Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
~John Adams

SESSIONS: “Do you stand by your statement that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see? Well, …you said something similar to that yesterday, that in each case I applied the law to the facts at hand, but you’ve repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I ‘accept the proposition’ –‘‘I accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge.’ First, that’s troubling to me as a lawyer. When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented. How is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts and not others? “
SOTOMAYOR: “No, sir. I don’t stand by the understanding of that statement that I will ignore other facts or other experiences because I haven’t had them. I do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging. They help you to understand and listen but that the law requires a result. And it would command you to the facts that are relevant to the disposition of the case.”
SESSIONS: “Well, I will just note you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of years span. And it’s concerning to me. So I would just say to you I believe in Judge Seiderbaum’s (ph) formulation. She said — and you disagreed. And this was really the context of your speech. And you used her — her statement as sort of a beginning of your discussion. And you said she believes that a judge, no matter what their gender or background, should strive to reach the same conclusion. And she believes that’s possible. You then argued that you don’t think it’s possible in all, maybe even most, cases. You deal with the famous quote of Justice O’Connor in which she says a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman. And you pushed backed from that. You say you don’t think that’s necessarily accurate. And you doubt the ability to be objective in your analysis.”
“So how can you reconcile your speeches which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a near aspiration which may not be possible in all or even most cases with your oath that you’ve taken twice which requires impartiality?”
SOTOMAYOR:”I also, as I explained, was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. I knew that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant that if judges reached different conclusions — legal conclusions — that one of them wasn’t wise. That couldn’t have been her meaning, because reasonable judges disagree on legal conclusions in some cases. So I was trying to play on her words. My play was — fell flat.”
SESSIONS: “Well, yesterday, you also said that your decisions have always been made to serve the larger interest of impartial justice, a good — good aspiration, I agree. But in the past, you’ve repeatedly said this: ‘I wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all in even most cases and I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society.’ Aren’t you saying there that you expect your background and — and heritage to influence your decision-making?”

So did the James Madison mean what he said in the Constitution?