12:24 a.m.

OK, here's another way to fulfill one's responsibilities as a Senate Judiciary Committee member: Hatch says he asked Utah residents to come up with questions they would ask Sotomayor. It's the wisdom of crowds! Seems a little gimmicky, but could be improved if the name of the constituent whose question is asked is made public. 'Cuz then the media could descend upon them...

12: 21 p.m.

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch returns to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Sotomayor repeats her prior statements that she wasn't really involved in the Fund's drafting of various pro-choice egal briefs. In other words, she was not like Thurgood Marshall, who was intimately involved in the NAACP's legal strategy and arguments.

12:12 p.m.

"You've done a good job," Sessions tells Sotomayor, adding that committee Republicans won't support a filibuster. So a Senate vote will happen before the congressional August recess.

And then it's time to haul Ricci back on stage. One. More. Time. Because the American people are really up in arms about this per curiam business that Sessions mentions.

In truth, there are serious questions about the 2nd Circuit's handling of Ricci and how a crucial conflict almost got buried in the initial per curiam manner; questions perhaps most potently raised by Stuart Taylor. Still, it's become obvious there is no political traction to be found here.

12:06 a.m.

Sessions whacks at "unelected public officials" making important decisions on the most controversial issues of the day. Just sayin'. Then -- suggesting raises should not be forthcoming -- he asks Sotomayor whether she can live on the judge's salary, which is currently about $203,000 a year. She can.

12:02 p.m.

Democratic Sen. Al Franken thanks Sotomayor for her patience, and then proceeds to test everyone else's patience further by asking her the time-padding question: why does she want to be a Supreme Court justice?

Sotomayor responds with what sounds like a well-practiced yarn about her mother asking about her original decision to become a U.S. District Court judge. It's all about public service, a passion "because I can't think of any greater service."

11:59 a.m.

Leahy announces that at the request of Republicans there will be a third round of questions, 10 minutes per senator.

Seriously, why bother? From a comity position, agreed, it makes sense to grant the additional time. The senators must work together in an institution where minorities can really gum up the works if they choose, and the chairman will want the minority to at least have the sense that it got a fair shake. But still: what's going to be asked that we don't already know?

11:55 a.m.

Coburn asks if she believes the court may face "similarly divisive" issues as abortion in the future. His point: that it's better that the court not be the one to come up with solutions for the most socially problematic issues.

Coburn insists he sees a "dissonance" between her speeches and her jurisprudence. So why would he choose to center his opposition to her on what she says outside the courtroom? He says he is "deeply troubled" and believes her "passions" as expressed in her speeches are most important.

11:51 a.m.

Back to abortion. No news. No quote.

11:48 a.m.

Coburn presses Sotomayor on the Second Amendment and the states. She tells Coburn, in effect, that he surely would not want a nominee who told him she already knows how she will rule on a given case.

"All I can say is I'll keep an open mind," Sotomayor said,and Coburn seems to recognize that that's as much as he's going to get.

11:40 a.m.

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn secures, if that's the word for it, another commitment by Sotomayor that she will not rely on alien law foreign law in forming her own decisions. This article co-authored by Northwestern University's Steven Calabrese goes into interesting detail on the issue.

What Coburn had in mind, among other things, was Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons, striking down the execution of juveniles, in which he states:

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."