Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor testifies during the second day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill July 14, 2009 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sonia Sotomayor faced tough questioning Tuesday on political issues and controversial statements from her past, with both Democrats and Republicans saying she responded well and appeared certain to win confirmation as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

The 55-year-old federal appeals judge conceded she made a bad play on words in saying in 2001 that a "wise Latina woman" could reach a better conclusion than a white man.

Otherwise, her calm answers to questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a wide range of issues - abortion, gun control, presidential powers, the death penalty - displayed a command of legal concepts that impressed her harshest interrogators.

Do you accept Sotomayor's "wise Latina" explanation? Tell us your thoughts.

"...Wise Latina woman..." – Republicans have seized on those words from Judge Sonia Sotomayor to question whether she would use race to play favorites on the high court. But Sotomayor is hardly the first Supreme Court hopeful who was once outspoken on the subject of race. CNN's Jim Acosta reports.

Watch: Sotomayor explains 'wise Latina' remark

Nobody could accuse Senate Republicans of showing their touchy-feely side Monday.

GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee took careful aim at Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s qualifications to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court by expressing their disdain for any judge using empathy when making judicial decisions.

First up, Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah), who posed the question: “Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feelings in deciding cases?”

His fellow Republicans were quick to answer:

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa): “This empathy standard is trouble to me. In fact, I’m concerned that judging based on empathy is really just legislating from the bench.”

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona): “If judges routinely started ruling on the basis of their personal feelings, however well-intentioned, the entire legitimacy of the judicial system would be jeopardized.”

And Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama): “Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it is not law. In truth it is more akin to politics. And politics has no place in the courtroom.”

Why the big concern about empathy?

FULL POST

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 13, 2009 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said Monday that her hotly disputed judicial philosophy is, in fact, quite simple: Remain faithful to the law.

"In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy," Sotomayor told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during her opening statement at her confirmation hearings.

"It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record ... reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand."

Sotomayor said the "process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged."

Do you support Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court? Tell us your thoughts.

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/13/gillespie.art.jpg caption="Ed Gillespie played a key role on behalf of the Bush administration in the confirmation hearings of Justices Roberts and Alito."]

After weeks of meeting senators and preparing for tough questions, Sonia Sotomayor today begins the formal hearings on her nomination to become the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

Ed Gillespie, former counselor to President George W. Bush, knows what it's like to shepherd a judicial nominee through the Senate. He played a key role on behalf of the Bush administration for the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. He spoke to Kiran Chetry on CNN’s “American Morning” Monday.

Kiran Chetry: You were there for the last two times a nominee was getting ready to sit in the hot seat – Justices Roberts and Alito. What goes on in the days and hours before these hearings get set to begin for the nominees?

Ed Gillespie: Well you sift through the information you glean from the visits, the one-on-one visits that the nominee had with the senators. You try to determine what are likely questions to come up in the hearing. And the nominee in this case, Judge Sotomayor, obviously, will have some pretty firm views in response to those questions. And you just help in terms of shaping body language and the contours of the response and help give the nominee some guidance as to what to expect from the committee process. You know, judges aren't accustomed to being judged. And that's the position that Judge Sotomayor will be in for the next couple of days.

Chetry: Many say one issue for Sotomayor that she's sure to be questioned about are those comments she made at UC Berkeley back in 2001 where she said I hope a "wise Latina woman with the richness her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Senator Mitch McConnell said it's a “troubling philosophy for any judge – let alone one nominated to the highest court – to convert ‘empathy’ into favoritism for particular groups.” That's just a sampling of what she might get from some of the GOP senators. How does she best handle questions about that comment?

Gillespie: I think she has to make clear that any personal perspectives that she has articulated in the past in speeches haven't translated into rulings. I don't know that that’s the case. I think that's one of the things that would be weighed in the course of these hearings. She also said that your gender, your ethnicity – that you bring to bear what facts you choose to see. And I think people ask why would a judge choose to see some facts and not others? She'll be given the opportunity to respond to those questions. Those responses are important. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. You want people going before the Supreme Court regardless of their race or gender or ethnicity to have confidence that the rulings that will come and be issued and promulgated won't be based on that race, that gender, that ethnicity. And so these are important questions and I'm glad she'll have the opportunity in public to provide an answer.

FULL POST