--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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 consider this a sane and balanced answer. > > > I can't imagine she would not. > > This I do not. Your lack of imagination > reflects poorly only on yourself, not on > Sotomayor.
Barry (the professional writer) is apparently unaware that "I can't imagine..." is a figure of speech. Not only that, reading it literally would contradict what Raunchy said that Barry approves of, i.e., that she's "crossing her fingers." There would be no reason for her to cross her fingers if she literally couldn't imagine Sotomayor not supporting Roe v. Wade. > > > 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! > > This is an equally unsane response in my > opinion. It brings us back to previous > arguments on this forum between those who > are committed to reliance on axioms and > those who are committed to "doing the > right thing," as it appears to be the > right thing at the time, even if that > goes against an axiom they believe in > generally. Note that Barry cleverly snipped the rest of the paragraph: "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." In other words, the line Barry did quote is sarcastic. But he took it dead seriously. > I am of the opinion that the former approach > (relying on axioms or dogma or moral codes > exclusively) is equivalent to fundamentalism. > And that thus it is not a Good Thing. Which has ZERO to do with the issue in question. In Barry's formulation, judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, would be fundamentalists by definition; it would be a job requirement, since they're supposed to rule according to established law and the Constitution. According to Barry, the entire U.S. judiciary process is Not a Good Thing. <snip> > I believe that Raunchy's characterization of Obama > as a "weasel" for not asking Sotomayor what she > would do in a theoretical situation reveals more > about her than it does either Obama or Sotomayor. > Raunchy, by saying this, is positioning herself > *as* a fundamentalist, one who believes that it > is acceptable and in fact a Good Thing to demand > that the people one appoints to the Supreme Court > believe in the same axioms that you do, and that > they are prepared to act on those axioms, regard- > less of other concerns that appear "in the moment" > that a decision must be made. Even if Raunchy had been serious in calling Obama a "weasel" for not asking Sotomayor her position on abortion, Barry's thesis makes no sense whatsoever. The "theoretical situation" in question is whether Sotomayor would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Such a ruling would have nothing to do with "concerns that appear 'in the moment.'" > Obama is beyond that. My assessment of the man > is that he does not allow such petty "You have > to believe the things I believe and commit to > doing them or you can't work for me" concerns > to dictate his choices as to nominees for public > office. The concerns that dictated his choice of Sotomayor had to do with whether she'd be likely to be confirmed by the Senate. Her lack of a track record concerning abortion--i.e., nothing either way for liberal or conservative senators to object to--was a major factor in her favor. > That kind of person I trust with the reins of > government. Someone who would only act on the > basis of some deeply-held belief about the > nature of reality and how one "should" act in > every situation is IMO incapable of *seeing* > reality. And that person I wouldn't trust > with my dog, much less my government. In that case, Barry should be a huge fan of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who were more than willing to chuck the axioms of the U.S. Constitution based on "concerns of the moment."
