Let’s say you have an uneducated, absolutely impoverished slave population. Then there is a proclamation that ends slavery. If you leave it there, nothing will change, for socio-economic relations would not have changed.

Social revolutions (like the American revolution) require social and economic changes, not just legal ones.

You have to redistribute wealth (and this too is FRAUGHT with danger, but it is NECESSARY): some of the land has to be taken from the land owners and given to the slaves; and some of the capital produced by the slave economy has to be taken out of the bank accounts of the ex-slave owners and given to the ex-slaves so they can begin their own businesses and run their own farms.

Affirmative action is part of this re-adjustment that must take place as we continue to sort out the social revolution called “the Civil War” and the “Ending of Slavery”.

If white racist public institutions and private businesses had not been REQUIRED to hire a certain number of blacks, or if white schools had not been REQUIRED to allow black students or hire black teachers, they NEVER WOULD HAVE.

Race MUST be taken into account as we re-dress the wrongs done to the black slaves because RACE was TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT in their oppression in the first place.

The problem arises as we continue to figure out how to do this as society changes; and NOW it IS a bit more difficult to decide when and how and if affirmative action must apply. And there are good arguments on both sides. But to oppose it ON PRINCIPLE (as if it were, in principle, “reverse racism”) is to be, at best, historically and socio-economicaly naive.

Let’s say you have an uneducated, absolutely impoverished slave population. Then there is a proclamation that ends slavery. If you leave it there, nothing will change, for socio-economic relations would not have changed.

Social revolutions (like the American revolution) require social and economic changes, not just legal ones.

You have to redistribute wealth (and this too is FRAUGHT with danger, but it is NECESSARY): some of the land has to be taken from the land owners and given to the slaves; and some of the capital produced by the slave economy has to be taken out of the bank accounts of the ex-slave owners and given to the ex-slaves so they can begin their own businesses and run their own farms.

Affirmative action is part of this re-adjustment that must take place as we continue to sort out the social revolution called “the Civil War” and the “Ending of Slavery”.

If white racist public institutions and private businesses had not been REQUIRED to hire a certain number of blacks, or if white schools had not been REQUIRED to allow black students or hire black teachers, they NEVER WOULD HAVE.

Race MUST be taken into account as we re-dress the wrongs done to the black slaves because RACE was TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT in their oppression in the first place.

The problem arises as we continue to figure out how to do this as society changes; and NOW it IS a bit more difficult to decide when and how and if affirmative action must apply. And there are good arguments on both sides. But to oppose it ON PRINCIPLE (as if it were, in principle, “reverse racism”) is to be, at best, historically and socio-economicaly naive.

That's not the sort of state I wish to live in.

“What is the proper reaction to a series of allegations that are written based purely on speculation? In my hyperbole above…..”

And nicely done, too. Ever since I started reading this blog, I was struck by the fact that no matter what the topic, somebody shows up to accuse Wallis of being … are you ready…. a Democrat. Apparently for some posters, if you vote Republican or disagree with President Obama, your politics has been informed by your fine and true principles. But if you vote Democrat or agree with a decision that President Obama makes, your principles have been compromised by your politics.

Jane

Did your high school English teacher ever introduce the term hyperbole? As I read all of the negative comments about Rev. Wallis's post, there were repeated themes offered without the accompanying presentation of one shred of evidence and I began to wonder if the bloggers had read the same post as I had or if they were simply regurgitating something they had heard on Hate Radio.
For example:

1. Wallis had to have prior knowledge of the appointment because he could not possibly have written his piece so quickly after the announcement.

2. Someone else wrote this for Wallis because it just doesn't sound like his words.

3. Wallis is in Obama's pocket.

4. Wallis wrote a fluff piece.

In fact, here is a breakdown of what he wrote:

1 paragraph on the reaction of Sotomayor's mother.
2 paragraphs about her academic and judicial background.
1 paragraph about her abortion decision.
1 paragraph about her rulings on free speech.
1 paragraph about other decisions.
1 paragraph about possible Republican reaction.
1 paragraph about prayer for wisdom.

What is the proper reaction to a series of allegations that are written based purely on speculation? In my hyperbole above (I hope you've looked it up by now), I attempted to link those allegations to equally stupid historical events and to point out how much they resemble the witch hunts conducted by Joe McCarthy (when I was a kid).

There will be plenty of time between now and her confirmation vote to thoroughly examine Sotomayor's judicial credentials. If, after that process, you and others decide to oppose her selection, you are certainly free to do so, and you will be free to write about it here at this site. I am not encouraged by the level of discourse following Wallis's initial submission.

By the way, “your” indicates possessive; “you're” is the short version of you are. (I learned that in a public school.)

Sister Marie

As for the rest of your post, please read what you wrote and reflect on the value of what you wrote and more importantly how you phrased it. If your happy with it, fine.

I am in full agreement that one issue should not be a “litmus test” by which an elected or appointed official can be judged. I am in a “wait and see” mode on Sotomayor at this point: while an historic nomination, I will wait to see what comes out in her confirmation hearings before rendering any kind of decision (not that I have any sort of voice in the matter). I can only hope that wisdom will guide this decision, not partisanship.

“Why can't we expect the Senate to carefully review the nominee in a fair and throrough manner and consent or not consent?”

In a perfect world, that is exactly what would happen. The whole process has become so politicized that it's very difficult for judges to be approved at any level unless they are very bland and / or have left no trail.

Judge Sotomayor seems very middle-of-the-road, and if appointed, will not likely change the balance of the Court. I don't understand the knee-jerk screaming opposition from some Republicans, unless they were hoping for an even more rightward shift on the Supreme Court.

Jane

You are correct in that there were White House meetings leading up to the eventual selection of Sotomayor. However, I found nothing in the article in which the meeting participants were “pointedly told not to oppose his nominee to the SC.” (How could they oppose his nominee if they were unaware of who that nominee was?)

The closest excerpt that I could find in that article was the following:

“Hoping to shut off as much outside pressure as possible, the White House summoned leaders of liberal groups for a series of meetings, at the White House and elsewhere. The deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, issued the edict about not floating names through the news media or engaging in daily battles about the pros and cons of various candidates, warning that it would be “counterproductive,” participants said.”

Now, Reverend Wallis, you can quickly end all further discussion on this blog by answering this question: Were you one of the attendees at that meeting? There are lots of people here who would swear on a stack of bibles that you were there, sitting right on the front row and that you might even be in bed with the president, or that you might be in his pocket. Now I know that there are over 400 books written on the JFK assassination and there are all kinds of theories about people of a certain ethnic group did not go to work on 9/11, and that Obama is not really a citizen of the United States. But this is one mystery that need not remain a mystery. You can clear this up by answering one simple question: Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Oops, wrong question – same kind though. Did you attend that meeting at the White House and did you have prior knowledge of Obama's selection. Or in the words of Senator Howard Baker, “what did you know and when did you know it?”

So has Jim Wallis moved on to being in the pocket of Obama out of partisanship or because of self-preservation?

I believe that the final vote will lie somewhere in the range of Thurgood Marshall's confirmation (69-11 with 20 senators not voting) and that for John Roberts (78-22). And I think that most of the votes to oppose her will be from the same section of the country that opposed Thurgood Marshall.

“Fact: Sotomayor was confirmed for her present position by a Senate that included 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. The vote was 67-29. All Democrats and 25 Republicans supported her. Of the 29 Republicans who opposed her, 11 are still in the Senate.”
–Relatively speaking, that's about as contentious and non-bipartisan as a confirmation vote for a judge can get.

Fact: Sotomayor was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. District Court in 1992 by a Senate that included 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans.

Fact: Sotomayor was confirmed for her present position by a Senate that included 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. The vote was 67-29. All Democrats and 25 Republicans supported her. Of the 29 Republicans who opposed her, 11 are still in the Senate.

Yes, jeffp, I know that presenting facts in the place of unsubstantiated allegations once more places me “over the top.” But I still prefer facts.

Exit question: if a conservative judge were nominated under similar circumstances by a Democratic president and conservatives claimed that the judge had “bi-partisan support,” do you really think liberals wouldn't cry foul??

Actually he was .