Patrick J. Buchanan called Sonia Sotomayor a “Quota Queen for the Court.” Newt Gingrich called her a racist, then backed off; of course, Newt also said, “No group has benefited more from impartial justice than the less fortunate.”
Her controversial quote: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
My initial reaction was well, a non-reaction. I knew what she meant. When people who are the “other” in this society succeed, they’ve often learned to navigate both the majority culture as well as their own. For instance, I know there are things that I don’t have to endure because I’m a male. I don’t always know what they are, but I surely know they exist.
Lanny J. Davis in the Washington Times makes the case that in the “3,000 decisions in which Judge Sotomayor participated and the more than 400 opinions that she signed during her 12 years on the appeals court…in case-after-case, she has voted based on applying the law to the facts — even where the result is contrary to the expected ‘liberal’ ideological position…” He says further, “As to Judge Sotomayor’s statement…: The obvious answer is to view the statement in the broader context of what she meant — similar to what Judge Samuel A. Alito said during his confirmation hearings, i.e., that his background coming from an immigrant family would inevitably be ‘taken into account’ as he made his judicial decisions.”
So her “controversial” remark bothered me not at all. The use of the word “better” will be written off as a gaffe, which, politically, it was. She appears to be well-qualified and I imagine she’ll be confirmed.
Two news stories caught my attention this week, and both of them are tied to the Creation story in Genesis 1. I should note that I’ve read Genesis 1 a lot, not so much because of its specific significance as much as it is, well, “in the beginning.” I have endeavored to read the Bible all the way through a number of times, but succeeded only twice; in 1977, the King James version; and 1995-1996, the Revised Standard Version. Those failed attempts are not unlike those nine-cent first volumes of the encyclopedias that supermarkets used to sell, which, of course, contained everything one needed to know about the aardwolf and the abacus; I owned a lot of A sections. In fact Genesis 1, and the first three and a half verses of Genesis 2, made up the lectionary for this past Sunday. The lectionary, in case you are not familiar, is a methodology that the Church devised to read through much of the Bible over a three-year cycle. So, I don’t think it was mere coincidence that the Vatican scientist suggested last week that there is no conflict between believing in God and in the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers”. In other words, or more correctly, in other worlds in this vast universe, there may be similar Creations, with a similar contract between Creator and the life forms there, the Vatican scientist posits. Not so incidentally, it was in this most recent reading, in context with the Vatican pronouncement, that I fully realized just how much the Creation story implies an earth-centered universe. Verse 16 (NIV): “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” No wonder the views of Copernicus, greatly amplified by Galileo, seemed so heretical. In fact, it wasn’t until 1998 that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged it had been wrong about Galileo. The other news story was about the polar bear being added to the threatened species list in the U.S. If the Creator gave dominion of the creatures to humans, it came with responsibilities as well. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, the listing may mean little, since the White House says that pronouncement was not intended to address greenhouse gas emissions, apparently the polar bear’s real enemy. *** Make wearing a flag pin the 28th Amendment. *** Oh, no! I find myself largely agreeing with Pat Buchanan!
2. Cut/paste and send me the results (or post on your blog, and let me know in the comments section.)
3. Re-vote, but this time, indicate the intensity of your position.
4. Cut/paste and send me THOSE results (or post on your blog, and let me know in the comments section.)
Before revealing my picks, you’ll note that there is something called the Composite Candidate: “The calculator compiles the most popular responses from all voters to create a composite candidate, a candidate whose views match most with the average responses of users.”
Composite Candidate * Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) – 43.48% * Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) – 41.30% * Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) – 41.30% * Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) – 36.96% * Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) – 36.96% * New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) – 34.78% * Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) – 34.78% * New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) – 34.78% * Businessman John Cox (R) – 32.61% * Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) – 30.43% * Arizona Senator John McCain (R) – 28.26% * Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) – 28.26% * Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) – 28.26% * Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) – 28.26% * Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) – 26.09% * Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) – 23.91% * Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) – 21.74% * Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) – 21.74%
Now, here are my top selections, with no regard to intensity: Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) 100.00% match Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) – 94.74% Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) – 84.21% Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) – 78.95% Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) – 78.95% Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) – 78.95% New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) – 73.68% New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) – 73.68% Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) – 57.89% Businessman John Cox (R) – 47.37% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) – 42.11% Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) – 36.84% Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) – 31.58% Arizona Senator John McCain (R) – 26.32% Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) – 21.05% Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) – 21.05% Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) – 15.79% Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) – 15.79%
Whereas, when I add my intensity factors: Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) 96.88% match Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) – 81.25% New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) – 71.88% Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) – 68.75% Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) – 65.63% Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) – 65.63% Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) – 59.38% New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) – 56.25% Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) – 37.50% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) – 28.13% Businessman John Cox (R) – 25.00% Arizona Senator John McCain (R) – 25.00% Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) – 12.50% Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) – 9.38% Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) – 9.38% Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) – 9.38% California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) – 6.25% Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) – 6.25%
Strange: Kucinich and Gravel, the two guys left off some recent Iowa debate, switch for the top spot, Clinton (who I’ve never voted for) moves from 7th to 3rd, and Obama falls from 3rd to 6th, but the Top 7 are still the Top 7, with Richardson 8th in both scenarios. One thing is for sure: I won’t be voting for Tom Tancredo. Or for Sam Brownback, though I’d probably enjoy hanging out with him, based on his appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows.
A curious glitch: Duncan Hunter isn’t on the first list (or on the composite candidate roster), while Fred Thompson’s missing from the second. *** “In his new book, The Evangelical President, Bill Sammon paints a riveting portrait of a president who is as committed to worldwide democracy as he is to his faith—and guided by legitimate principles that his critics aren’t willing to understand. In this far-reaching book, Sammon details: Why Bush believes the Republicans will hold the White House in 2008″
