Yet another demonstration of Barry's incredibly sloppy, shallow thinking: --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > T'would seem we're about to see how much of a > "feminist" Raunchy really is.
Actually we have no idea if we're going to see that, even on Barry's own dopey terms, as he himself goes on to point out: 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? How could it be any kind of "test" as long as we don't have any clear-cut evidence one way or the other? And how much of a "test" would it be if some clear- cut evidence emerges that Sotomayor is strongly pro- choice? 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. Not everyone has assumed that, not by a long shot. 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. Another possibility is that he figured his chances of getting his nominee confirmed would be better if she didn't already have a strong pro-choice record (or pro-life record, for that matter). Somehow I don't think Barry even considered that. <snip> > 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? Why on earth should she be? What would it say about Raunchy if she wouldn't? 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? Uh-oh, Barry's flipping out again. > 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." Nothing to do with not considering Sal a woman. <duh> > 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. Actually it's not "guaranteed in the Constitution," certainly not explicitly. And again, what exactly would constitute Raunchy "walking her talk"? > 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. Earth to Barry: Sotomayor is not the only well- qualified woman available for the seat on the court. Several of those who were in the running are solidly pro-choice. Only if you could demonstrate that Sotomayor is the *best*-qualified of any of them would your "test" make the slightest bit of sense. If there are others who are equally qualified *and* pro-choice, that poor "test" goes right down the crapper. (And BTW, there is no "female seat" on the Supreme Court as far as the Constitution is concerned, any more than there's a "black seat." While it's obviously a Good Thing to have as much diversity as possible on the court, if I had to decide between a strogly pro-choice man and a strongly pro-life woman to fill Souter's seat, I'd go for the former.)
