Jolie Rouge

Republican: Sotomayor had ties to extreme group
High Court reverses Sotomayor ruling
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 3, 7:28 am ET

WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate committee that will consider Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination says a Puerto Rican civil rights group's papers could shed light on her judicial approach, particularly her view of racial preferences in hiring.

White House Counsel Greg Craig, however, told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., in a letter that board meeting minutes and other papers detailing the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund's activities while Sotomayor was an outside adviser shouldn't impact her nomination because she had no role in writing or approving them.

"During her time there, the organization took extreme positions on legal issues ranging from the death penalty to abortion to racial quotas," Sessions said in a statement. He said it was "absurd" for the White House to call the documents irrelevant.

The battle over the papers isn't likely to damage Sotomayor's chances of confirmation, since Democrats have more than enough votes in favor of President Barack Obama's first high court nominee, and Republicans have shown little appetite for trying to block her.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin confirmation hearings July 13, shrugged off the GOP concerns being raised about Sotomayor, saying some in the GOP were going to oppose any Obama pick — "even if the president had nominated Moses."

Republicans "were going to object no matter who it was. And several of them have told me that privately," Leahy told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vermont farmhouse.

Republicans did not respond to requests for comment about Leahy's remarks.

Sotomayor early last month gave the Judiciary panel documents she contributed to or helped write while she was a board member of the group from 1980 to 1992, but Leahy joined Sessions recently in asking for more information about the group's activities and policy positions while she was involved.

The organization, now know as LatinoJustice PRLDEF, began sending some of that material to the committee Wednesday, but Sessions' office said Sotomayor's backers were delaying the release of the information to prevent a thorough investigation.

Cesar Perales, PRLDEF's president and general counsel, told the AP earlier this week that he planned to send the documents on a rolling basis, and all of them would arrive on Capitol Hill by week's end.

In his letter to Sessions, Craig said the Judiciary panel already has all pertinent documents on Sotomayor. He said the judge never served on PRLDEF's staff or supervised its employees, and noted that Republicans have in years past refused to release similar documents on their own Supreme Court nominees.

"Perhaps there is confusion about Judge Sotomayor's role with PRLDEF, and that confusion may account for your unusual interest," Craig wrote. "Let me be clear: On Judge Sotomayor's behalf, we submitted all documents the committee requested of her, and we did so in record time."

Craig also defended PRLDEF, calling it "a highly respected civil rights fund."

Sessions noted, however, that Sotomayor held leadership posts on the group's board. And he suggested her participation in PRLDEF, which brought several lawsuits on behalf of minority employees alleging racial discrimination in hiring and promotion, could help show a propensity on the judge's part for using the legal system to advantage minorities in the workplace.

On Monday, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge that rejected the reverse discrimination claims of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who were denied promotions because too few minorities scored highly on the qualifying exam.

"During Judge Sotomayor's time at PRLDEF, the organization launched a series of legal actions to throw out the test results for other city employees on the basis of race just like in the New Haven case. What role did Judge Sotomayor play in the decision to bring these cases?" Sessions said in his statement.

The White House is strongly resisting Republicans' suggestions that the hearings should be delayed to give them more time to review the group's documents so they can draw conclusions about Sotomayor.

The best evidence "of how she'd be as a judge are the 17 years of legal opinions that she has written and that she herself has worked on — not a box or boxes of documents that she didn't write, review or approve," said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. "I think there has been plenty of time to review the record."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/...ayor_documents

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Sonia Sotomayor: How Republicans Will Go After the Judge
Jay Newton-small And Sophia Yan / Washington
13 mins ago

When Sonia Sotomayor heads to Capitol Hill for the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on July 13, she'll find two groups of players awaiting her: the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, who arguably have the easy job to flatter and protect President Obama's pick (Al Franken, the panel's newest member, might also provide some comic relief), and the panel's Republicans, whose primary task is to goad her into saying something inflammatory or indiscreet.


To that end, the seven Republican Senators have prepared four lines of attack. They will express concern about Sotomayor's comments that a "wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion" than a judge from a more homogeneous background. They will focus on her recent Ricci v. Destefano decision, a reverse-discrimination case overturned last month by the Supreme Court. They'll grill her on her interest in foreign law - in their eyes an un-American curiosity that could pollute U.S. laws. And they will fret over her Second Amendment decisions and imply she might want to take away some folks' guns.

The first Hispanic nominee to the nation's highest court sits alone in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building - a larger room than the committee's usual room to accommodate the increased interest - but she comes with the aspirations and expectations of much of the Latino community, as well as a large swath of the Bronx. Three of the four issues on the GOP agenda carry a risk of offending a large part of the Latino community - a group of voters the Republicans have already alienated with their two attempts at immigration reform in 2005 and 2006 and desperately need if they want to one day recover Congress and the White House. It probably doesn't help that the top Republican on the panel, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, was once a federal bench nominee rejected by the same committee for indelicate remarks on civil rights. All of which makes the week as perilous for the GOP as it is for Sotomayor, who, barring a gaffe, looks set to sail past these four hurdles to an overwhelming confirmation vote.

"Wise Latina"

Sotomayor has used the "wise Latina" phrase repeatedly in speeches dating back to 1994. In one speech in 2001 she tagged on the line "than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Republicans, who prefer judges that claim total impartiality to the law, do not like that Sotomayor's decisions are influenced by her life experience.

"The judge has given a lot of speeches, in addition to her official actions, where she's questioned whether judges can actually be neutral, whether there is such a thing as objectivity in the law, which means that judges are affected by their biases," said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who serves on the Judiciary Committee. "I think that's a fair area to question her about because certainly the rule of law depends on the same rules applying to each one of us no matter our color, our sex or our ethnicity." Sotomayor defenders say the issue never came up when the Senate confirmed Sotomayor to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998 and point to conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, both of whom cited at their confirmation hearings their backgrounds as Italian Americans as evidence they understand discrimination and the immigrant experience.

Ricci v. Destefano

One of those cases where Sotomayor's personal perspective may have played a role to the detriment of white defendants, the GOP argues, is the recent case of Ricci v. Destefano. The case involved the issue of promoting white firemen in the town of New Haven, Conn. The firemen had all passed a promotions test, but because not enough minorities had passed the test the promotions were turned down in accordance with city policies. The white firemen sued. Sotomayor joined with two other Second Circuit justices on the unanimous opinion in the city's favor. The Supreme Court last month overturned that decision, siding with the white firefighters. "Empathy is great perhaps if you're the beneficiary of it, if the judge is empathetic with you, your side of the argument," Sessions said on the floor of the Senate on July 7. "But it's not good if you're on the wrong side of the argument, if you don't catch a judge's fancy or fail to appeal to a shared personal experience. And this approach to judging as expressed in her speeches and writings appears to have played an important role in the New Haven firefighters case." Sessions went on to note that Sotomayor has been an active member of the Puerto Rican Defense Fund, a group that has criticized the standardized process of testing for such promotions. "And so we're left to wonder, what role did the judge's personal experience play when she heard the case?" Republican witnesses against Sotomayor include Frank Ricci, the top plaintiff in the case, and Lieut. Ben Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department.

The point of these hearings is to allow Sotomayor herself to respond to such criticisms. But hints of her potential answers are already apparent in Democratic responses. "The panel that she was on faithfully applied the Second Circuit precedent, which is what a judge is supposed to do, to follow the precedent of their circuit. And the Supreme Court decision was characterized by press reports as creating a fundamental change in the law," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, told TIME. "So it's hard to fault her either for not anticipating the Supreme Court's fundamental change in the law or for not embarking herself on a fundamental change in the law."

This Is America

Another point of criticism has been Sotomayor's stated interest in foreign laws. In an April 2009 speech to the Puerto Rican branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Sotomayor said: "International law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our legal system. It is my hope that judges everywhere will continue to do so because with the American legal system we're commanded to interpret our law as best we can. And that means looking to what other, anyone has said to see if it has persuasive value."


Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who serves on the Judiciary panel, railed against this position in a July 6 speech on the Senate floor. "The consideration of foreign law by American judges is contrary to the principles of democracy," Kyl said. "Foreign judges and legislators are not accountable to the American electorate. Using foreign law even as a thumb on the scale to help decide key constitutional issues devalues Americans' expressions through the democratic process. An analogy would be to allow noncitizens to vote in our elections."

The position, though, is more representative of the bright line between progressive and conservative judicial philosophies than an actual problem with Sotomayor herself. For example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has spoken about the important impact of foreign law, and her opinions did not prevent her from being confirmed to the bench.

Guns

A 2004 opinion Sotomayor joined cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." And in January, Sotomayor joined a Second Circuit decision on Maloney v. Cuomo. In that decision the court found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and local governments - in this case New York had a right to ban various weapons such as nunchakus. "It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." The rulings have caused alarm among gun-rights groups, and two scheduled witnesses for the Republicans are Sandra S. Froman, a former president of the National Rifle Association, and Stephen P. Halbrook, a lawyer and gun-rights advocate.

In 1987 Robert Bork forever changed the Supreme Court confirmation process when, after refusing to prep for the hearings, he made a series of verbal gaffes that brought down his nomination. Sotomayor seems determined not to repeat that mistake. She's taken the time to meet with every Senator possible - 89 of them - thus getting a clear idea of the kinds of questions that may be asked. She's also been combing over her 17 years' worth of decisions and practicing with Obama staffers in a small conference room in the Old Executive Office Building, next door to the White House. There's always the potential for unforeseen fireworks, but if Sotomayor is as well prepared as the evidence would suggest, the hearings could just as easily turn out to be anticlimactic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009071...08599191008400

They already allow "noncitizens" to vote in our elections ....


Abortion protester whisked out of hearing
15 mins ago

WASHINGTON – An anti-abortion protester briefly disrupted the opening of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing.

The outburst came during Sen. Dianne Feinstein's opening statement Monday. A man in room interrupted her remarks by shouting: "Senator. What about the unborn!" He called abortion "genocide."

Security quickly took him out. Sotomayor turned her head briefly toward her family and friends seated in the front row as the man was taken away and his shouts faded.

The episode prompted a warning by committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy that no displays for or against the nominee would be tolerated from observers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090713/...ayor_protester

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Cast of characters on committee quizzing Sotomayor
Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 13, 3:10 am ET

WASHINGTON – Live from the Capitol, Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings promise high political theater this week, beamed to the world in dramatic, historic, perhaps comedic glory.

When the curtain rises Monday on Sotomayor's nomination to become the Supreme Court's first Hispanic justice, a large cast of ambitious players will be ready to explore themes from racial conflict to legal controversy, as well as personal facts and views.

If this is a show, top billing must go to Sotomayor herself, the federal appeals court judge who grew up in a New York housing project where her parents had moved from Puerto Rico. But with camera-loving politicians in charge, the Senate Judiciary Committee drama won't be just about her.

This is about them, too.

Two lawmakers, a Vermont liberal and an Alabama conservative, will have leading roles. Backing them is a supporting cast that will include the Defenders, the Skeptic, the Patriarch, the Doyenne, the Wild Card and the Novice.

Visually, they'll be grouped like this: Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Sotomayor at center stage facing each other. Eleven other Senate Democrats — nine white men, two white women — will sit to the audience's right, eager to help Sotomayor defend herself against any conservative charges. Their mandate: do no harm to her overwhelming prospects for taking over retired Justice David Souter's seat on the nine-member court.

On the audience's left — but to the right on your scorecard — will be seven white male Republican senators with a delicate task: respectfully challenging the Latina nominee — on crutches, recovering from a broken ankle — without alienating women or Hispanics.

And try to do it while facing two visible reminders of the GOP's rout in the 2008 elections.

Seated at the end of the Democratic side will be Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, until this year a Republican, and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., the former TV comedian making his Senate debut. He just emerged as the victor in an eight-month recount battle against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.

A viewer's guide to the faces certain to nab key screen time during the Sotomayor's made-for-TV hearings.

___

THE LEAD PLAYERS

Chairman Leahy, D-Vt.

If he looks familiar, it could be because he's been in the Senate for more than three decades and participated in hearings of every Supreme Court nominee since now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Or it could be the Batman movies. With white hair and bifocals, the man with the gavel has had cameos in all of them, and a speaking part in "The Dark Knight."

Leahy, 69, will be in charge of keeping senators to their allotted 30 minutes for questions, tamping down the inevitable showboating and issuing stern warnings to any protesters who get out of hand.

It's good to be chairman, by the way: He can allot himself all the time he wants to rebut points Republicans try to make or to ask clarifying questions of the nominee. Leahy was a state prosecutor for eight years before coming to the Senate. The grandfather of five is an avid photographer seen at previous hearings snapping pictures of news photographers as they snap photos of him.

___

Ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Taking his first turn as the lead Republican at a Supreme Court hearing, the 62-year-old Sessions will sit next to Leahy and, in broad terms, try to reassure the vanquished GOP base that their interests are being represented in this most visible forum.

Sessions wants to know whether Sotomayor allows personal views, not just the law, to influence her rulings. He has raised doubts about her support for the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and her association with a Puerto Rican civil rights group before she became a federal judge 17 years ago.

But conservative critics of Sotomayor have been unable to get the Senate's 40 Republicans to stand together against her, and Sessions has said he doesn't "sense a filibuster in the works" to block her confirmation.

Personally and politically, he's got big shoes to fill and a delicate line to walk in this role. Sessions is succeeding the sharp-tongued Specter, chairman at the previous two Supreme Court hearings.

Sessions, in his third term, has plenty of experience grilling witnesses; he's a former federal prosecutor. But he has stumbled over issues of race. Comments he allegedly made sank his own nomination by President Ronald Reagan to be a federal judge.

___

THE DEFENDERS

Senate Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York.

They're Obama's guys, for different reasons.

Durbin, in his third term at 64, is the president's chief ally in the Senate and served with him during Obama's meteoric rise. Schumer, 58, and in his second term, represents Sotomayor's home state, is thus her sponsor. By tradition, he will introduce her to the committee when the hearings open.

Durbin and Schumer have leadership positions in their party, are regarded by Republicans as fierce partisans and are fond recipients of news coverage. They share a house with other members of Congress in Washington while away from their families.

___

THE PATRIARCH

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Hatch, 75, has been the committee chairman twice and participated in hearings for eight Supreme Court justices. A musician and great-grandfather, Hatch is known for a generally cool demeanor that sometimes gives way to frank rejoinders.

He has a strong conservative philosophy, and in past hearings he staunchly defended the troubled nominations of Robert Bork (who wasn't confirmed) and Clarence Thomas (who was). But Hatch has departed from party dogma, too, on stem cell research and other issues.

He has said he's concerned that Sotomayor takes a "somewhat dim view of the Second Amendment" to the Constitution to keep and bear arms. But he also has said he's keeping an open mind and generally believes presidents should be given leeway on the people they nominate.

___

THE WILD CARD

Specter, D-Pa.

"Snarlin' Arlen," 79, enters these hearings more experienced at running them than Leahy, yet without the privileges of the seniority that ordinarily comes with five Senate terms.

Democrats stripped him of that when he joined their party this year. He switched, he said, because he could not have won a GOP primary in Pennsylvania as a Republican.

Specter is not expected to behave in the traditionally deferential manner of a junior senator. He was chairman at the hearings of now-Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. And he knows Senate tradition, the law and the Constitution as well as any expert in the room. He's famous for bucking the leadership of his party, a trait that vexed the Bush White House.

___

THE DOYENNE

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

In her fourth term, Feinstein, 76, is the most senior woman on the committee and represents a statewide constituency that is 36 percent Hispanic and half women, according to the Census Bureau.

Feinstein told reporters last week she plans pushing back hard against any Republican implication that Sotomayor might be an "activist judge" who tries to make laws from the bench. Roberts and Alito, Feinstein said, have participated in high court reversals of precedent plenty of times since their confirmations, though they pledged to not be activists.

Now head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Feinstein has considerable clout in the Senate and with Obama's White House. Viewers might recall her presiding over Obama's inauguration in January.

___

THE SKEPTIC

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

The second-term senator, 57, has perhaps the best picture of this particular nomination and its political implications of anyone on the panel. Like Feinstein, he represents a large state and a constituency that's about one-third Hispanic.

Cornyn also is the Republican point man for the 2010 Senate elections, charged with raising money and helping the GOP rebound from a defeat that handed Democrats a 60-seat, filibuster-resistant majority.

In Texas, he served on the state Supreme Court and as attorney general.

Cornyn has said he has questions about whether Sotomayor will uphold the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and the right to keep and bear arms.

___

THE NOVICE

Franken, D-Minn.

The former "Saturday Night Live" performer is now 100th out of 100 senators in seniority. Not a lawyer, he was awarded a committee seat almost as soon as he was sworn into office this past week.

His victory over Coleman after their eight-month recount battle is a trophy Democrats are eager to display. Franken had less than two weeks to prepare for these hearings. But as a veteran of the big stage, he just might fit right in.

___

On the Net:

Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov/



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090713/...r_senate_roles

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

galeane29

I'm watching the hearing on Fox right now.

__________________

Jolie Rouge

Day One: Spotlight on Sotomayor
By Michelle Malkin • July 13, 2009 03:53 AM


Able to leap tall life obstacles in a single bound!

It’s opening day of the Senate SCOTUS hearings on the Sonia Sotomayor nomination. We’ll get gavel-to-gavel coverage this morning on all major networks and CSPAN starting at 10am Eastern.

The good news: At least we’ll be spared Joe Biden’s bloviations.

That’s about the only positive thing I can say about a day that will be dripping in the politics of racial identity and judicial nomination-as-high-hurdles-contest rhetoric.

Wonder which Senator will be the first to bring up her “history-making” status as a Wise, History-Making Person Living With Diabetes?


Latinos are putting conservatives “on notice” and will watch Republicans “like hawks.” Estuardo V. Rodriguez, director of something called “Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary,” told ABC News: “We accept tough questions. But what we are going to object to are questions that misrepresent the judge or that distort her record.” (The group includes the pro-racial/ethnic preference Hispanic National Bar Association, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.)

Translation: Be quiet about Ricci, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and the Wise Latina Woman remarks — or else!



I’m reminded of a good column a few months ago by Rachel Campos-Duffy, who happens to be a wise conservative Latina woman:


Speaking of open season, it’s open season on Frank Ricci — the lead plaintiff in the Connecticut firefighters’ discrimination case:

I called attention to the left-wing smear merchants’ campaign in early May against Sen. Jeff Sessions. This is more of the same. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line rightly blasts those targeting Ricci:

Nope. Like I said when Sotomayor’s nomination was greeted with MSM sob-story slobbering, not all “compelling stories” about overcoming “incredible odds” are equal.

***

***

Early-morning Sotomayor news round-up…

*WSJ: GOP Looks for at Least 20 ‘No’ Votes .



*Gun-rights activists unite against Sotomayor.



http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/13...-on-sotomayor/

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Pro-Sotomayor op-ed of the week

From the Seattle Times op-ed page:

More : http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/10...d-of-the-week/

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

SHELBYDOG

Another first for Sotomayor

__________________

SHELBYDOG

Sotomayor defends 'wise Latina' remark

__________________

SHELBYDOG

Sotomayor clarifies 'wise Latina' comment

__________________

krisharry

All POTUS's want to fill a spot on the Court w/their own choice, dems want a liberal to uphold abortion, reps want a conservative to uphold gun rights, etc, etc. And the opposition party will always try and find flaw w/the candidate. They will go though lengthy hearings and in the end the POTUS will probably get who he wants anyway. That being said, I really don't care who is appointed except for one thing-that they uphold the Constitution of the U.S. All of it. Not parts of it, all of it. The only thing I care about from a Justice is that our rights and liberties are upheld. That's all, should be pretty easy right? LMAO

__________________
"Because days come and go, but my feelings for you are forever..." by Papa Roach

Jolie Rouge

FACT CHECK: Sotomayor tied abortion ban, slavery?
Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 15, 6:04 am ET

WASHINGTON – Abortion opponents saw their issue take center stage when Sen. Lindsey Graham questioned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about her 12-year tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

In particular, the South Carolina Republican asked Tuesday about legal briefs the group filed arguing for an expansion of abortion rights. In one of those cases, Graham said, the group claimed that denying a woman access to an abortion was a form of slavery. Sotomayor said she never read those briefs, an assertion that abortion opponents say is hard to believe.

A look at the facts of the case:

___

GRAHAM SAID: "Well, in their briefs, they argued, and I will submit the quotes to you, that if you deny a low-income woman Medicaid funding, taxpayer funds, to have an abortion, if you deny her that, that's a form of slavery. And I can get the quotes. Do you agree with that?"

THE FACTS: The 1980 Supreme Court case, Williams v. David Zbaraz, challenged an Illinois law that said state money could not be used to pay for abortions for poor people, except when necessary to save the life of the mother.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund board, along with three other organizations, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that banning taxpayer-funded abortions discriminated against poor minority women. At the time, Sotomayor served on the group's board of directors.

There is no connection to slavery in that brief. After the Supreme Court upheld the Illinois law, however, the PRLDEF joined 285 other civil rights organizations, unions and advocacy groups in asking the court to reconsider. That document does draw a link between abortion rights and slavery, but not quite as explicitly as Graham said.

"Just as Dred Scott v. Sanford refused citizenship to black people, these opinions strip the poor of meaningful citizenship under fundamental law," the documents say.

The Dred Scott case ruled that slaves are not citizens.

In the abortion case, the civil rights groups argued that, under the Constitution, treating people differently because they are black is the same as treating them differently because they are poor. By citing the Dred Scott case, the lawyers clearly sought to draw a parallel between denying abortion access and slavery. But they did not argue that denying poor women access to free abortions was a form of slavery.

Slavery also came up in the 1991 abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the right to an abortion. Sotomayor joined others in filing documents in that case, saying that black women saw their right to privacy "trammeled with state sanction during centuries of slavery."

Again, the documents use slavery to make a civil rights case but don't say denying access to abortions is slavery.

___

SOTOMAYOR SAID: "I wasn't aware of what was said in those briefs." She also said, "In an organization like PRLDEF, a board member's main responsibility is to fundraise."

THE FACTS: It's impossible to say, based on the records available, whether Sotomayor ever read those briefs. But she did head the group's litigation committee during a stretch when the group weighed in on several abortion cases.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Cesar Perales, the head of the legal advocacy group, said Sotomayor had no direct involvement with the group's legal activities.

"She was on the board of directors, she was not a member of the legal staff, so she was not directly involved in the legal arguments that we presented," Perales said. "Her role was to help us raise funds, set policy, hire the person who would run the organization."

The New York Times, in an article investigating Sotomayor's tenure with the group, reported that she was an active and ardent supporter of its legal efforts.

In her first year with the organization, and as one of 286 groups involved in the 1980 case, it is plausible that Sotomayor didn't have much to do with it. But abortion opponents have a point when they say Sotomayor must have known the general stance the group was repeatedly taking.

"It's mind-boggling for her to try to distance herself by saying she didn't read the brief," said Charmaine Yoest, head of Americans United for Life.

Sotomayor wasn't named anywhere in the brief. Did she know the group strongly favored abortion rights? Certainly. Did she know that lawyers used slavery to make their case? Impossible to say based on the information available.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_fact_check

If a GOP or conservative were in Sotomayor's place would the reaction be the same ?

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?