Sonia Sotomayer

[Didymus]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1875678' date='May 26 2009, 01:42 PM']I woke up this morning and read that she had been nominated. First thing I did was googled to see if I could figure out her stance and how radical she actually is. You just can't find anything on her.

She ruled against a "pro-choice" group:
[url="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/sotomayor----her-record-on-abo.html"]http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/20...ord-on-abo.html[/url]

That is the only move she had made concerning abortion. Obama wouldn't elect a judge who was in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but I would rather someone who appears less radical get it then him nominate someone else who might even be worse.[/quote]

Amen! My thoughts exactly..

[dUSt]

I can't find any hard evidence of her being pro-choice. I can't find any evidence of her being pro-life either. In fairness, she was originally appointed by Bush #1.

I can't find any hard evidence that she's Catholic either.

For the most part, she's a mystery.

[CatherineM]

I had thought he might appoint a law school professor just because they would have no previous judicial decisions on which to be questioned. There are probably a thousand researchers digging through every decision, speech, and paper she has ever written. Wonder what her high school term papers were on?

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1875689' date='May 26 2009, 02:00 PM']I can't find any hard evidence that she's Catholic either.[/quote]

Well she is Hispanic, is from the Bronx, and attended Catholic schools growing up. She was most likely raised Catholic.

[dUSt]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1875710' date='May 26 2009, 02:22 PM']Well she is Hispanic, is from the Bronx, and attended Catholic schools growing up. She was most likely raised Catholic.[/quote]
Yes, and we all know that there are a million people with this exact same story who are no longer practicing Catholics.

[Didacus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1875626' date='May 26 2009, 12:20 PM']Racist comments may turn some of the pro-choice senators.[/quote]

How would this matter?

If not her, someone else will be presented and will represent the same ideals. Obama will get what Obama wants in the end; there can be no other conclusion.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1875713' date='May 26 2009, 02:25 PM']Yes, and we all know that there are a million people with this exact same story who are no longer practicing Catholics.[/quote]

Very true. She probably isn't.

[AbsconditaInDeo]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1875721' date='May 26 2009, 03:31 PM']If not her, someone else will be presented and will represent the same ideals. Obama will get what Obama wants in the end; there can be no other conclusion.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

Also, I don't know much about this woman but at the same time it could be worse.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1875721' date='May 26 2009, 01:31 PM']How would this matter?

If not her, someone else will be presented and will represent the same ideals. Obama will get what Obama wants in the end; there can be no other conclusion.[/quote]

It might allow the Republicans to delay her confirmation. That kind of thing has happened before, and eventually they withdraw the name. I don't know enough about the woman to say one way or the other if we should oppose her confirmation.

I'm kind of funny. I think justices should be nominated who are the best qualified for the job, not the best qualified woman or minority or pro-death penalty, or whatever the issue de jure. I think we should care about their knowledge of the constitution, and their wisdom, and their ability to remain impartial from the bench.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1875756' date='May 26 2009, 07:59 PM']I'm kind of funny. I think justices should be nominated who are the best qualified for the job, not the best qualified woman or minority or pro-death penalty, or whatever the issue de jure. I think we should care about their knowledge of the constitution, and their wisdom, and their ability to remain impartial from the bench.[/quote]
I agree.

[dominicansoul]

i hate that word, "minority." i never like being clumped into that classification...


i think it's ridiculous how this is such big news..."The First Latina" whatever...who cares? I get sick of all the emphasis on characteristics that don't really matter...

[The Bus Station]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1875793' date='May 26 2009, 03:17 PM']i think it's ridiculous how this is such big news..."The First Latina" whatever...who cares? I get sick of all the emphasis on characteristics that don't really matter...[/quote]

totally agree.

"First black president" takes the cake.

[kujo]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1875793' date='May 26 2009, 05:17 PM']i hate that word, "minority." i never like being clumped into that classification...


i think it's ridiculous how this is such big news..."The First Latina" whatever...who cares? I get sick of all the emphasis on characteristics that don't really matter...[/quote]

I actually think it does matter, to a certain extent. There is a perception by some "minorities" (and women) that they are always represented by old white dudes who may or may not have any stake or real grasp on what affects them. So it's important when a woman breaks through a glass ceiling (i.e.- first Secretary of State, first Speaker of the House, etc.). It's similarly important when an African-American or a Hispanic person achieves this goal.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1875689' date='May 26 2009, 12:00 PM']For the most part, she's a mystery.[/quote]+J.M.J.+
she won't be for long.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kujo' post='1875828' date='May 26 2009, 04:35 PM']I actually think it does matter, to a certain extent. There is a perception by some "minorities" (and women) that they are always represented by old white dudes who may or may not have any stake or real grasp on what affects them. So it's important when a woman breaks through a glass ceiling (i.e.- first Secretary of State, first Speaker of the House, etc.). It's similarly important when an African-American or a Hispanic person achieves this goal.[/quote]

that's pretty sad, but i think you are right. i was watching the media's propaganda tonite, and they kept emphasizing how many young women in the bronx seem to be happier in their lives now just because obama selected a puerto rican woman from their area...

i was like, "oh brother..."

[CatherineM]

Well, she's probably a Yankees fan.

[she_who_is_not]

Don't know much.
She is definitely of the Realist school. I haven't read any of her opinions but I rarely venture into the 2nd circuit.
Probably better than Kagan or Woods.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1875911' date='May 26 2009, 08:42 PM']Well, she's probably a Yankees fan.[/quote]

That would certainly be one of my pre-reqs if I were President

[Socrates]

It's a given that Obama would nominate only pro-abortion liberals. No shock there.
With Obama, it's only a question of [i]how [/i]bad his nominations will be.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I’m not really one that likes to make political statements. I generally watch what’s going on and remain pretty quiet. Mostly it’s because I’m not exactly politically inclined or educated. But I have some thoughts tonight about Obama’s nominee and the politics surrounding her nomination. I just ask that you remember that I’m not a political science major, nor do I follow politics all that closely. I happened to enjoy our time spent on the Supreme Court during AP Government, so I take a special interest in these events. (Heck, I got to hear Justice Scalia speak at the University of Portland during my senior year of high school. It was awesome.)

I’m going to be frank here: This nomination is disconcerting to me. Not merely because, from what I’ve read, Sotomayor is an activist who judges with political agendas in mind. That’s concerning. I favor judges with a more constitutionalist view of their role as judges. Not merely because, from what I’ve read, Sotomayor is also considered to be far left on the political spectrum. That’s worrisome, but to be expected. I doubt it changes the composition of the Supreme Court anyways, from what I know of Souter. So, it’s not exactly a huge blow to the life movement, although it’s not helpful by any means.

No, all of that is worrisome to some extent… but what really, really worries me is that Sotomayor is Catholic. The timing of her nomination by Obama does not seem to me to be coincidence.

Consider the recent events: The Notre Dame scandal, the Georgetown affair, and the constant debate about political candidates and their ability to receive Holy Communion. There’s been quite the uproar about these issues, both in the blogosphere and the secular media alike. I fear that the Obama administration is taking full advantage of the political events and doing their best to continue to split the Church and undermine the authority of the Bishops and of Rome, while American Catholics are forced to ask themselves: What is our identity? Who are we first: Catholics, or Americans? And perhaps even more frightening, is it possible to be both Catholic and a free American?

There is no doubt that there is a very upsetting split in those who consider themselves Catholics in America nowadays. The media has caught on (the ‘Washington Post’ had an article about just last week: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501390_pf.html)"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...501390_pf.html)[/url]. And of course the leftists are praised for their diversity, tolerance, ‘mutual dialogue’, etc, etc even, perhaps most especially, in direct contradiction to the US Bishops and the teachings of the Church. The ‘ultra-conservatives’ are given a bad rap for being intolerant, extreme, and judgmental. The question has arisen: Who is a real Catholic? Can political liberals, those who disregard the Church’s teachings, who disobey their bishops, still consider themselves ‘real’ Catholics? But even those questions aren’t quite that simple, either. Why? Because even the bishops themselves seem to contradict themselves in their statements.

The Church appears to be divided. It’s quarreling amongst itself and I think that’s exactly what the Obama administration wants. Obama got lucky when the Notre Dame situation fell into his lap. He didn’t even have to ask for it—Fr. Jenkins handed it to him. You don’t think that this was beneficial for Obama? When your enemy is fighting against itself, it can’t exactly fight you properly, now can it? Besides, it’s another excuse to bash and harass those evil conservative Catholics and the Church in its medieval mind.

Elevating a public official that proclaims the name Catholic but still holds to the leftist political platform is, I hate to say, a brilliant move by Obama. Guaranteed (and it has already started) there’s going to be an uproar about Sotomayor calling herself Catholic. And what’s more, having such a plethora of Catholic support, the Obama administration and the secular media alike, can claim the support of the Church. And when the non-educated and non-catechized hear the media talking, what do you think they’re going to assume? That’s it’s ‘okay’ to be both Catholic and pro-choice. And those who already think that, will feel empowered, as though they’ve won somesort of victory.

Call me paranoid, but I see this as a direct attack against the Church. “A house divided against itself…”

I don’t know what the answer is. I really don’t. We must proclaim the Truth. But it seems as though by doing that, we only further Obama’s goal. John 15:18. “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.” And John 15:20 “No slave is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”

Yet what of this division, this dispute on the ‘real’ identity of who is Catholic and who is not? Now, obviously it is true that those who hold pro-choice positions and those who disregard the just commands of their bishops and those who completely disregard the Church’s teachings are in serious sin. And when these people are in public positions they give rise to serious scandal. Is it time, then, to publicly excommunicate these individuals?

Matthew 18:15-17

“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

I don’t know.

But I see now as a call to arms, a time for battle. We must proclaim the Truth with more vigor and zeal than every before. We must catechize our children (and even our adults). And do not fear—the Church will not be overpowered by all of this. She will not be defeated. But she will be persecuted. And we should be prepared for it. It’s coming. It’s here.