--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > 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. >
I'm sure there will be many questions Sotomayor will answer. We still don't know much about her. I'm crossing my fingers that she at least supports Roe v. Wade. I can't imagine she would not. > 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*. What?!!! He never asked the question? What a fucking weasel! I am certain that Obama had an entire team of advisers vetting candidates for SCOTUS down to the color of Sonia's fingernail polish. So for him to say he "never asked the question" may be true but his team knows damn well what her record is and so does he. He just never asked her directly. 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. Oh please! To me it speaks LOWLY of him. He is picking someone for SCOTUS who will likely be there long after he is out of office. How utterly irresponsible it would be for him to pick someone who does not share his values, unless he has no values. If what you say is true, anyone who voted for him should be hopping mad as hell. 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. IMO a president should not punt when it comes to making important decisions. (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. > I don't equate "Yes Men" who kiss ass with people who share ideological values and have a meeting of the minds. Hillary has liberal values and I hope Obama does as well so that they can agree on policy based on a liberal POV. > 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? Of course I would not favor her nomination. Would she even > consider her a woman any more? Are you nuts? Do you think Sonia is into getting a sex change? Are women in > Raunchy's mind allowed to disagree with her and > her causes and still be considered women? What a whopper! 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." > Hey, stupid is stupid. Gender doesn't figure into it. > 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. > Please! Again? Of course I wouldn't support her. FYI abortion is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Roe overturned state laws against abortion because they violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. > 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. If Obama is in the first camp he is an empty-suited duffus who doesn't care what the hell happens to our country. > My bet is that a lot of supposed liberals > and supposed feminists on this forum are > in the latter camp. You betcha. I care what happens to our country and I rely on Obama to choose people who have liberal values to promote a liberal agenda. To do otherwise, betrays of the people who voted for him.
