We can thank all the mainstream christians who voted for Obama for the prize-winner Supreme Court picks we're going to end up with. Christians knew that if that man got in office the sorts of things he was going to do based on the unbiblical positions that he took on abortion and gay marriage.
Did yall hear that the Pentagon wouldn't let the fighter planes do a fly over at the God and Country rally in Idaho this past weekend because the even was "too Christian." Now, keep in mind that this event to celebrate the troops, and the plane fly overs have been going on for 42 years. But, with Obama in office...all of a sudden, this event is "too Christian."
I echo Joe....I give a sarcastic thank you to all the Christians who voted for this man.
BTW, this info was on the Today Show this morning...NBC news. Also, it was reported that Obama had Harvard cover up a cross and a symbollic name for Christ when he spoke there. Apparently, he didnt want those two things showing up in the background while he spoke.
Again, a sarcastic thank you goes out to all the Christians who voted for this man.
I think that was Notre Dame. I tried to notice most of the remaining Christian symbolism at Harvard, and it was mostly tucked away in corners, on old buildings. It used to be focused on ministers and missionaries, with the motto "For Christ and his Kingdom."
on the God and Country Rally, an "event to celebrate the troops"
bapticus hereticus: the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, whose board includes people that are vets holding to religions of various types, and that are gay, straight, Republican (one was legal council to Reagan), Democrat, etc. agree that the decision made by the Pentegon was correct, thus not all Christians nor military personnel perceive this to be a slight.
Robert Bork did not receive a well qualified rating even though he had been Solicitor General, had taught at Yale Law School, and had been on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That down grade of Bork drew significant negative attention to the ABA ratings, and I believe they have been more sensitive to criticism since then.
I must confess that I do not have a full sense of what Judge Sotomayor's career consists of, but the impression I get is that she is weak. It's just an impression, and it may not be a fair one, but it's still the impression that I get.
I find her statement that Judges of a certain gender and ethnic background will make better decisions to be complete nonsense. That, alone, causes concern for me.
The first thing we are taught in law school, that good lawyers continue to do over years of practice, is to put our prejudices and agendas aside so that we can achieve, as much as is possible, decisions that are based on the objective, rational application of neutral laws and principles.
Her statement that gender and ethnicity affects judging flatly contradicts that. There is, in my opinion, no context that excuses it.
I will be interested hearing more about her law school career (was she in the top of her class), her practice (did she represent the government or private clients in high profile cases or distinguis herself otherwise) and her time on the bench.
National Review has written an article that is critical of her writing ability. That, and all the media fawning, is all I have seen.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that we won't get a full hearing on this nominee.
Not to worry. There are now 60 Senators who make up a super majority who can vote for whatever they wish. So, she's in. Even if they find a severed head in her office - she's in.
Let's just hope that if she is as bad as I suspect, that she is not very competent, and may not be much of a strong presence on the court and may actually shoot some steel into the spine of the Justice Kennedy.
Louis, it is not unfair for you to state that you are concerned with Sotomayor’s nomination, that she may not be as qualified as you would like, but others statements operative in your comments seem less supportable; but being a lawyer, you are surely in a position to speak to qualifications more than most of us. Whereas there may be media fawning, such is an interesting comment, nonetheless; but it raises a question about the behavior of media behavior when Roberts and Alito were candidates. I recall they were given both favorable and unfavorable evaluations from the media, and evaluations for and against by party affiliation was not unexpected. As I recall the media coverage of Sotomayor, she also has received positive (e.g., The Nation) and negative assessments (e.g., National Review) of her qualifications, not to mention support or non-support, at this point, tends to be along party lines.
That the dems have 60 seats and may thus over-ride a filibuster is not denied, but I recall when dems were considering such for Bush’s candidates, repubs indicated they would use processes available to the Senate to ensure that 51 votes (which repubs were confident they could deliver) were sufficient to secure its approval. If heads were found in either Robert’s or Alito’s office, repubs would have shrunk from voting for either of them, as would be the case for dems; but should one then suggest that the moral high ground for repubs is evident, one need only consider the present where repubs (e.g., Senator, Governor) are surely in no position to lecture the dems for their moral lapses (e.g., Senator, Governor).
And again I ask, what do you expect from the lost? Is this really surprising? Pray for our President and again it shows that the Gospel is the only thing that changes lives. Vote your conscience. Write your letters, and let's begin to act like Christians of the Bible.
Did Christ come to earth to change the government? No. He didn't even address it except to give to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is God's.
The Jews were looking for someone to change the government, in doing so they completely missed Christ. So are we.
The conscience of a Christian would always be to vote against someone who is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. Always. Note, that doesn't mean that they always vote Republican. However, if there are only two candidates and one is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights and one is anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, it's pretty clear to Christians who to vote for. As it stands, all I hear is mainstream christians belly-aching about being tired of "the culture war" and what a horrible country we were to go to Iraq and free those people from Saddam Hussien. Oh, what morally bankrupt people we have in our country that we would go over there and give them the oppotunity to build a democracy. And how dare we invade Afgahnastan after our country was attacked on 9-11. I mean, that attack was our fault, after all.
First: A plausible scenario: Say, one is pro-life, anti-gay rights, three-times married and now in a marriage that is open (but not widely known, but you are aware), favors legalizing recreational use of marijuana, and does not usually attend church, but another is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, married, never divorced, does not favor legalizing recreational usage of marijuana, and serves as the chairman of deacons in his church. Assume both are equally competent, Republican, and, except for the differences above, tout the same policies. For whom will you vote?
You can write in a candidate, I suppose, and not voting is an option, but on the political landscape, the former is likely to make no significant statement, even if principled, and the latter, although principled, is dis-engagement.
Second: Even if a war is justified, is it unreasonable that people on both sides of it would grow weary of it?
Third: Were not Christians on both sides of the argument concerning war in Iraq. Did not those Christians who sided for war do so based on the arguments presented by the Bush administration, which are now, even among Republicans, disputed?
Fourth: Was there not a general consensus among Democrats and Republicans that going into Afghanistan was justifiable?
I think that is without a doubt the most ridiculous scenario I've ever read in my entire life. I mean, talk about trying to pull your arm out of socket reaching for a justification for mainstream christians voting for Obama.
Joe: I think that is without a doubt the most ridiculous scenario I've ever read in my entire life.
bapticus hereticus: Joe, I was using profiles of people that I know, thus it is plausible people could be confronted with such in an election choice. When one makes statements using the language of "always," one need only to confront it one time. Usually life as we experience it is a bit complex and typically does not suitably allow us to lock ourseleves into a single mode of operation.
Second: I am unaware that Christians, whether Republican or Democrat, needed to justify their Christian status or US loyalty for voting for either Obama or McCain.
Yes, Debbie. And you mainstreamers can pat yourselves on the back that we now have the most agressivly pro-abortion candidate ever in office with several Supreme Court seats that are going to be filled during his term. So you've made sure there is no way in my children's lifetime that abortion will ever be made illegal. That is the legacy of mainstreamers. So you can call your infidelity to what God's word CLEARLY teaches your "freedome to vote" and thump that all you want. It all boils down to not being willing to stand up and be counted as holding to what the Bible teaches because it's too hard and the culture doesn't like it.
Millions of babies are going to die, Debs. You deal with THAT.
Debbie: Who are the lost? the President for one. Do I believe he is born again? No.
bapticus hereticus: for one (professing) Christian to say of another (professing) Christian "he/she is not a Christian" is extraordinary, indeed. what is the basis for your evaluation?
I doubt you will ever see this since we have all moved on.
Thanks for the response and measured tone. It's nice to have discussion with someone who doesn't start screaming over differences.
I did not get into the moral angle of things, and am not sure why you brought that up. This nominee has nothing to do with the moral failures of politicians.
I did see an article in yesterday's Washington Post that criticized Judge Sotomayor's appellate career for delving into things that were not part of the trial and citing material that was outside the record (e.g. newspaper articles and studies etc.) and that she tried to judge trial witnesses from the appellate bench, something on which appellate judges usually defer to the trial court These criticisms came from some Democrats, too.
Again, I am glad that there will be hearings, but the result is already decided. I would never support the use of the filibuster (i.e. needing 60 votes for cloture) to keep a nominee from coming before the Senate. I think that is a bad practice. The President, in my opinion, is entitled to pick his nominees, and they should be approved, absent some terrible revelation or incompetence.
I do not support the efforts that the Dems and their supporters usually engage in to investigate private details about the nominee and to try and destroy them, if possible. (i.e. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Judge Pickering - a moderate Baptist from Mississippi who was absolutely destroyed by Senate Dem partisans and their special interest groups).
So, she will be approved. I think that she may be so weak and silly (especially if she starts citing the N.Y. Times and partisan studies that are not part of the court record etc.) that her influence on the court will be negligible and she may actually drive Kennedy to vote more with the conservatives. At least, that's my hope.
There are a lot of smart, well known liberals out there who have been in the wings, waiting to get on the court for years. I am so glad that Obama did not select one of them. They could really be influential.
and said organization also gave its endorsement to the Bush appointments, Roberts and Alito.
ReplyDeleteWe can thank all the mainstream christians who voted for Obama for the prize-winner Supreme Court picks we're going to end up with. Christians knew that if that man got in office the sorts of things he was going to do based on the unbiblical positions that he took on abortion and gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is reaping what she has sown.
ReplyDeleteDid yall hear that the Pentagon wouldn't let the fighter planes do a fly over at the God and Country rally in Idaho this past weekend because the even was "too Christian." Now, keep in mind that this event to celebrate the troops, and the plane fly overs have been going on for 42 years. But, with Obama in office...all of a sudden, this event is "too Christian."
I echo Joe....I give a sarcastic thank you to all the Christians who voted for this man.
David
BTW, this info was on the Today Show this morning...NBC news. Also, it was reported that Obama had Harvard cover up a cross and a symbollic name for Christ when he spoke there. Apparently, he didnt want those two things showing up in the background while he spoke.
ReplyDeleteAgain, a sarcastic thank you goes out to all the Christians who voted for this man.
David
David:
ReplyDeleteI think that was Notre Dame. I tried to notice most of the remaining Christian symbolism at Harvard, and it was mostly tucked away in corners, on old buildings. It used to be focused on ministers and missionaries, with the motto "For Christ and his Kingdom."
Things sure do "change."
on the God and Country Rally, an "event to celebrate the troops"
ReplyDeletebapticus hereticus: the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, whose board includes people that are vets holding to religions of various types, and that are gay, straight, Republican (one was legal council to Reagan), Democrat, etc. agree that the decision made by the Pentegon was correct, thus not all Christians nor military personnel perceive this to be a slight.
Robert Bork did not receive a well qualified rating even though he had been Solicitor General, had taught at Yale Law School, and had been on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
ReplyDeleteThat down grade of Bork drew significant negative attention to the ABA ratings, and I believe they have been more sensitive to criticism since then.
I must confess that I do not have a full sense of what Judge Sotomayor's career consists of, but the impression I get is that she is weak. It's just an impression, and it may not be a fair one, but it's still the impression that I get.
I find her statement that Judges of a certain gender and ethnic background will make better decisions to be complete nonsense. That, alone, causes concern for me.
The first thing we are taught in law school, that good lawyers continue to do over years of practice, is to put our prejudices and agendas aside so that we can achieve, as much as is possible, decisions that are based on the objective, rational application of neutral laws and principles.
Her statement that gender and ethnicity affects judging flatly contradicts that. There is, in my opinion, no context that excuses it.
I will be interested hearing more about her law school career (was she in the top of her class), her practice (did she represent the government or private clients in high profile cases or distinguis herself otherwise) and her time on the bench.
National Review has written an article that is critical of her writing ability. That, and all the media fawning, is all I have seen.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that we won't get a full hearing on this nominee.
Not to worry. There are now 60 Senators who make up a super majority who can vote for whatever they wish. So, she's in. Even if they find a severed head in her office - she's in.
Let's just hope that if she is as bad as I suspect, that she is not very competent, and may not be much of a strong presence on the court and may actually shoot some steel into the spine of the Justice Kennedy.
Louis
Somehow, I just knew that Baptist Heretic would answer in te way that he did.
ReplyDeleteDavid
:)
Louis, it is not unfair for you to state that you are concerned with Sotomayor’s nomination, that she may not be as qualified as you would like, but others statements operative in your comments seem less supportable; but being a lawyer, you are surely in a position to speak to qualifications more than most of us. Whereas there may be media fawning, such is an interesting comment, nonetheless; but it raises a question about the behavior of media behavior when Roberts and Alito were candidates. I recall they were given both favorable and unfavorable evaluations from the media, and evaluations for and against by party affiliation was not unexpected. As I recall the media coverage of Sotomayor, she also has received positive (e.g., The Nation) and negative assessments (e.g., National Review) of her qualifications, not to mention support or non-support, at this point, tends to be along party lines.
ReplyDeleteThat the dems have 60 seats and may thus over-ride a filibuster is not denied, but I recall when dems were considering such for Bush’s candidates, repubs indicated they would use processes available to the Senate to ensure that 51 votes (which repubs were confident they could deliver) were sufficient to secure its approval. If heads were found in either Robert’s or Alito’s office, repubs would have shrunk from voting for either of them, as would be the case for dems; but should one then suggest that the moral high ground for repubs is evident, one need only consider the present where repubs (e.g., Senator, Governor) are surely in no position to lecture the dems for their moral lapses (e.g., Senator, Governor).
And again I ask, what do you expect from the lost? Is this really surprising? Pray for our President and again it shows that the Gospel is the only thing that changes lives. Vote your conscience. Write your letters, and let's begin to act like Christians of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteDid Christ come to earth to change the government? No. He didn't even address it except to give to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is God's.
The Jews were looking for someone to change the government, in doing so they completely missed Christ. So are we.
Debbie: And again I ask, what do you expect from the lost? ... The Jews ... completely missed Christ. So are we.
ReplyDeletebapticus hereticus: who are the lost that you speak?
Vote your conscience.
ReplyDeleteThe conscience of a Christian would always be to vote against someone who is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. Always. Note, that doesn't mean that they always vote Republican. However, if there are only two candidates and one is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights and one is anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, it's pretty clear to Christians who to vote for. As it stands, all I hear is mainstream christians belly-aching about being tired of "the culture war" and what a horrible country we were to go to Iraq and free those people from Saddam Hussien. Oh, what morally bankrupt people we have in our country that we would go over there and give them the oppotunity to build a democracy. And how dare we invade Afgahnastan after our country was attacked on 9-11. I mean, that attack was our fault, after all.
First: A plausible scenario: Say, one is pro-life, anti-gay rights, three-times married and now in a marriage that is open (but not widely known, but you are aware), favors legalizing recreational use of marijuana, and does not usually attend church, but another is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, married, never divorced, does not favor legalizing recreational usage of marijuana, and serves as the chairman of deacons in his church. Assume both are equally competent, Republican, and, except for the differences above, tout the same policies. For whom will you vote?
ReplyDeleteYou can write in a candidate, I suppose, and not voting is an option, but on the political landscape, the former is likely to make no significant statement, even if principled, and the latter, although principled, is dis-engagement.
Second: Even if a war is justified, is it unreasonable that people on both sides of it would grow weary of it?
Third: Were not Christians on both sides of the argument concerning war in Iraq. Did not those Christians who sided for war do so based on the arguments presented by the Bush administration, which are now, even among Republicans, disputed?
Fourth: Was there not a general consensus among Democrats and Republicans that going into Afghanistan was justifiable?
bh,
ReplyDeleteI think that is without a doubt the most ridiculous scenario I've ever read in my entire life. I mean, talk about trying to pull your arm out of socket reaching for a justification for mainstream christians voting for Obama.
Joe: I think that is without a doubt the most ridiculous scenario I've ever read in my entire life.
ReplyDeletebapticus hereticus: Joe, I was using profiles of people that I know, thus it is plausible people could be confronted with such in an election choice. When one makes statements using the language of "always," one need only to confront it one time. Usually life as we experience it is a bit complex and typically does not suitably allow us to lock ourseleves into a single mode of operation.
Second: I am unaware that Christians, whether Republican or Democrat, needed to justify their Christian status or US loyalty for voting for either Obama or McCain.
Who are the lost? the President for one. Do I believe he is born again? No.
ReplyDeleteJoe: To condemn someone who voted for Obama, even Christians is what is ridiculous. We are free in this country to vote for who we want. deal with it.
Yes, Debbie. And you mainstreamers can pat yourselves on the back that we now have the most agressivly pro-abortion candidate ever in office with several Supreme Court seats that are going to be filled during his term. So you've made sure there is no way in my children's lifetime that abortion will ever be made illegal. That is the legacy of mainstreamers. So you can call your infidelity to what God's word CLEARLY teaches your "freedome to vote" and thump that all you want. It all boils down to not being willing to stand up and be counted as holding to what the Bible teaches because it's too hard and the culture doesn't like it.
ReplyDeleteMillions of babies are going to die, Debs. You deal with THAT.
Debbie: Who are the lost? the President for one. Do I believe he is born again? No.
ReplyDeletebapticus hereticus: for one (professing) Christian to say of another (professing) Christian "he/she is not a Christian" is extraordinary, indeed. what is the basis for your evaluation?
Baptist Hereticus:
ReplyDeleteI doubt you will ever see this since we have all moved on.
Thanks for the response and measured tone. It's nice to have discussion with someone who doesn't start screaming over differences.
I did not get into the moral angle of things, and am not sure why you brought that up. This nominee has nothing to do with the moral failures of politicians.
I did see an article in yesterday's Washington Post that criticized Judge Sotomayor's appellate career for delving into things that were not part of the trial and citing material that was outside the record (e.g. newspaper articles and studies etc.) and that she tried to judge trial witnesses from the appellate bench, something on which appellate judges usually defer to the trial court These criticisms came from some Democrats, too.
Again, I am glad that there will be hearings, but the result is already decided. I would never support the use of the filibuster (i.e. needing 60 votes for cloture) to keep a nominee from coming before the Senate. I think that is a bad practice. The President, in my opinion, is entitled to pick his nominees, and they should be approved, absent some terrible revelation or incompetence.
I do not support the efforts that the Dems and their supporters usually engage in to investigate private details about the nominee and to try and destroy them, if possible. (i.e. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Judge Pickering - a moderate Baptist from Mississippi who was absolutely destroyed by Senate Dem partisans and their special interest groups).
So, she will be approved. I think that she may be so weak and silly (especially if she starts citing the N.Y. Times and partisan studies that are not part of the court record etc.) that her influence on the court will be negligible and she may actually drive Kennedy to vote more with the conservatives. At least, that's my hope.
There are a lot of smart, well known liberals out there who have been in the wings, waiting to get on the court for years. I am so glad that Obama did not select one of them. They could really be influential.
Louis