Get E-Mail Updates

Judge Sotomayor's Nomination

This morning I was touched and blessed by the tears of a Puerto Rican immigrant grandmother. She came to the U.S. in the midst of World War II and served in the Women's Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her husband died while her children were young, and she worked hard as a nurse to raise her two children in a South Bronx housing project in New York City. She instilled in her children a belief in the power and importance of education, and her son, Juan, went on to graduate from medical school and is now a physician in Syracuse, New York.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Her daughter, Sonia, was high school class valedictorian, graduated from Princeton and then from Yale Law School. Today, a mother's tears told volumes of an American story as her daughter, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, was nominated to become the first Latina justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Her story and rise through the judicial system are powerful examples of an American story. She will bring more federal judicial experience to the court than any justice in 100 years. Originally nominated to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush, and then later to the Second Circuit Court by President Bill Clinton, she has received bipartisan support from politicians and bipartisan praise from her peers.

For those who have been looking for more evidence of President Obama's common-ground approach to the issue of abortion outlined last week at Notre Dame, here it is. As a judge, she has participated in more than 3,000 panel decisions and authored almost 400 opinions and only ruled once on the issue of abortion. In that case she wrote from a centrist position and ruled against a pro-choice organization. Many other possible nominations could have been a slap in the face to either side, but the president used this as an opportunity to further his common-ground approach.

But her nomination process should be about much more than abortion. The country has spent too much time reducing the Supreme Court to a proxy battle over just one issue. Issues of human rights, executive power, civil liberties, racial justice, environmental protection, and other pressing issues of our time are at stake. Judge Sotomayor has already shown strong support for racial equality. Groups on both sides have used judicial nominations as an opportunity for fundraising appeals while progress is waiting to be made on actually reducing the number of abortions.

In leaked talking points from the Republican National Committee, party members were asked to be "fair" and to avoid "partisanship and knee-jerk judgments." I certainly hope this is true -- in contrast to early reports that Republican leaders had been hoping to use any nominee for partisan ends.

The religious community should be encouraged to see the nomination of a judge with a strong history of upholding and interpreting the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution to ensure religious liberties while still respecting the Establishment Clause. She has protected the rights of a rabbi to display a menorah on public property and in favor of inmates' religious expression. In one case that is of particular interest to those concerned with religious hiring protections, she wrote a dissenting opinion that argued against undue government intrusion into religious matters and institutions. She wrote in her opinion, "Federal court entanglement in matters as fundamental as a religious institution's selection or dismissal of its spiritual leaders risks an unconstitutional trespass on the most spiritually intimate ground of a religious community's existence."

Over the course of the coming weeks, the U.S. Senate will review Judge Sotomayor's record and credentials and seek to understand her judicial philosophy. I pray for the wisdom of our elected officials and for a healthy process in which tough questions can be asked and answered. There are good Christians who will agree and disagree on her nomination, but we can all be impressed and encouraged by the answered prayers and dreams of an immigrant grandmother from Puerto Rico.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: ourfoundingtruth

05-26-2009 @ 8:35pm

The religious community should be encouraged to see the nomination of a judge with a strong history of upholding and interpreting the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution to ensure religious liberties while still respecting the Establishment Clause.>

How has this woman respected the establishment clause, and what does that have to do with her rulings blatantly violating the Law of Nature, thereby the Constitution?

But her nomination process should be about much more than abortion.>

What is more important than prohibiting the death of babies? The scriptures are clear; life begins at conception, Jesus, and the Constitution, affirming it. The Constitution is founded on Natural Law., so when the preamble says "life" it means at conception.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library and research the life and 3000 rulings of the Judge so he could make a prompt report to us affirming Mr. Obama's faithful service. Fast research!!!!!!!

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:50pm

"Issues of human rights, executive power, civil liberties, racial justice, environmental protection, and other pressing issues of our time are at stake."

Yes, it does seem the Congress may need to legislate in these areas; and the Executive will need to administer these laws and regulations.

I would prefer the Court attend to the Constitution and legal rulings.

And of course abortion should be addressed in our conversations with our neighbors.

by: 1Grace

05-26-2009 @ 9:08pm

Ourfoundingtruth,

Give the lady a chance . Their is a process where people ask the right questions. Hopefully it will be more civil then what happened to Roberts and the others in the last administration. But why attack and follow that method , Jim Wallis is right on that point . I am not saying president Obama could not have made a mistake , and blindly support the woman . But give her a chance . What a great American story regardless.

by: SisterMarie

05-26-2009 @ 11:02pm

"I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library..."

That's the kind of snide remark that I have come to expect from you. Anyone with half a brain was well aware of the short list of names that have been bandied about since Justice Souter announced his decision to retire. Judge Sotomayor was high on that list and anyone who was interested had plenty of time to research the judicial history of each of them. So in response to your sarcastic remark, "Fast Research" , my response is no, it was not fast research

by: xfree9

05-26-2009 @ 11:26pm

Whatever the case with Sotomayor, I hope she respects her oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's what we should ask for, and it's what we should feel confident she will do.

by: ando

05-26-2009 @ 11:41pm

Or, it could be that since Mr. Wallis is to Barack Obama, as James Dobson was to George W. Bush, Jim had the inside track to the decision.

Your sarcasm and bitterness is getting a little over the top. Perhaps one day you'll have something pertinent to say.

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 1:27am

Speak for yourself.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 2:20am

I certainly admit my words can be snide and I seek to not do so. The comment was meant to bite a bit--but it does not come without love. I fully respect Mr Wallis but his proximity to Mr Obama has resulted in a series of posts here, that if you have not noticed, pop up almost immediately upon the action/decision/announcement made by the administration; and don't read anything like what I might expect from a non-partisan prophetic voice.

The 'snide' was not meant as 'snide' but as "I really don't buy it." I question if Mr Wallis even does the primary writing for these kinds of posts. I just have trouble hearing his voice it them.

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 2:52am

"Originally nominated to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush, and then later to the Second Circuit Court by President Bill Clinton, she has received bipartisan support from politicians and bipartisan praise from her peers."
--This has become a Democratic talking point, but you know by now that Bush Sr. didn't nominate her. She was nominated as part of a deal worked out between the two NY senators.

Her nomination is most certainly a crass political move to 1) appoint a woman and 2) appoint an Hispanic to the bench. She is widely thought of as being the most liberal of Obama's short list of nominees.

Jim, you've said on several occasions that Christians should not be in any politician's or party's pocket. Since Obama was elected, you have publicly endorsed, championed, and praised his every speech and policy proposal. Yet you have criticized nothing.

If this isn't being in Obama's pocket, what is?? Do you ever plan on criticizing anything that he does?

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 3:58am

That is a really wise and loving response.

I always wanted someone to respond to me like that. I like this feature of conversing with myself!

Actually, I thought I'd back off my criticism. I think Jim W is carving out a different kind of relationship with this administration. I would like to hear him reflect more about that. Right or wrong, the way I hear him is different. I have expected Sojo and him to help facilitate a non-partisan, critically reflective dialogue. I think they have shifted away from that goal and just believe their best political engagement is to actively advocate the Administration position and power.

From this corner of the world it looks like the "God is not a Republican or Democrat" campaign was somewhat as the critics described--an attempt by Democrats to go after faith-motivated voters to gain power.

But I do not know these things. The Lord is more than a capable judge.

It looks to me like there is more prayer going on in DC these days--but more along partisan lines than ever. I hope this not to be the case.

by: arthurpena

06-20-2009 @ 6:34pm

Much has been said about "affirmative action" and "reverse racism" when it comes to Sotomayor.

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.

by: SisterMarie

05-27-2009 @ 9:49am

Just allow me to get this straight. Souter announced his returement on May 1. The same day Sotomayor's name was advanced (see N.Y. Daily News) as a possible replacement. During the 25 day interval between May 1 and yesterday, there have been literally hundreds of newspaper articles and computer blogs regarding her possible nomination.

So on the day that the President actually announces her selection and which Jim Wallis publishes a web entry supporting her selection, you accuse him of having an "inside track" or of doing "fast research." You offer absolutely zero evidence for either of these accusations and when I suggest that there are plenty of other sources that Wallis could have obtained his information about Sotomayor, you have the ***** to suggest that I am responding with sarcasm and bitterness.

If you really believe that **** that you submitted, why don't you get ahold of one of your right-wing senators and have him subpoena Jim Wallis and ask him to testify during the confirmation hearing about any advice he may or may not have given the president regarding his selection of Sotomayor?

So when one of you right-wingers makes a totally unsubstantiated accusation, that is OK. But let someone call you on it, and that is sarcasm and bitterness.

by: ando

05-27-2009 @ 10:48am

I voted for Obama. Both of my senators are Democrats. Oops!

Nice language, though. My eighth grade teacher told us that people curse because they either don't have the ability to use more appropriate language, or they don't feel so good about themselves.

by: ourfoundingtruth

05-26-2009 @ 8:35pm

The religious community should be encouraged to see the nomination of a judge with a strong history of upholding and interpreting the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution to ensure religious liberties while still respecting the Establishment Clause.>

How has this woman respected the establishment clause, and what does that have to do with her rulings blatantly violating the Law of Nature, thereby the Constitution?

But her nomination process should be about much more than abortion.>

What is more important than prohibiting the death of babies? The scriptures are clear; life begins at conception, Jesus, and the Constitution, affirming it. The Constitution is founded on Natural Law., so when the preamble says "life" it means at conception.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library and research the life and 3000 rulings of the Judge so he could make a prompt report to us affirming Mr. Obama's faithful service. Fast research!!!!!!!

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 11:50am

Wallis is obviously a very fast reader. Remember when he read through the entire ARRA and Obama budget before deciding he was in favor of both?

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:50pm

"Issues of human rights, executive power, civil liberties, racial justice, environmental protection, and other pressing issues of our time are at stake."

Yes, it does seem the Congress may need to legislate in these areas; and the Executive will need to administer these laws and regulations.

I would prefer the Court attend to the Constitution and legal rulings.

And of course abortion should be addressed in our conversations with our neighbors.

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 12:39pm

I don't see it that way. From the start the right wanted to put everyone else out of business, and it was so hyper-partisan that anyone who differed from it looked like a left-winger. The discourse has been so poisoned that it's going to take a lot of time before the true center shows up. (You know its bad when people start calling Ron Sider a socialist.)

by: 1Grace

05-26-2009 @ 9:08pm

Ourfoundingtruth,

Give the lady a chance . Their is a process where people ask the right questions. Hopefully it will be more civil then what happened to Roberts and the others in the last administration. But why attack and follow that method , Jim Wallis is right on that point . I am not saying president Obama could not have made a mistake , and blindly support the woman . But give her a chance . What a great American story regardless.

by: 1Grace

05-27-2009 @ 4:04pm

Ando I hear what your saying .

The dangers of political parties and alliance to them cause
intellectual exchange to be limited .
How many times do we defend or mock an idea or person because of the label of the party they are on . We trust or despise a person because of the R or D by their name . If a political hatchet job is done , it can be done next year by the opposing party even if the then opposing party is actually doing something good . As long as power can be gained by political parties, I doubt we have the power to get rid of political parties , but yes it would have been nice to actually consider Christians would be more honest then to give blanket endorsements based on politics instead of beliefs we all share . It appears worse to pretend your views are based on the pretence of Bibical understanding when it is not . I think that is understood when the religious right gets blasted , but to see it done here so often without the same critique is just sad.

by: arthurpena

06-20-2009 @ 4:34pm

Much has been said about "affirmative action" and "reverse racism" when it comes to Sotomayor.

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.

by: SisterMarie

05-26-2009 @ 11:02pm

"I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library..."

That's the kind of snide remark that I have come to expect from you. Anyone with half a brain was well aware of the short list of names that have been bandied about since Justice Souter announced his decision to retire. Judge Sotomayor was high on that list and anyone who was interested had plenty of time to research the judicial history of each of them. So in response to your sarcastic remark, "Fast Research" , my response is no, it was not fast research

by: commonsense247

06-05-2009 @ 8:47pm

Most of the articles on this site appear to be more of a spiritual version of the Huffington Post than a nonpartisan approach to issues, giving the Right and Left kudos and critique when applicable. That's unfortunate, misguided, and obviously blatant.

by: xfree9

05-26-2009 @ 11:26pm

Whatever the case with Sotomayor, I hope she respects her oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's what we should ask for, and it's what we should feel confident she will do.

by: terry_freeman

06-01-2009 @ 8:56pm

I have one question of Judge Sotomayor: why don't you trust us to defend ourselves? If "a well-regulated [trained] militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state", and the government does not encourage and train the whole people to secure a free state, then we live in a police state, not a free state.

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

by: ando

05-26-2009 @ 11:41pm

Or, it could be that since Mr. Wallis is to Barack Obama, as James Dobson was to George W. Bush, Jim had the inside track to the decision.

Your sarcasm and bitterness is getting a little over the top. Perhaps one day you'll have something pertinent to say.

by: joyceantila

06-01-2009 @ 8:59am

Although often treated as immigrants, Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917 which also established a structure of government for the island. It is pretty clear that the President did not make his choice in a vacuum but had a group of attorneys reviewing various possible candidates. well before Justice Souter announced his retirement. Judges make decisions based on the individual cases with their individuated fact patterns before them, and even appellate court judges are often bound by precedent decisions in the cases they hear. Although, as a lawyer, I may not agree with this decision or that, I know that the process of decision making is difficult and takes a great deal of legal analysis. I pray that our assessment of Judge Sotomayor will not be based on just one issue or another but on her ability to reason the law within the context of the Constitution, which as Justice Marshall pointed out long ago was broadly written for a purpose, namely, to enable future generations to reason the principles in light of current day events while holding to the broad principles.

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 1:27am

Speak for yourself.

by: JaneinWNY

05-29-2009 @ 11:38am

Sister Marie:

"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

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 10:24am

"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."

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

by: jeffp

05-29-2009 @ 1:14am

Not the same article. The title of the article I read was "Cloak and Dagger strategy: Secret meetings were paired with sharp message" The message given to the visitors was "don't talk down the candidate in the news media" and "get on board or get out of the way".

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.

by: alliehope

05-28-2009 @ 9:01pm

Thanks for this, Jim.

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.

by: JaneinWNY

05-28-2009 @ 8:22pm

LJRD:

"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

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 2:20am

I certainly admit my words can be snide and I seek to not do so. The comment was meant to bite a bit--but it does not come without love. I fully respect Mr Wallis but his proximity to Mr Obama has resulted in a series of posts here, that if you have not noticed, pop up almost immediately upon the action/decision/announcement made by the administration; and don't read anything like what I might expect from a non-partisan prophetic voice.

The 'snide' was not meant as 'snide' but as "I really don't buy it." I question if Mr Wallis even does the primary writing for these kinds of posts. I just have trouble hearing his voice it them.

by: conflicted

05-28-2009 @ 7:12pm

Hello, all. I am new to Sojourners and Jim Wallis both. Just did some reading today after seeing an interesting bumper sticker with sojo.net on it. I have to say I was very excited at first by what I was reading. Then I got to this article and all these comments. Still a lot of the same old right/left bickering I hear everywhere else. I just don't think it's possible to force the round peg of a comprehensive, holistic christian approach into the square hole of our current two-party system. People just have too much anger accumulated from past partisanship. Maybe I should quit fooling myself into thinking that it's possible for Christians to stand together as Christians trying to impact the world rather than having to divide into Christian Republican and Christian Democrat camps. Sigh.

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 2:52am

"Originally nominated to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush, and then later to the Second Circuit Court by President Bill Clinton, she has received bipartisan support from politicians and bipartisan praise from her peers."
--This has become a Democratic talking point, but you know by now that Bush Sr. didn't nominate her. She was nominated as part of a deal worked out between the two NY senators.

Her nomination is most certainly a crass political move to 1) appoint a woman and 2) appoint an Hispanic to the bench. She is widely thought of as being the most liberal of Obama's short list of nominees.

Jim, you've said on several occasions that Christians should not be in any politician's or party's pocket. Since Obama was elected, you have publicly endorsed, championed, and praised his every speech and policy proposal. Yet you have criticized nothing.

If this isn't being in Obama's pocket, what is?? Do you ever plan on criticizing anything that he does?

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 6:17pm

I believe I found the NY Times article to which you refer (here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/2...

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?"

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 3:58am

That is a really wise and loving response.

I always wanted someone to respond to me like that. I like this feature of conversing with myself!

Actually, I thought I'd back off my criticism. I think Jim W is carving out a different kind of relationship with this administration. I would like to hear him reflect more about that. Right or wrong, the way I hear him is different. I have expected Sojo and him to help facilitate a non-partisan, critically reflective dialogue. I think they have shifted away from that goal and just believe their best political engagement is to actively advocate the Administration position and power.

From this corner of the world it looks like the "God is not a Republican or Democrat" campaign was somewhat as the critics described--an attempt by Democrats to go after faith-motivated voters to gain power.

But I do not know these things. The Lord is more than a capable judge.

It looks to me like there is more prayer going on in DC these days--but more along partisan lines than ever. I hope this not to be the case.

by: jeffp

05-28-2009 @ 6:06pm

Yesterday on either on the Bill Press or Tom Hartman radio show (I don't remember which) it was stated that MoveOn.com was also told to not make any noise about the war in Iraq. This month has been the most costly in human lives since last September and Obama's plan differs very little from Bush's. Very little if any noise from MoveOn.

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

by: jeffp

05-28-2009 @ 5:56pm

No making baseless accusations puts you over the top. I said nothing about the content of your posts just the attacking manor in which you presented it. I think you could have an enjoyable discussion with Jesse.

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 5:02pm

OK. I understand. 100-0 is too nonpartisan and 67-29 is not bipartisan. So I'm assuming that a confirmation vote somewhere between 67-29 and 100-0 would satisfy you. Maybe you can specify for us just what voting margins would meet your "bipartisan test."

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.

by: SisterMarie

05-27-2009 @ 9:49am

Just allow me to get this straight. Souter announced his returement on May 1. The same day Sotomayor's name was advanced (see N.Y. Daily News) as a possible replacement. During the 25 day interval between May 1 and yesterday, there have been literally hundreds of newspaper articles and computer blogs regarding her possible nomination.

So on the day that the President actually announces her selection and which Jim Wallis publishes a web entry supporting her selection, you accuse him of having an "inside track" or of doing "fast research." You offer absolutely zero evidence for either of these accusations and when I suggest that there are plenty of other sources that Wallis could have obtained his information about Sotomayor, you have the ***** to suggest that I am responding with sarcasm and bitterness.

If you really believe that **** that you submitted, why don't you get ahold of one of your right-wing senators and have him subpoena Jim Wallis and ask him to testify during the confirmation hearing about any advice he may or may not have given the president regarding his selection of Sotomayor?

So when one of you right-wingers makes a totally unsubstantiated accusation, that is OK. But let someone call you on it, and that is sarcasm and bitterness.

by: jesse3

05-28-2009 @ 1:55pm

"Fact: Sotomayor was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. District Court in 1992 by a Senate that included 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans."
--Very few senators will ever raise a stink about judges appointed to such low level courts...especially given the circumstances surrounding her appointment (it being part of an agreement between R and D senators).

"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.

by: ando

05-27-2009 @ 10:48am

I voted for Obama. Both of my senators are Democrats. Oops!

Nice language, though. My eighth grade teacher told us that people curse because they either don't have the ability to use more appropriate language, or they don't feel so good about themselves.

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 11:50am

Wallis is obviously a very fast reader. Remember when he read through the entire ARRA and Obama budget before deciding he was in favor of both?

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 12:39pm

I don't see it that way. From the start the right wanted to put everyone else out of business, and it was so hyper-partisan that anyone who differed from it looked like a left-winger. The discourse has been so poisoned that it's going to take a lot of time before the true center shows up. (You know its bad when people start calling Ron Sider a socialist.)

by: 1Grace

05-27-2009 @ 4:04pm

Ando I hear what your saying .

The dangers of political parties and alliance to them cause
intellectual exchange to be limited .
How many times do we defend or mock an idea or person because of the label of the party they are on . We trust or despise a person because of the R or D by their name . If a political hatchet job is done , it can be done next year by the opposing party even if the then opposing party is actually doing something good . As long as power can be gained by political parties, I doubt we have the power to get rid of political parties , but yes it would have been nice to actually consider Christians would be more honest then to give blanket endorsements based on politics instead of beliefs we all share . It appears worse to pretend your views are based on the pretence of Bibical understanding when it is not . I think that is understood when the religious right gets blasted , but to see it done here so often without the same critique is just sad.

by: 1Grace

05-28-2009 @ 5:00am

Speak for yourself.

Actually he was .

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 9:41am

I'm surprised that when you are caught writing something that is untrue, that you insist on perpetuating the lie rather than using the opportunity to correct your words. How sad, but how typical of the Right.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: ourfoundingtruth

05-26-2009 @ 8:35pm

The religious community should be encouraged to see the nomination of a judge with a strong history of upholding and interpreting the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution to ensure religious liberties while still respecting the Establishment Clause.>

How has this woman respected the establishment clause, and what does that have to do with her rulings blatantly violating the Law of Nature, thereby the Constitution?

But her nomination process should be about much more than abortion.>

What is more important than prohibiting the death of babies? The scriptures are clear; life begins at conception, Jesus, and the Constitution, affirming it. The Constitution is founded on Natural Law., so when the preamble says "life" it means at conception.

by: ourfoundingtruth

05-26-2009 @ 8:35pm

The religious community should be encouraged to see the nomination of a judge with a strong history of upholding and interpreting the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution to ensure religious liberties while still respecting the Establishment Clause.>

How has this woman respected the establishment clause, and what does that have to do with her rulings blatantly violating the Law of Nature, thereby the Constitution?

But her nomination process should be about much more than abortion.>

What is more important than prohibiting the death of babies? The scriptures are clear; life begins at conception, Jesus, and the Constitution, affirming it. The Constitution is founded on Natural Law., so when the preamble says "life" it means at conception.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library and research the life and 3000 rulings of the Judge so he could make a prompt report to us affirming Mr. Obama's faithful service. Fast research!!!!!!!

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library and research the life and 3000 rulings of the Judge so he could make a prompt report to us affirming Mr. Obama's faithful service. Fast research!!!!!!!

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:50pm

"Issues of human rights, executive power, civil liberties, racial justice, environmental protection, and other pressing issues of our time are at stake."

Yes, it does seem the Congress may need to legislate in these areas; and the Executive will need to administer these laws and regulations.

I would prefer the Court attend to the Constitution and legal rulings.

And of course abortion should be addressed in our conversations with our neighbors.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-26-2009 @ 8:50pm

"Issues of human rights, executive power, civil liberties, racial justice, environmental protection, and other pressing issues of our time are at stake."

Yes, it does seem the Congress may need to legislate in these areas; and the Executive will need to administer these laws and regulations.

I would prefer the Court attend to the Constitution and legal rulings.

And of course abortion should be addressed in our conversations with our neighbors.

by: 1Grace

05-26-2009 @ 9:08pm

Ourfoundingtruth,

Give the lady a chance . Their is a process where people ask the right questions. Hopefully it will be more civil then what happened to Roberts and the others in the last administration. But why attack and follow that method , Jim Wallis is right on that point . I am not saying president Obama could not have made a mistake , and blindly support the woman . But give her a chance . What a great American story regardless.

by: 1Grace

05-26-2009 @ 9:08pm

Ourfoundingtruth,

Give the lady a chance . Their is a process where people ask the right questions. Hopefully it will be more civil then what happened to Roberts and the others in the last administration. But why attack and follow that method , Jim Wallis is right on that point . I am not saying president Obama could not have made a mistake , and blindly support the woman . But give her a chance . What a great American story regardless.

by: SisterMarie

05-26-2009 @ 11:02pm

"I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library..."

That's the kind of snide remark that I have come to expect from you. Anyone with half a brain was well aware of the short list of names that have been bandied about since Justice Souter announced his decision to retire. Judge Sotomayor was high on that list and anyone who was interested had plenty of time to research the judicial history of each of them. So in response to your sarcastic remark, "Fast Research" , my response is no, it was not fast research

by: SisterMarie

05-26-2009 @ 11:02pm

"I am really glad that on the day Obama announced his selection that Mr. Wallis had the time to run over to the library..."

That's the kind of snide remark that I have come to expect from you. Anyone with half a brain was well aware of the short list of names that have been bandied about since Justice Souter announced his decision to retire. Judge Sotomayor was high on that list and anyone who was interested had plenty of time to research the judicial history of each of them. So in response to your sarcastic remark, "Fast Research" , my response is no, it was not fast research

by: xfree9

05-26-2009 @ 11:26pm

Whatever the case with Sotomayor, I hope she respects her oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's what we should ask for, and it's what we should feel confident she will do.

by: xfree9

05-26-2009 @ 11:26pm

Whatever the case with Sotomayor, I hope she respects her oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's what we should ask for, and it's what we should feel confident she will do.

by: ando

05-26-2009 @ 11:41pm

Or, it could be that since Mr. Wallis is to Barack Obama, as James Dobson was to George W. Bush, Jim had the inside track to the decision.

Your sarcasm and bitterness is getting a little over the top. Perhaps one day you'll have something pertinent to say.

by: ando

05-26-2009 @ 11:41pm

Or, it could be that since Mr. Wallis is to Barack Obama, as James Dobson was to George W. Bush, Jim had the inside track to the decision.

Your sarcasm and bitterness is getting a little over the top. Perhaps one day you'll have something pertinent to say.

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 1:27am

Speak for yourself.

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 1:27am

Speak for yourself.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 2:20am

I certainly admit my words can be snide and I seek to not do so. The comment was meant to bite a bit--but it does not come without love. I fully respect Mr Wallis but his proximity to Mr Obama has resulted in a series of posts here, that if you have not noticed, pop up almost immediately upon the action/decision/announcement made by the administration; and don't read anything like what I might expect from a non-partisan prophetic voice.

The 'snide' was not meant as 'snide' but as "I really don't buy it." I question if Mr Wallis even does the primary writing for these kinds of posts. I just have trouble hearing his voice it them.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 2:20am

I certainly admit my words can be snide and I seek to not do so. The comment was meant to bite a bit--but it does not come without love. I fully respect Mr Wallis but his proximity to Mr Obama has resulted in a series of posts here, that if you have not noticed, pop up almost immediately upon the action/decision/announcement made by the administration; and don't read anything like what I might expect from a non-partisan prophetic voice.

The 'snide' was not meant as 'snide' but as "I really don't buy it." I question if Mr Wallis even does the primary writing for these kinds of posts. I just have trouble hearing his voice it them.

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 2:52am

"Originally nominated to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush, and then later to the Second Circuit Court by President Bill Clinton, she has received bipartisan support from politicians and bipartisan praise from her peers."
--This has become a Democratic talking point, but you know by now that Bush Sr. didn't nominate her. She was nominated as part of a deal worked out between the two NY senators.

Her nomination is most certainly a crass political move to 1) appoint a woman and 2) appoint an Hispanic to the bench. She is widely thought of as being the most liberal of Obama's short list of nominees.

Jim, you've said on several occasions that Christians should not be in any politician's or party's pocket. Since Obama was elected, you have publicly endorsed, championed, and praised his every speech and policy proposal. Yet you have criticized nothing.

If this isn't being in Obama's pocket, what is?? Do you ever plan on criticizing anything that he does?

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 2:52am

"Originally nominated to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush, and then later to the Second Circuit Court by President Bill Clinton, she has received bipartisan support from politicians and bipartisan praise from her peers."
--This has become a Democratic talking point, but you know by now that Bush Sr. didn't nominate her. She was nominated as part of a deal worked out between the two NY senators.

Her nomination is most certainly a crass political move to 1) appoint a woman and 2) appoint an Hispanic to the bench. She is widely thought of as being the most liberal of Obama's short list of nominees.

Jim, you've said on several occasions that Christians should not be in any politician's or party's pocket. Since Obama was elected, you have publicly endorsed, championed, and praised his every speech and policy proposal. Yet you have criticized nothing.

If this isn't being in Obama's pocket, what is?? Do you ever plan on criticizing anything that he does?

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 3:58am

That is a really wise and loving response.

I always wanted someone to respond to me like that. I like this feature of conversing with myself!

Actually, I thought I'd back off my criticism. I think Jim W is carving out a different kind of relationship with this administration. I would like to hear him reflect more about that. Right or wrong, the way I hear him is different. I have expected Sojo and him to help facilitate a non-partisan, critically reflective dialogue. I think they have shifted away from that goal and just believe their best political engagement is to actively advocate the Administration position and power.

From this corner of the world it looks like the "God is not a Republican or Democrat" campaign was somewhat as the critics described--an attempt by Democrats to go after faith-motivated voters to gain power.

But I do not know these things. The Lord is more than a capable judge.

It looks to me like there is more prayer going on in DC these days--but more along partisan lines than ever. I hope this not to be the case.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-27-2009 @ 3:58am

That is a really wise and loving response.

I always wanted someone to respond to me like that. I like this feature of conversing with myself!

Actually, I thought I'd back off my criticism. I think Jim W is carving out a different kind of relationship with this administration. I would like to hear him reflect more about that. Right or wrong, the way I hear him is different. I have expected Sojo and him to help facilitate a non-partisan, critically reflective dialogue. I think they have shifted away from that goal and just believe their best political engagement is to actively advocate the Administration position and power.

From this corner of the world it looks like the "God is not a Republican or Democrat" campaign was somewhat as the critics described--an attempt by Democrats to go after faith-motivated voters to gain power.

But I do not know these things. The Lord is more than a capable judge.

It looks to me like there is more prayer going on in DC these days--but more along partisan lines than ever. I hope this not to be the case.

by: SisterMarie

05-27-2009 @ 9:49am

Just allow me to get this straight. Souter announced his returement on May 1. The same day Sotomayor's name was advanced (see N.Y. Daily News) as a possible replacement. During the 25 day interval between May 1 and yesterday, there have been literally hundreds of newspaper articles and computer blogs regarding her possible nomination.

So on the day that the President actually announces her selection and which Jim Wallis publishes a web entry supporting her selection, you accuse him of having an "inside track" or of doing "fast research." You offer absolutely zero evidence for either of these accusations and when I suggest that there are plenty of other sources that Wallis could have obtained his information about Sotomayor, you have the ***** to suggest that I am responding with sarcasm and bitterness.

If you really believe that **** that you submitted, why don't you get ahold of one of your right-wing senators and have him subpoena Jim Wallis and ask him to testify during the confirmation hearing about any advice he may or may not have given the president regarding his selection of Sotomayor?

So when one of you right-wingers makes a totally unsubstantiated accusation, that is OK. But let someone call you on it, and that is sarcasm and bitterness.

by: SisterMarie

05-27-2009 @ 9:49am

Just allow me to get this straight. Souter announced his returement on May 1. The same day Sotomayor's name was advanced (see N.Y. Daily News) as a possible replacement. During the 25 day interval between May 1 and yesterday, there have been literally hundreds of newspaper articles and computer blogs regarding her possible nomination.

So on the day that the President actually announces her selection and which Jim Wallis publishes a web entry supporting her selection, you accuse him of having an "inside track" or of doing "fast research." You offer absolutely zero evidence for either of these accusations and when I suggest that there are plenty of other sources that Wallis could have obtained his information about Sotomayor, you have the ***** to suggest that I am responding with sarcasm and bitterness.

If you really believe that **** that you submitted, why don't you get ahold of one of your right-wing senators and have him subpoena Jim Wallis and ask him to testify during the confirmation hearing about any advice he may or may not have given the president regarding his selection of Sotomayor?

So when one of you right-wingers makes a totally unsubstantiated accusation, that is OK. But let someone call you on it, and that is sarcasm and bitterness.

by: ando

05-27-2009 @ 10:48am

I voted for Obama. Both of my senators are Democrats. Oops!

Nice language, though. My eighth grade teacher told us that people curse because they either don't have the ability to use more appropriate language, or they don't feel so good about themselves.

by: ando

05-27-2009 @ 10:48am

I voted for Obama. Both of my senators are Democrats. Oops!

Nice language, though. My eighth grade teacher told us that people curse because they either don't have the ability to use more appropriate language, or they don't feel so good about themselves.

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 11:50am

Wallis is obviously a very fast reader. Remember when he read through the entire ARRA and Obama budget before deciding he was in favor of both?

by: jesse3

05-27-2009 @ 11:50am

Wallis is obviously a very fast reader. Remember when he read through the entire ARRA and Obama budget before deciding he was in favor of both?

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 12:39pm

I don't see it that way. From the start the right wanted to put everyone else out of business, and it was so hyper-partisan that anyone who differed from it looked like a left-winger. The discourse has been so poisoned that it's going to take a lot of time before the true center shows up. (You know its bad when people start calling Ron Sider a socialist.)

by: BlueDeacon

05-27-2009 @ 12:39pm

I don't see it that way. From the start the right wanted to put everyone else out of business, and it was so hyper-partisan that anyone who differed from it looked like a left-winger. The discourse has been so poisoned that it's going to take a lot of time before the true center shows up. (You know its bad when people start calling Ron Sider a socialist.)

by: 1Grace

05-27-2009 @ 4:04pm

Ando I hear what your saying .

The dangers of political parties and alliance to them cause
intellectual exchange to be limited .
How many times do we defend or mock an idea or person because of the label of the party they are on . We trust or despise a person because of the R or D by their name . If a political hatchet job is done , it can be done next year by the opposing party even if the then opposing party is actually doing something good . As long as power can be gained by political parties, I doubt we have the power to get rid of political parties , but yes it would have been nice to actually consider Christians would be more honest then to give blanket endorsements based on politics instead of beliefs we all share . It appears worse to pretend your views are based on the pretence of Bibical understanding when it is not . I think that is understood when the religious right gets blasted , but to see it done here so often without the same critique is just sad.

by: 1Grace

05-27-2009 @ 4:04pm

Ando I hear what your saying .

The dangers of political parties and alliance to them cause
intellectual exchange to be limited .
How many times do we defend or mock an idea or person because of the label of the party they are on . We trust or despise a person because of the R or D by their name . If a political hatchet job is done , it can be done next year by the opposing party even if the then opposing party is actually doing something good . As long as power can be gained by political parties, I doubt we have the power to get rid of political parties , but yes it would have been nice to actually consider Christians would be more honest then to give blanket endorsements based on politics instead of beliefs we all share . It appears worse to pretend your views are based on the pretence of Bibical understanding when it is not . I think that is understood when the religious right gets blasted , but to see it done here so often without the same critique is just sad.

by: 1Grace

05-28-2009 @ 5:00am

Speak for yourself.

Actually he was .

by: 1Grace

05-28-2009 @ 5:00am

Speak for yourself.

Actually he was .

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 9:41am

I'm surprised that when you are caught writing something that is untrue, that you insist on perpetuating the lie rather than using the opportunity to correct your words. How sad, but how typical of the Right.

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 9:41am

I'm surprised that when you are caught writing something that is untrue, that you insist on perpetuating the lie rather than using the opportunity to correct your words. How sad, but how typical of the Right.

by: jesse3

05-28-2009 @ 10:41am

SisterMarie,
Ok...for the record: Bush officially nominated her and I misspoke when I said he didn't. Technically, however, he nominated but did not choose her. She was chosen by a Democratic senator as part of an agreement between the NY senators. Her nomination, then, was purely political and was part of an arrangement that preceded Bush and was made in the context of a Democratic controlled congress. She was never someone with "bi-partisan support," as Wallis claimed.

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??

by: jesse3

05-28-2009 @ 10:41am

SisterMarie,
Ok...for the record: Bush officially nominated her and I misspoke when I said he didn't. Technically, however, he nominated but did not choose her. She was chosen by a Democratic senator as part of an agreement between the NY senators. Her nomination, then, was purely political and was part of an arrangement that preceded Bush and was made in the context of a Democratic controlled congress. She was never someone with "bi-partisan support," as Wallis claimed.

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??

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 1:02pm

"She was never someone with "bi-partisan support," as Wallis claimed."

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.

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 1:02pm

"She was never someone with "bi-partisan support," as Wallis claimed."

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.

by: jesse3

05-28-2009 @ 1:55pm

"Fact: Sotomayor was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. District Court in 1992 by a Senate that included 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans."
--Very few senators will ever raise a stink about judges appointed to such low level courts...especially given the circumstances surrounding her appointment (it being part of an agreement between R and D senators).

"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.

by: jesse3

05-28-2009 @ 1:55pm

"Fact: Sotomayor was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. District Court in 1992 by a Senate that included 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans."
--Very few senators will ever raise a stink about judges appointed to such low level courts...especially given the circumstances surrounding her appointment (it being part of an agreement between R and D senators).

"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.

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 5:02pm

OK. I understand. 100-0 is too nonpartisan and 67-29 is not bipartisan. So I'm assuming that a confirmation vote somewhere between 67-29 and 100-0 would satisfy you. Maybe you can specify for us just what voting margins would meet your "bipartisan test."

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.

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 5:02pm

OK. I understand. 100-0 is too nonpartisan and 67-29 is not bipartisan. So I'm assuming that a confirmation vote somewhere between 67-29 and 100-0 would satisfy you. Maybe you can specify for us just what voting margins would meet your "bipartisan test."

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.

by: jeffp

05-28-2009 @ 5:56pm

No making baseless accusations puts you over the top. I said nothing about the content of your posts just the attacking manor in which you presented it. I think you could have an enjoyable discussion with Jesse.

by: jeffp

05-28-2009 @ 5:56pm

No making baseless accusations puts you over the top. I said nothing about the content of your posts just the attacking manor in which you presented it. I think you could have an enjoyable discussion with Jesse.

by: jeffp

05-28-2009 @ 6:06pm

Yesterday on either on the Bill Press or Tom Hartman radio show (I don't remember which) it was stated that MoveOn.com was also told to not make any noise about the war in Iraq. This month has been the most costly in human lives since last September and Obama's plan differs very little from Bush's. Very little if any noise from MoveOn.

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

by: jeffp

05-28-2009 @ 6:06pm

Yesterday on either on the Bill Press or Tom Hartman radio show (I don't remember which) it was stated that MoveOn.com was also told to not make any noise about the war in Iraq. This month has been the most costly in human lives since last September and Obama's plan differs very little from Bush's. Very little if any noise from MoveOn.

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

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 6:17pm

I believe I found the NY Times article to which you refer (here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/2...

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?"

by: SisterMarie

05-28-2009 @ 6:17pm

I believe I found the NY Times article to which you refer (here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/2...

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?"