"Kyl’s Same Old Bag Of Tricks: Accuses Kagan Of Lying, Just Like He Did With Sotomayor"
In a desperate, last-minute ploy to scuttle Justice Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) falsely accused her of perjuring herself before the Senate Judicary Committee:
Later in her hearing, Judge Sotomayor gave the following testimony: “I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statues. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws except in the situations where American law directs the court.” While this kind of declarative statement would normally provide some measure of comfort, it is belied by words Judge Sotomayor uttered less than three months ago, that judges were “commanded” to look to “persuasive” sources, including foreign law, in interpreting our own law. [...]
It gives me great pause that Judge Sotomayor could say one thing at a public speech earlier this year and say the opposite while under oath before the Judiciary Committee, especially since she never repudiated her speech.
Now, as Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is just as certain to be confirmed, Kyl is apparently just as desperate. In what will likely be his final floor speech on Kagan’s nomination, Kyl once again falsely accused a Supreme Court nominee of lying:
In explaining why I could not vote for now-Justice Sotomayor, I said I thought she was disingenuous with the Judiciary Committee. Obviously reaching such a conclusion precludes support notwithstanding other qualifications for the position. Reluctantly, after analysis of her testimony, weighed with her past writings, statements and actions, I have reached the same conclusion regarding Elena Kagan.
Kyl then proceededd to recite a long list of mythical claims about Kagan, and argue that she must have been lying at her confirmation hearing because her testimony does not square with the right’s mythology. “Exhibit A” of his case against Kagan, for example is that she claims to be in favor of gay rights, but she really has no objections to a anti-gay tenets of “Shariah law.” “Exhibit B” is that she claims to not be a judicial activist, even though she had the audacity to praise legal legend and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And so forth.
This tactic did not work when Sotomayor was up for a vote, and it will not work now. Kyl needs to learn that there is nothing “disingenuous” about refusing to confess to an absurd list of trumped up charges again you.