...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
Hugo Schwyzer, who was once involved in Feminists for Life, has some interesting thoughts on Judge Roberts and his wife.
While my pro-choice friends might be discomfited by Sullivan Roberts' close ties to a pro-life advocacy group, I'm heartened by it. It's not just that I am (prayerfully and awkwardly) pro-life; it's also that as a pro-feminist man, I know full well that Feminists for Life is a long way away from more traditional anti-abortion outfits like National Right to Life. Though I've criticised FFL in the past for being insufficiently concerned with issues other than abortion, there's no question that they've historically taken a more progressive stance than their conservative sisters on a variety of issues. FFL has historically been strongly anti-death penalty, for example. FFL is also listed as a member organization of the Consistent-Life Movement, which has as its mission statement:We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, the arms race, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life.If Jane Sullivan Roberts is a card-carrying member of FFL, that means there's a better-than-sporting chance that she holds the Consistent Life Ethic position (an ethic rejected by most traditional conservatives, who don't see poverty and the arms race and the death penalty as being nearly as egregious as abortion). After all, if she didn't hold the Consistent Life Ethic, there are plenty of more conservative pro-life outfits out there to which she could lend her time and name and money! And if she held or still holds the Consistent Life Ethic position, is there not some hope that her husband shares her views?
A man who marries a brilliant woman who is his intellectual equal when both are in their forties, and happily adopts children with her, is no troglodyte. And a man married to a woman who is a proud member of a group that has 'Feminist' in its title may not be the disaster for women's rights that some liberals are predicting, nor the champion for the right that some conservatives are hoping.Ann Coulter doesn't like Judge Roberts. Hugh Hewitt, Joe Liberman and Hugo Schwyzer do.
To paraphrase Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: Who is this guy?
(drips man-tit sweat on buzzer)
What is, "a member of an advanced, telephatic alien species that looks like a cross between a Gorgon's head and Tommy Lee's dick"?
O, wait-- this wasn't a Jeopardy question, was it.
Kevin
All good questions. Indeed, perhaps the reason he was picked was because his views are not quite public domain. Yes, Coulter is against him due to the game of acting like 'true' conservatives aren't happy, thereby encouraging the great unaware masses to think "hey, he must be kinda moderate or sump'in". There isn't alot that can be thrown at him that would stick sufficiently to warrant a filibuster, and Bush gets his conservative court.
Posted by: will on Jul. 22, 2005some responses are so good that you have to post them on you own blog frist.
http://sandcastlesandcubicles.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-you-are-going-to-speculate-do-it.html
So what kinda of interviews do these potential supreme court nominees go though?
I would give them a lie detector test, truth serum and a lie detector test, and I would also have them interviewed by the telepathic CIA spooks that we know they have.
If I was president there would be no possible way I would NOT know what I was getting. I find it hard to believe in this day and age that Bush MIGHT not know what type of person he is putting in power.
putting a phrase like "the arms race" in a mission statement makes me wonder in what century is their focus.
Posted by: louielouie on Jul. 22, 2005Thanks for the link, Annie; louie, I agree with you. We in the consistent-life movement sometimes develop a sentimental attachment to rhetoric that has passed its shelf life. Of course, that nostalgia can be found across much of the secular left as well.
Posted by: Hugo on Jul. 22, 2005