that despite his strong belief that the president is entitled to great deference in his choice of Supreme Court justice, the senator would not support this one.

“If empathy is the new standard, then the burden is on any nominee who is chosen on that basis to show a firm commitment to equal justice under the law,” he said. “If nominees aren’t even expected to apply equal justice, we can’t be expected simply to defer to the President — especially if that nominee, as a sitting judge, no less, has repeatedly doubted the ability to adhere to this core principle.”

He continued:

Looked at in this light, Judge Sotomayor’s record of written statements suggests an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements. And for that reason, I will oppose her nomination.

McConnell then went on to criticize Sotomayor’s judicial record, and repeated the mistaken view, expressed by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) at the nomination hearing last week, that the Supreme Court in the discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano had unanimously rejected the Second Circuit opinion that Judge Sotomayor had joined.

“I’m referring to the Ricci case, in which a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court rejected Judge Sotomayor’s decision and all of them agreed that her reading of the law was flawed,” he said. “Here was a case in which a group of firefighters who had studied hard and passed a written test for promotion were denied it because not enough minority firefighters had scored as well as they had.”

As I’ve explained before, and as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ably pointed out at the hearing last week, the Supreme Court’s decision was 5-4, with four dissenters saying they would have affirmed the Second Circuit opinion.

McConnell’s full statement is here.

The full Senate vote on her nomination is expected to take place the following week.

A senior aide today told the Associated Press that McConnell plans to announce his opposition to her confirmation on Monday.

McConnell’s aide reportedly said that Sotomayor’s “statements show an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and that he’s worried she’d let her sympathies and prejudices interfere with her decisions as a justice.”

Update: McConnell has sent out a statement including excerpts of his remarks he’ll deliver about Sotomayor on Monday. Here’s one:

Judge Sotomayor’s record of written statements suggest an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements. For that reason, I will oppose her nomination.

The rest of his remarks are here.

Although surely plenty of senators agree with the idea of preventing gun violence, it’s a testament to how influential the NRA has become that no one had the courage to ask Sotomayor to explain the inherent reasonableness of regulating firearms in a country where more than 50 children are killed every week by guns.

Here’s what the Brady Campaign had to say about the NRA’s statement and Sotomayor’s nomination:

“During the second day of her Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor has now been asked for her views on the Second Amendment.  She has given clear and responsible answers, while not pre-judging any issues that may come before her on the Court.  We have been impressed with her presentation.

“In stark contrast, gun lobby extremists have revealed their preference for an activist Supreme Court Justice who would support their ‘any gun, anywhere, anytime’ ideology.  Judge Sotomayor’s comments today as well as her judicial opinions in cases involving gun laws, however, show respect for the Constitution, for precedent and for the considered judgments of legislative bodies in protecting communities from gun violence.

“Judge Sotomayor’s background and her experience as a prosecutor have given her an invaluable understanding of the devastating impact of gun violence on families and communities.  Because of her experience enforcing gun laws, she brings to the bench an appreciation of the importance of those laws in protecting our citizens.

“The Brady Campaign enthusiastically endorses Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.” [The Brady Campaign's emphasis, not mine.]

It’s worth noting that despite harsh and one-sided questioning on the Second Amendment issue, Sotomayor was careful never to say how she’d vote on the matter were it to come before the Supreme Court — which it very likely will during her expected tenure. Although she’s ruled in the past that there is no “fundamental” right of an individual to bear arms that’s enforceable against state governments, the court opinion she signed onto carefully explained that the court believed that result was mandated by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by the conservative Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, has reached the same conclusion.

The Supreme Court could rule differently, however, and given that its latest ruling on the gun issue was a 5-4 decision, Sotomayor’s position on the issue is important. Even if Sotomayor rules as the Brady campaign might hope, though, NRA supporters could win the day if the key gun question — whether there’s a “fundamental right” to possess a gun that’s enforceable against the states — reaches the court before President Obama gets to appoint another justice.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Perhaps because it’s clear she’ll be confirmed and he wants to convince Americans there’s a “softer,” more inclusive side to the Republican party, Graham just tried to convince GOP witness Linda Chavez, chair of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, that Sotomayor really isn’t all that bad.

“When I look at her I see some things that bug the hell out of me, but I also see some things that really impresses me,” he said, after Chavez testified against Sotomayor’s confirmation.

Noting that like Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts, Sotomayor had received a “well qualified” rating from the bench, Graham asked Chavez “Does that impress you at all … ?” (It didn’t.)

After suggesting that Republicans sometimes make political apppointments based partly on race, too, he said: “Politics is politics. I know that Republicans sit down and think, we’ve got some power, let’s let the whole country know the Republican party is not just a party of short white guys … We try to show that we’re a party that looks at all Americans and wants to give them an opportunity.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, and Chris Cox, Executive Director for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said this in explanation:

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

The full statement is here.

This backs up Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) previous statement that he expects Sotomayor will get an up-or-down vote.

Looks like Sotomayor is well on her way to confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.