Follow The National Law Journal's live coverage of the Sotomayor Senate confirmation hearings here, via Twitter, and on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.

Under sharp questioning from Senate Republicans on Tuesday, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor insisted that she brings "an open mind" to judging, while acknowledging that some of her past statements suggesting otherwise amounted to a "rhetorical flourish that fell flat."

Sotomayor acknowledged, "Life experiences are important to the process of judging," but added, "The law commands the result." She also stated firmly, "The process of judging is the process of keeping an open mind."

Late in the day she even indicated in response to a question that she disagreed with the man who appointed her to the high court. President Barack Obama has said that judges in difficult cases sometimes find the right decision based on what's in their heart.

"I don't approach the issue of judging in the same way the president does," she said matter-of-factly. "Judges cannot rely on what's in their heart."

During eight hours of questioning, the 55-year-old federal appeals judge also offered views on a range of issues, ranging from support for a right of privacy under the Constitution to "positive experiences" with cameras in her own court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor suggested she would be a "new voice" -- and probably a favorable one -- to the discussion over the Supreme Court's longstanding opposition to camera access.

In one poignant moment, Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., how she was affected by the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, not far from her Greenwich Village apartment. She called it a "terrible tragedy," but said it did not change her view of the Constitution, which she called a "timeless document" meant to guide the nation in all circumstances.

Late in the day, Sotomayor responded to anonymous charges in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, made by lawyers who have appeared before her, that she bullies lawyers and has a problem temperament as a judge. She denied being a bully but acknowledged she is a tough questioner. "My reputation is that I ask the hard questions and I do it for both sides." The hearing resumes Wednesday for a second day of questioning from senators.

Overall, Sotomayor's calm, painstaking response to the senators' questions seemed to take the sting and energy out of the questioning from Republicans, and, if nothing else, may have refuted claims that she has a non-judicial temperament.

At one point a noisy demonstrator interrupted the proceedings while Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, was asking a question. After the protester was removed, Grassley joked that he's been told, "I have the ability to turn people on." Sotomayor laughed heartily and at length, as if the senator's unexpected statement had broken the tension of the day.

Nonetheless, Republicans still were unsatisfied with her explanations about statements she made about the superiority of "wise Latina" judges and how her background would influence how she considers cases. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the comments constitute "a body of thought over the years that causes us difficulty."

In trying to explain her comment that a "wise Latina judge" would make a better decision than a white male, Sotomayor said she was playing off Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's oft-repeated statement that a wise woman and a wise man would reach the same decision. But her play on that comment was a "rhetorical flourish that fell flat," she said. "My play fell flat. It was bad." Sotomayor also said she was trying to be inspirational to her audience and encourage them "to become anything they wanted to become, as I did." But she went on to state that no one ethnic group or gender has "an advantage in sound judgment." Everyone, she added, "has the equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge."

In several responses Sotomayor also seemed eager to blunt the argument Republican senators made Monday: Namely, that once she becomes a justice, she'll be unbound by the shackles of precedent that she has to live with now as an appeals court judge.

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., asked her about the controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which ruled that cities may take private homes in eminent domain for private development. "Kelo is now a precedent of the Court," she said. "I must follow it" as a judge on the 2nd Circuit. But if she becomes a justice on the Supreme Court, she continued, "I must give it the deference that the doctrine of stare decisis would suggest." She was articulating a standard that she will use on the Supreme Court that is slightly different from what she said was the rule for appeals judges, but not one that forecasts a Justice Sotomayor upsetting precedents with abandon.

Later, in a dialogue with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sotomayor elaborated on when she'd feel it appropriate to overturn a precedent as a Supreme Court justice. She said she would start from the premise that stare decisis is important. "There is a value ... in predictability, stability" of the law for all society, she said. Before dispensing with a precedent, she said, justices should be "guided by the humility they should show, and the thinking of prior judges." She added, "There are circumstances in which a court should re-examine precedent, but it should be done very, very cautiously."

Committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., did not wait for Republicans to raise the controversial issues that have swirled around Sotomayor. Leahy asked her about the New Haven, Conn., firefighters case Ricci v. DeStefano (pdf) and the D.C. v. Heller Second Amendment case.

On both Ricci and Heller, Sotomayor insisted that her decisions were dictated by clear precedent. In the New Haven case, she said both a 2nd Circuit ruling and the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act on "disparate impact" civil rights violations compelled the decision that New Haven was justified in refusing to certify a promotion test because African-Americans had not qualified under it. "We are obligated to follow established precedent," she said.

On the Second Amendment, she said her ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo (pdf) applied the Heller decision, which explicitly left open the question of whether the right to bear arms applies against the states. In Maloney, Sotomayor was on the 2nd Circuit panel that issued a per curiam decision finding the right to bear arms did not apply to the states. An appeal of that case is now before the high court, along with cases raising similar issues from the 7th and 9th circuits. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., pressed her to recuse if the Supreme Court takes up any of the cases, but she declined to say exactly what she will do.

Kohl asked Sotomayor the inevitable question of whether she would like to see cameras in the Supreme Court. "I have had positive experiences with cameras," Sotomayor said. "I have participated. I have volunteered."

But she added that whenever she enters a new work setting, she values collegiality highly and wants to "listen to the arguments of my colleagues" before urging changes in procedure or practice. "I try to share my experiences and my thoughts and be collegial."

When Kohl persisted, Sotomayor said that as a former litigator, she knows how to be convincing. Perhaps, she hinted, as a "new voice in the discussion," she can be persuasive.

Visit 'The Choice' for The National Law Journal's ongoing coverage of the confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor as U.S. Supreme Court Justice.