hm. hard to say.
but mainstream baptist doesn't.
(hint: it's the church/state thing.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Delia Christina
- blasian ex-academic, ex-corporate wench turned social do-gooder, about to turn the page again. Follow me on Twitter @DeliaChristina
Blog for Choice - Jan 22
ChurchGal Reads
-
-
-
Kavanaugh for SCOTUS: So how fucked are we?6 years ago
-
-
2020 Most Popular Rolex Watches4 years ago
-
-
-
Last Blog Post10 years ago
-
The Medal of Honor "feminized"9 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Sermoning2 years ago
-
-
From scATX: Proof12 years ago
-
go on hiatus14 years ago
-
-
-
Huh?16 years ago
-
9 comments:
I'm so annoyed by the Bush administration by now, but I haven't even gotten really upset about this because I was expecting a White-male-pick. And one who is conservative.
it could have been a lot worse - perhaps the Gang of 14 move in the Senate forced the Prez to pick a decent conservative. I found the talk about John Roberts' religion - or lack thereof - interesting in today's NYT. I wrote about it in my blog.
gasp! are you suggesting that there is such a thing as a "decent conservative"? as the saying goes, how now brown cow?
it's rare, but it's been known to happen...
(wink)
I agree with chris. The president is a Conservative; of course he will appoint a Conservative to the court. He won the election, so he gets to do that. Given that at least half of the people in the Bush administration are right-wing extremists, and that Bush was citing Scalia and Thomas as his ideal justices, I find Roberts a pleasant surprise. The man seems to have some integrity, and unlike Scalia seems to believe in judicial restraint (i.e., not legislating from the bench). Of course, Roberts may turn out to be an extremist like Scalia, but things look pretty good to me at this point (Given, of course, who controls the Executive and Legislative branches of the government).
yes...he's certainly pleasant.
his record on women's issues is less than pleasant but as long as he's nice, i guess that's ok.
Here again, we cannot please you librals. What does it take; does one have to have a bad rap before he is accepted by you ChurchGal? I kind of think that he is a very good pick. I'm sure that he will be confirmed. Nothing bad about the man. He took ral good care of his life all of his life. Come on; lets be honest about this; even his children, adopted and all look real good. Can we just say yes once in our life time? Give me an honest answer. PS, how do I remove myself from ever being on the list for jury duty? I am in a waiting room right now, and can't wait to end this pain?
You know who!
it's real simple: don't pick a guy who's guaranteed to piss off the majority of the population.
the well-being of my life (and the lives of women in general) is more than just 'liking' a guy. it's about 'is this guy going to rule on something that's going to seriously be detrimental to my reproductive life'?
again, it's about policy. i kind of think the autonomy of my uterus is important.
(and once you're in the system, you're there to stay, dad. sorry. heh heh. i've only been called to jury duty once and the case was settled before we were even called. heh.)
zeke. exactly. a LIFETIME appointment of dubious decisioning (i hate the use of that verb but i couldn't help it.)
my lifetime, so far, has been pretty good, in terms of quality of life for women. i have access to birth control, if necessary i could get an abortion and i'm confident that my decisions about what 'necessary' means would stand; i have access to good information about sexual and reproductive health; i am reasonably sure that i won't be forced to stay pregnant if that should happen accidentally.
this could all change, in my lifetime, if someone is appointed who thinks that the quality of life for women matters less than their own narrow interpretation of the law.
i'd rather not turn into that old lady who mumbles about when times were good, back in the 90s, when you were in charge of your own sex life.
(...and polluters weren't allowed to pollute, workers were protected, poisons weren't put in our medicine or rivers or tuna, forests actually had trees in them and our atmosphere didn't have a giant hole in it.)
Post a Comment