CNN

Stare decisis
Latin for "let the decision stand," it simply means respect for judicial precedent. Every court nominee will tell senators of their fidelity to stare decisis - but of course, when they reach the bench they can rule as they please. Critics on both sides accuse judges of wavering on their respect for precedent, depending on whether it suits their views on hot-button issues.

Writ or petition for certiorari
Latin for "jurisdiction," these are the most common type of appeals filed with the Supreme Court, asking the justices for discretionary review. Justices only accept about 1 percent of the cases presented to them, so senators may ask the nominee about her views about which cases the high court should accept. There's a lot of debate in legal circles whether the high court is accepting too few cases for review.

Legislative intent
The term is self-explanatory, as judges are asked often to interpret what Congress meant when it passed a law. With Democrats in control of the Congress and a shaky conservative majority on the high court, expect more legal challenges in the federal courts in coming years over federal laws in a range of issues: health care, national security, and the environment. There's been a long-running debate in the courts over whether judges should rely simply on the language of the law or whether they should dig deeper and gauge intent from committee hearings, floor speeches, or similar laws.

Standard of congruency and proportionality
A folo to legislative intent, Sen. Arlen Specter loves this topic and raises it at every hearing for judicial nominees. The high court has used this standard to set boundaries on congressional power. Some judges want Congress to deal with issues that are "congruent and" and "proportional" to the problem. Others seek a more deferential approach. It's a somewhat squishy standard, and as Specter told Sotomayor Monday, "We senators would like to know what the standards are, so we know what to do when we undertake legislation."

Federalism
The ongoing tug-of-war over state versus federal power. What areas of law should be left to the states and when can Congress use its authority to override or complement that local power. The Constitution created a new form of government– national in scope with direct power over its citizens, but preserves for the states as sovereign units power over their own affairs and citizens. With high court approval, the federal government has taken on broad powers, including some that states complain infringe on their authority. Gun control especially is a contentious issue when it comes to states rights.

Sovereign immunity
The power of the government to block lawsuits against it and certain officials. The United States cannot be sued in federal court unless Congress expressly authorizes it. But such immunity can be waived in certain personal injury claims against government workers or contractors.

Executive immunity
This protects lower federal officials for "reasonable" actions taken in good faith in performance of their duties. But actions in excess of their authority could leave them vulnerable to certain damages. Many Bush officials have been sued by a range of advocacy groups for their actions in the areas of national security and energy reform.

Circuit split
Disagreements among the 13 federal appeals courts - called circuits - that often are the reason the high court agrees to accept an appeal. The circuits are mainly regional - the Fourth Circuit, for example, covers Maryland,. Virginia, West Virginia, and the Carolinas - but also include DC and a special "Federal Circuit" for some types of appeals dealing with certain federal agencies. The high court is the only court that can resolve circuit splits. The justices in about two-thirds of the cases they accept for review will overturn - or reverse - a lower court ruling.

Sui Generis
Latin for "of its own kind" or unique. Sotomayor used the phrase when discussing Bush v. Gore, the controversial 200 Supreme Court ruling that essentially swung the presidential election to George W. Bush. "The question for me, as I look at that sui generis situation - it's only happened once from that discussion," she said. The judge declined to discuss further what she though of the court's reasoning behind the decision.