T'would seem we're about to see how much of a "feminist" Raunchy really is. Some Pro-Choice advocates are calling into question Sotomayor's stance on the right to abortion. At this point there seems to be no clear-cut evidence in her writing one way or another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss But isn't it an interesting test of just how "liberal" and "progressive" women like Raunchy really are? The thing I found most interesting in the article is that everyone has assumed that Obama (being Pro-Choice) would have picked a person whom he knew to agree with him. As it turns out, *he never asked the question*. That, to me, speaks highly of Barack Obama -- he is willing to appoint someone to office based on his assessment of who they are as a person, not on the basis of their political beliefs or party affiliation. My original assessment of Obama -- that he's a person who trusts a person to "do the right thing" as *they* see it more than one who trusts them to do it as *he* sees it is borne out yet again. (Think Hillary, and the job he offered her.) And I respect that in him. It's a pleasant change after decades of "Yes Man" appointments by both Republicans and Democrats. But would Raunchy agree? Let's say some writings turn up in the archives saying that Sotomayor is *not* firmly committed to upholding Roe v. Wade. Would Raunchy still be as in favor of her nomination as she was yesterday? Would she even consider her a woman any more? Are women in Raunchy's mind allowed to disagree with her and her causes and still be considered women? I think we've seen here on Fairfield Life that they are not; just look at how she has treated Sal, and the names she has called her when she agrees with one or more of the men here and did not "toe the radical feminist line." I think it'll be interesting to see how Raunchy "walks her talk" if the inevitable inquiry into Sotomayor's history turns up an ambivalence about whether the right to choice with regard to abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution. I think it'll be an interesting test of the media and people who blab on it, too. We'll get to see very clearly who is in favor of appointing people to high office on the basis of a long and noble career, whatever their personal beliefs, and who believe in appoint- ing them to those offices only if they agree with them. Obama is clearly in the first camp. My bet is that a lot of supposed liberals and supposed feminists on this forum are in the latter camp.
