Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing enters the Q & A phase. And they're off:

2:05 p.m.

The hearing resumes, with Sen. Charles Grassley -- one of the committee's few non-lawyers -- taking up the questioning. He asks about Kelo, the private property case so disliked by conservatives.

Sotomayor she "has to accept, because it is precedent" the court's ruling. The extent of the ruling, she says, "has to await the next case."

A competing McClatchy Newspaper assignment obliges Suits & Sentences to sign off the live-blogging for the day.

12:30 p.m.

Leahy and Sessions squabble over Miguel Estrada, whose own nomination died under the Democrats, and then a break is called until 2 p.m.

The morning session thus ends with no apparent killer quotes, no apparent dramatic moments and no apparent change in anyone's mind. Which amounts, actually, to a victory for Sotomayor. All she has to do is avoid, as Sen. Lindsay Graham said Monday, a meltdown. Sotomayor also controlled her pacing throughout, maintaining a steady, slow (but at times, it seemed, on-the-edge-of-brusque) manner that among other virtues takes up time that otherwise might end up in a question.

12:22 p.m.

Responding to Feinstein's question on executive authority, Sotomayor opines on length about the need for balance. Translating: presidential authority is like the porridge in Goldilocks: not too hot, not too cold; not too much, not too little.

Feinstein asks about gun-free school zone case: did the court go too far in striking down legislation in the 1995 case United States v. Lopez? In that case, famously, the court said Congress went beyond its powers enumerated under the Commerce Clause. Sotomayor expounds on the "broad principles" established without really revealing much of her own disposition.

12:12 p.m.

Feinstein asks about executive power, starting with former President Bush's liberal use of "signing statements." Does the Constitution authorize the president not to follow legislation that he unilaterally deems interferes with his authority?

That's a very broad question, Sotomayor says, noting that it is one that lower courts are "grappling with." In other words: think I'll duck this a bit.

Then Sotomayor cites famous concurrence by Justice Robert Jackson in the 1952 steel seizure case called Youngstown Sheet & Tube v Sawyer: the president is acting with the greatest authority when he -- or she -- is acting in concert with congressional authorization.

Good call: One never goes wrong quoting Justice Jackson.

12:04 p.m.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein praises Sotomayor to the high heavens, saying she is no activist. You know, she follows precedent. Then she asks questions allowing Sotomayor to praise precedence, as well.

12:00 p.m.

Hatch brings up what he calls a smear campaign by the People for the American Way designed to discredit firefighter Frank Ricci in advance of his testimony this week. He does not, however, give credit to McClatchy, which broke the story last Friday.

"That's the type of stuff that doesn't belong in Supreme Court hearings," Hatch says.

Absolutely, Sotomayor agrees: she does not tolerate attack campaigns.

11:52 a.m.

Sotomayor expounds on the workings of nunchucks, the "very dangerous" weapon at the heart of the Maloney case in which Sotomayor and a 2nd Circuit panel upheld New York ban on the sticks-and-chains device.

Hatch then returns to Ricci. Honestly, at what point has this been asked-and-answered? And can a genuine reason to oppose a candidate be built on one case?

11:42 a.m.

Senator Orrin Hatch returns to the Second Amendment issue; sounding impatient, Sotomayor reiterates that it is an "open question" whether the Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government.

Commendably, Hatch persists with his line of questioning, rather than jumping from topic to topic. Sotomayor sticks to the view that it is a question the "Supreme Court will have to answer" if it takes up a related case.

11:08 a.m.

Cameras in the court? Here,
Sotomayor launches into her love of collegiality and recognition that this will have to be worked out with her future colleagues. She further characterizes herself as a "really good litigator" -- if she does say so, herself. Point being, she is a persuader, who can win her colleagues over if she chooses.

Ten minute break.

10:58 a.m.

Sen. Herbert Kohl just jumps from one topic to another: affirmative action, to Bush v. Gore, to the Kelo v. New London decision on property rights and public commendation. The level of generalization, lack of follow-up and lack of transition from one topic to another suggests a senator driven by staff preparations.

Sotomayor responds that she "understands" concerns about property rights, but notes the Kelo case was a "complicated" one. From Kelo, Kohl leaps to whether Griswold case is settled law. Yes. Is there a right of privacy? Yes, Sotomayor says. Is Roe v. Wade settled law? Yes.

10:45 a.m.

Leahy offers up the American Bar Association's unanimous judgment of Sotomayor as "well qualified," along with various other studies of her judicial work.

Then, Sen. Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin lobs the post-Ricci softball: does she believe reasonable minds can disagree on the close case? Yes, she says. Kohl next summons information on the "very low reversal rate" she has experienced. He says claims to the contrary are "totally refuted." Kohl's questions do not even try to hide the softball intent.

"Which current Supreme Court justice do you most identify with?" Kohl asks.

Coming next from Sen. Kohl: Judge Sotomayor, what kind of tree are you?

Sotomayor, wisely, ducks that question about current justices. But then, unsolicited, she says she most admires from the past Justice Benjamin "Was he Hispanic or not?" Cardozo, citing his "great respect for precedent."

10:25 a.m

Let's look at the New Haven firefighter case, says Sen. Sessions. Guess how many senators will ask similar questions about this case? So far, it's two-for-two.

Sessions drives at the short, unsigned opinion with which Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit panel initially rejected firefighter Frank Ricci's claims. Oooh: Sessions claims chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy "misrepresented" the facts of the New Haven firefighter case. Leahy objects to the characterization.

10:10 a.m.

Senator Jeff Sessions starts whacking away, asking about Sotomayor's past comments about making policy. First question is a big open-ended. It's the job of Congress to decide on policy, she reassures him; appellate courts establish precedent, which has policy ramifications.

Next, Sessions suggests she believes prejudices can shape her decisions. In answering -- no -- Sotomayor seems, honestly, impatient; a taste, perhaps, of the brusque manner some have noted she demonstrates on occasion. Life experiences, she says, can affect what we see and feel, but that does not drive a decision.

10 a.m.

And now it's guns. Sotomayor says she accepts Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Not as if she had a choice...

"I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent," she says.

But does the Second Amendment apply to states, outside of the federal government and the District of Columbia? Leahy softballs it, asking her if she would have an "open mind" about whether it does. "Absolutely," she says. "I would not prejudge any question that comes before me."

"One of my god children is a member of the NRA, and I have family members who hunt," she says.

And some of her best friends are...

9:55 a.m.

The Wise Latina surfaces. Leahy gives Sotomayor her chance to explain her much-chewed over comment about a Wise Latina making better judicial decisions. Sotomayor says she was merely "trying to inspire" her audience. Then she offers the necessary declaration, and probably not for the last time:

"I do not believe any ethnic, racial or gender group has any advantage" in judging, she says, before associating herself with the words of that conservative, un-empathetic Republican, Sandra Day O'Connor.

9:50 a.m.

Here it is. Leahy gets right to the Ricci case, giving Sotomayor an early chance to frame up the controversial ruling before the Republicans get a crack at it. He characterizes her ruling against the New Haven firefighter Ricci as strictly following precedent. She agrees.

"We were following precedent," Sotomayor says.

Then she proceeds to describe the case facts. In. Great. Detail. Leahy comes back: it was precedent that drove her, right? Absolutely, she says.

9:40 a.m.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy initiates the questioning with the most basic of softballs: what are the qualities a judge needs? Sotomayor's answer: noteworthy, most of all, for the calm and deliberate pace at which she is speaking. She's going to be doing her best to control the pace in answering, and we'll see more of this with the hostile questions from Republicans.

Nicely done. Next question: Leahy takes the opportunity to remind everyone of how Sotomayor was a prosecutor who protected us from murderers. She gets to speak, at length, about the trauma facing crime victims. Message: She's not just empathetic, she's tough!

"That case taught me that prosecutors must be sensitive...to the price that crime imposes on society," Sotomayor says.