Dan Gilgoff says she might surprise both conservatives and liberals. Excerpt:
On the crucial issue of abortion, however, Sotomayor--a U.S. appeals court judge who previously served as a federal district judge--is largely a blank slate. "Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional," according to a recent Americans United for Life analysis.Despite the purported outrage by conservative groups, Sotomayor's thin record on abortion is most likely a relief to those groups--and may actually wind up making abortion-rights groups anxious. In light of today's AUL statement, for instance, it may come as a surprise that Sotomayor receives the kindest treatment of nine potential Obama Supreme Court nominations the group examined.
Steve Waldman has even more on this point, citing two decisions of hers that went in favor of pro-lifers (though to be sure, neither case had anything to do with the constitutionality of abortion). Like Steve, I find it hard to believe Obama would have nominated her without being fairly confident that she is pro-choice. Still, there may be more to Sotomayor than either side thinks.
Did you know that if she's confirmed, that will mean there six Roman Catholics on the court? TMatt wonders if her religious background would have been mentioned higher up in reporting if she were known as a pro-lifer.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Roland,
I beg to differ.
The Roman Catholic Church -- or at least its hierarchy -- is equally as selective in its adherence to Scripture and Tradition as any other group of clergy, including the leftist faction within the Episcopal Church.
The leftist faction within the Episcopal Church -- bad-joke that it is -- has ever done anything half so unconscionable as engage in wholesale molestation of children and/or wholesale covering-up of those who have molested children.
The RC clergy are not as much a bad-joke as the Episcopalian left, since they are not a joke at all.
Molestation of children is no laughing matter.
I would much rather associate myself with a church tainted by one king's "lust" for his several wives than with one tainted by the lust of hundreds of priests for thousands of pre-pubescent boys -- and lust which manifested itself five-hundred years ago, but rather lust which is manifesting itself somewhere or other *right now,* even as I type.
As for your contention that the Anglican Church *has* no teachings, that is an equally ignorant and risible contention as it would be to contend that Pope Benedict spends his time hawking "indulgences" and Saintly "relics" made from chicken bones to theologically illiterate Sicilian peasants.
In any event, the Anglican Church's teachings are solid enough at least to be a d*mn sight more effective than the Roman Catholic Church's at keeping our clergymen's hands out of little boys' pants.
Which is not "of course" to imply that those very same RC clergymen speaking to Him in textbook Latin are not humanity's one and only "true" means of access to God.
In closing, does your attempt to sunder Roman Catholic "teaching" from the Roman Catholic clergy not strike you as a contradiction?
Why couldn't one just read the catechism for oneself -- Protestant-style -- if the Church's "teaching" is what really matters and not its clergy -- such that, say, child molestation by that clergy does nothing to detract one whit from even the lay Roman Catholic's prerogative to hurl most uncharitable and most un-Christian abuse at those whose own clergy has engaged in no such moral obscenity, however sinful that clergy may be, like everyone else (including the Pope).
@12:06 PM
Who said anything about supporting anyone? I was just saying that the pro-life movement's political actions have been a failure for 30 years.
well if there is no need to change who we support than there is no point in commenting on our political actions. by most account we are one vote away from over turning Roe. having large swaths of the pro-life movement suddenly reevaluate their voting preferences and Obama appointing the next three justices isn't going to get us any closer.
who spends their time surfing the internet to make snarky comments about a small movement that is trying to stand up for the most vulnerable and is universally reviled by the media, academia and most politicians. what is the motivation? the small possibility that years from now roe will be overturned and ten-15 states might implement some laws that makes having an abortion have the moral gravity of getting your ears pierced. what good are you doing? what are you trying to compensate for?
I can't see it happening, but if Sotomayor turns out to be even somewhat "pro-life" then it's curtains for the GOP. It would be Obama's boldest and shrewdest move yet.
Beaumont George,
I think at this point the discussion has veered into the acrimonious and would better be better honoured in its termination than continuance.
I repeat that I share your outrage at the behaviour of priests and prelates who have violated both the laws of God and man. Beyond that, most of our exchange has been mere shadow boxing. Let us retire yet unscathed to our corners. If Mrs. Windsor and Mr. Ratzinger want to duke it out, I'd pay for a seat at that bout.