In her testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor made a serious contradiction of her own testimony of her involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which was at the very least misleading. In addition, she appears to have contradicted the known facts of her involvement with the PRLDEF, based on the minutes of the Fund’s litigation committee that have been made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The serious contradiction occurred during Sotomayor’s questioning by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Earlier, during the morning’s questioning, she had the following exchange with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):
GRAHAM: During your time on the board — and you had about every job a board member could have — is it a fair statement to say that all of the cases embraced by this group on abortion advocated the woman’s right to choose and argued against restrictions by state and federal government on abortion rights?
SOTOMAYOR: I didn’t — I can’t answer that question because I didn’t review the briefs. I did know that the fund had a health care docket…
GRAHAM: Judge?
SOTOMAYOR: … that included challenges to certain limitations on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy under certain circumstances.
The word”docket”refers to pending cases. When Sotomayor said she knew the Fund had a “docket,” she was saying that she knew in advance that the Fund was making the argument against “certain limitations on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.” She knew that opposing common-sense abortion regulations was the Fund’s policy.
But later, when Sen. Hatch went down the list of PRLDEF briefs, Sotomayor denied she had advance knowledge of the PRLDEF’s legal efforts to fight these “limitations,” and she denied she was aware of the Fund’s policy opposing such limitations.
Here are the most pertinent excerpts of Hatch’s exchange with Sotomayor (see also the full transcript of the exchange and AUL’s in-depth analysis of the briefs):
HATCH: In another case, Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, the fund argued that the First Amendment right to freely exercise religion undermines laws requiring parental notification for minors getting abortions. Now, at the time, did you know that the fund was filing this brief?
SOTOMAYOR: No, no specific brief. Obviously, it was involved in litigation, so I knew generally they were filing briefs, but I wouldn’t know until after the fact that a brief was actually filed. But I wouldn’t review it.
HATCH: The same questions on this. At the time, did you know that the brief made this argument? At the time, did you support the fund filing this brief that made this argument? And at the time, did you voice any concern, objection, disagreement, or doubt about the fund filing this brief or making this argument?
SOTOMAYOR: No, because I never reviewed the brief.
HATCH: That’s fine. I’m just going to establish this.
In another case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the fund argued against a 24-hour waiting period for obtaining an abortion. So, again, those questions. At the time, did you know that the fund was filing this brief? Did you know that the brief made this argument? Did you support the fund filing this brief that made this argument? And did you voice any concern, objection, disagreement or doubt about the fund filing this brief or making this argument?SOTOMAYOR: For the same reason, no.
Sotomayor here appears to not only be contradicting her previous statement to Sen. Graham, but also contradicting the known facts about her involvement with the PRLDEF. In addition to the PRLDEF president’s claim that her role was to “set policy,” there is evidence in the minutes of the meetings of the PRLDEF board’s litigation committee, showing that Sotomayor was responsible for briefing the board on current litigation. Senate Republicans have access to these minutes and have posted information on their Leader Board blog about Sotomayor’s involvement.
That same Leader Board post notes that Sotomayor was on the Fund’s litigation committee for several years, including 1988 and 1991. The PRLDEF’s brief in the Webster case, although filed in March 1989, occurred during the Supreme Court’s 1988 session, while the PRLDEF’s brief in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, although filed in March 1992, occurred during the court’s 1991 session. So it is very possible that, while on the litigation committee, Sotomayor was involved in preparing those briefs. Besides, she was also on the PRLDEF’s board itself during the entire time that all six of the Fund’s pro-abortion briefs were filed.
The Washington Times reported last week that the White House has refused to release several boxes of documents from Sotomayor’s tenure with the PRLDEF. Given Sotomayor’s apparent contradictions in her own testimony, one is left to wonder: What are they trying to hide?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }