B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
A Catholic high school praises an alumna in the news:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
She seems like a nice person. i am hoping she ends up being Obama’s “Souter”
L
livi
Guest
I hope she actually follows Catholic values instead of just being Catholic in name and then supporting things like abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
A South Bronx widow puts herself through nursing school and raises her two kids to be a doctor and a federal judge. Not too shabby.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Depends. It’d be damn shabby if she did all that work and then used her newfound powers for evil. After all, with great power comes great responsibility.
Yes, I just compared Sonia Sotomayor with Spider-Man. Which I guess casts Antonin Scalia as Uncle Ben and John Paul Stevens as Doc Ock. I would go on, but I can’t think of any good black characters in Spider-Man to whom I could compared Anthony Kennedy.
Yes, I just compared Sonia Sotomayor with Spider-Man. Which I guess casts Antonin Scalia as Uncle Ben and John Paul Stevens as Doc Ock. I would go on, but I can’t think of any good black characters in Spider-Man to whom I could compared Anthony Kennedy.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Look, for the next few months can you at least give my home girl the benefit of a doubt?
Let’s just praise Catholic education for a minute, OK?
S
Soutane
Guest
Do you think for one moment Obama would have nominated her if she was pro-life?Don’t be naiveLook, for the next few months can you at least give my home girl the benefit of a doubt?
Let’s just praise Catholic education for a minute, OK?
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Well, then why did George Bush name her to the federal court in the first place?
There are a number of pro-life appointees to the present administration, which has been discussed before. This thread is about good Catholic education.
E
estesbob
Guest
I dont think he knows. Bush thought Souter was pro-life and look what happened. Once they are on the court they can vote anyway they want and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
E
estesbob
Guest
I think a hispanic woman with a strong moral upbringing and 12 years of catholic education may very well be a pleasant suprise for pro-lifers.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath. How many years of Catholic education did Ted Kennedy have? Kathleen Sebelius? Nancy Pelosi? If they’re NeoDemocrats, odds are they’re pro-abortion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, and Notre Dame honored Obama. Spellman’s praise, in and of itself, means nothing.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Pelosi went to a Catholic high school but Sebelius and Kennedy did not.
There were no protesters at Spellman. I guess that differentiates it from ND, so it must mean something. The president was never a student at ND.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Oh, I am. This is time #2 where I agree with you, Beau. I have much less hope than you seem to (and I think I have sound rational basis to be dubious), but SCOTUS nominees have surprised before and she hasn’t ruled on abortion yet.Look, for the next few months can you at least give my home girl the benefit of a doubt?
She may yet prove to be the judge we’ve all been waiting for. I pray that our generousness is vindicated.
K
Kolbe300
Guest
Please, please, please let estesbob be right!!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps, given the example of Notre Dame, those who might have protested felt it likely they would be arrested and prosecuted if they did.
No, Obama was never a student at ND; only a teacher.
E
estesbob
Guest
Although Hispanics may lean Democrat they are overwhelingly pro-life. There is nothing in her backgound to give us an idea one or or theother where she will come donw on most issues-more or less life issues.Please, please, please let estesbob be right!!
Instead of condeming her just because Obama appointed her lets she what she actually does.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Rather than assume that Obama did not know her position on abortion and did not care enough to know it, I think it more reasonable to be skeptical, particularly when NARAL and every pro-abortion Democrat also favored her appointment.
K
Kolbe300
Guest
I totally agree with you. I am very hopeful that she can bring some much needed change. We’ll have to wait and see.
S
Soutane
Guest
Source: Amicus Brief Proves Sotomayor is Pro-Choice
May 29, 2009 05:17 PM ET | Bonnie Erbe | Permanent Link | Print
By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
"I have been told by a well-known leader of a major progressive women’s rights group that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is pro-choice. This leader has spoken with many of the judge’s associates and clerks over the years. While there is no one this person spoke with who confirmed he or she had had a conversation with Judge Sotomayor in which she self-identified as pro-choice, everyone my source spoke with said it was evident in her personality and attitude.
One person pointed my source to an important piece of evidence that serves to prove this point. In the late 1980s, Judge Sotomayor sat on the board of a group now called, Latino Justice. The group’s name at the time she was on the board was used the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
While she was on the board, PRLDEF joined with scores of other civil rights groups to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services:
In Webster, the court upheld a Missouri state ban on the use of public employees and facilities for performing abortions—effectively reversing course and demonstrating that Roe (v. Wade) wasn’t necessarily “settled law” that confined future revisions. The 5-to-4 vote found that Missouri law was in keeping with past rulings…which held that the “state need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions.”
PRLDEF and others filed that brief in support of the side that ultimately lost. But the brief argued, among other things, that if the Supreme Court were to use the Webster case to reverse Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion on a national scale, poor women of color would be disproportionately burdened by lack of access to abortion. It also said they would resort to more use of illegal abortions, as they did prior to the Roe decision.
If, as a member of PRLDEF’s board, Judge Sotomayor had objected to any of this language, she could have attempted to stop the group from lending its name to the amicus brief, and she did not.
Big sigh of relief from the pro-choice crowd!"
May 29, 2009 05:17 PM ET | Bonnie Erbe | Permanent Link | Print
By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
"I have been told by a well-known leader of a major progressive women’s rights group that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is pro-choice. This leader has spoken with many of the judge’s associates and clerks over the years. While there is no one this person spoke with who confirmed he or she had had a conversation with Judge Sotomayor in which she self-identified as pro-choice, everyone my source spoke with said it was evident in her personality and attitude.
One person pointed my source to an important piece of evidence that serves to prove this point. In the late 1980s, Judge Sotomayor sat on the board of a group now called, Latino Justice. The group’s name at the time she was on the board was used the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
While she was on the board, PRLDEF joined with scores of other civil rights groups to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services:
In Webster, the court upheld a Missouri state ban on the use of public employees and facilities for performing abortions—effectively reversing course and demonstrating that Roe (v. Wade) wasn’t necessarily “settled law” that confined future revisions. The 5-to-4 vote found that Missouri law was in keeping with past rulings…which held that the “state need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions.”
PRLDEF and others filed that brief in support of the side that ultimately lost. But the brief argued, among other things, that if the Supreme Court were to use the Webster case to reverse Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion on a national scale, poor women of color would be disproportionately burdened by lack of access to abortion. It also said they would resort to more use of illegal abortions, as they did prior to the Roe decision.
If, as a member of PRLDEF’s board, Judge Sotomayor had objected to any of this language, she could have attempted to stop the group from lending its name to the amicus brief, and she did not.
Big sigh of relief from the pro-choice crowd!"
- Status