Is Sotomayor pro-choice?
Anna Belle may deserve a prize. Here’s what she said last week:
Trust me on this: Neither Obama or Bush would ever have the balls to appoint a pro-choice justice to the Supreme Court, but that’s just what Palin did (Alaskan Supreme Court). That’s just one difference between her and the likes of those two.
If we amend that to openly pro-choice, then I think Anna nailed it. Whatever Sotomayor’s private opinion, she’s definitely a stealth candidate when it comes to Roe.
The President’s caginess on the subject is hilarious, especially given his campaign promise to appoint only pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court. But according to his press secretary, Obama didn’t even ask Sotomayor about that:
Q: Robert, does the President know for a fact that Judge Sotomayor supports the ruling in Roe v. Wade?
MR. GIBBS: As I said yesterday, Mark, the President doesn’t have a litmus test and that question was not one that he posed to her.
Whoops, our mistake. We thought when he said he would only appoint justices who would uphold Roe, that was a “litmus test.” But apparently we were wrong. Or maybe not! Maybe Gibbs just means that Obama doesn’t plan to dip Sotomayor in solution to see if she turns pink or blue.
Why does this remind me of how Obama promised during the campaign that the first thing he’d do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, but then got into office and revealed that it wasn’t really on his list of priorities after all? Or how he said he’d support women’s reproductive health, but then axed it from the stimulus package? Or how he said before the election that he opposed the Hyde Amendment restrictions on abortion funding, but then kept them in his White House budget?
On the other hand, all the talk of “settled law” and the President’s “comfort” level with Sotomayor’s constitutional approach is allegedly an oblique assurance that she would vote to uphold Roe. I suspect that’s probably true, though I’m not sure where she would come down on all the various notification laws and crap that have so effectively undermined women’s access to abortion. The abortion fight is all about attrition now, chipping away at the edges. And Sotomayor’s rulings don’t give a clear indication of where she stands.
Why the stealth? Obama’s got a solid majority in the Senate and the political clout to nominate and get confirmed just about anybody he damn well pleases. If Sotomayor really is pro-choice, why is it necessary to be so secretive about it?
26 Responses to “Is Sotomayor pro-choice?”
-
Nora says:
Violet says:”Why the stealth? Obama’s got a solid majority in the Senate and the political clout to nominate and get confirmed just about anybody he damn well pleases. If Sotomayor really is pro-choice, why is it necessary to be so secretive about it?”
Obama really only knows how to run for office, and so every move he make is about the 2012 election.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:42 pm EST -
Nora says:
OT, Violet I thought you might be interested in this article. I posted a comment but the moderator deleted it.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
OT, thanks Nora, for that interesting aside. Ignoring the sexist framing that women’s education must suffer for men’s to succeed, the stats, and their implications, are jarring. I serve on a community college board, and this jives with info the CC League of California sent out about the challenges schools will face with returning soldiers and economically displaced male workers entering college, given that their grades and completion success are on average so much lower than females. It appears the hyper masculinity craze has finally come back to bite American men.
Oh the other hand, many of the commenters on that article complain about the absence of PE and vigorous recess activities, and the whole Ritalin thing, which I also find creepy. When I went to school, there was no shortage of loud, boisterous play for both boys and girls, and no harm done. I remember male teachers in grade school, too. Have things really changed so much? I have only one daughter who’s never been in public school, so would be interested in comments from those who know more than me about boys.
*****A
-
yttik says:
“If Sotomayor really is pro-choice, why is it necessary to be so secretive about it?”
I don’t really know Violet, but I’m going with cowardice and Obama’s narcissism. I imagine he’s hoping to sneak her in because he hasn’t got the brass ovaries required to actually stand up for something and face his opposition.
I’m not yet convinced she’s pro-choice, but either way our narcissist has a problem dealing with controversy and criticism so he’s going to want to keep things on the fence as long as possible so he doesn’t have to deal with it.
-
Anna Belle says:
Oh, neat! I got a mention. Thanks. I had no idea that one would get confirmed so quickly, Vi. I’d giggle, but it’s not a laughing matter. Oh well, at least she has a vagina, so that the pro-life side of the court will be gender-equal. We gotta start somewhere. *Sigh*
-
Anna Belle says:
Hit post to soon. Meant to say: IF she’s pro-life, that is. Keep in mind that as a Catholic, it’s likely she is pro-life. She will make the SIXTH Catholic on the court. I’m not into religious prejudice, but that seems like an entirely unrepresentative ratio. What the heck is going on there?
-
bluelyon says:
I don’t know about you, but I’m not particularly “reassured” by this article: Abortion Rights Backers Get Reassurances on Nominee
They are doing the same “blank slate” dance they did with Obama.
-
Apostate says:
About Catholics and being pro-choice - really, many Catholics are. It’s a little prejudicial to assume she wouldn’t be just because she’s Catholic.
By the way, Violet, I remember reading that Obama separately somehow approved that funding for birth control that was cut out of the stimulus. I’ll try and find the link.
-
Brian says:
I agree that it would be better if there was most certainty on Sotomayer’s position on abortion rights, but realistically what if Obama said she hadassured him that she would uphold Roe. She would be attacked as having already made up her mind on these issues. At every S. Ct. nomination we are forced to go through the charade that the candidate has no opinions on the issue and would decide afresh with the case before her or him. It is not beleivable then and it is not now, but for political purposes it appears to be the required game everyone is expected to play. The two abortion related cases that Sotomayor ruled on really were different issues and can’t be read to indicate opposition to abortion rights. I too wish there was more reassurance based on her record, but she is otherwise probably as liberal a judge that would get through the confirmation process. Personally, I think Pamela Karlan would have been the best choice but she might not have made it through.
The frequently repeated claim that Palin appointed a pro-choice justice to the Alaske Supreme Court is techincally accurate and yet as practical matter not true. The process in Alaska only allowed Palin to choose between two candidates presented to her and both were pro-choice. There are many things about Obama I am not happy about –and a few things I think he has done well–but to think that Palin would be better on abortion rights, based on her suppose choice for the Alaska court–is disingenuous at best.
-
bluelyon says:
Not sure why Palin came up in this discussion since she, had McCain been elected, would have been VP and would not have been making this SCOTUS nomination. Further, though her choice for Alaska’s Supreme Court may have been chosen from among two pro-choice candidates (though I’ve not seen evidence to back up that claim), it is still true that she bucked the right-wingers when choosing Christen.
On the other hand, Obama seems determined to kiss the conservatives’ hind ends on everything so I think we are justified in our skepticism about Sotomayor’s nomination.
-
madamab says:
I just can’t help myself; I think there is a catch with this nomination. Either Obama is going to cave to the ridiculous accusations of “racism” and have her kicked to the curb, or Sotomayor is right-wing on issues like the Unitary Executive and deregulation (and possibly reproductive rights).
Obama appointed her, folks. That means there’s a middle finger somewhere in it. Trust me on that.
-
bluelyon says:
I find this chilling.
-
Carmonn says:
Brian, the Democrats have a fillibuster-proof majority. So with complete control of the Senate and the Executive, what mysterious force would prevent Pamela or anyone else Obama chose from making it through?
These excuses are so 2006. He wouldn’t nominate someone like her because she’s the farthest thing from where he stands ideologically, and anyone who believed otherwise has been hoodwinked and bamboozled on an epic scale.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
There’s definitely something fishy here. From the article Bluelyon cited:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the Senate’s leading abortion rights supporters, said she will not specifically ask Sotomayor about Roe but said she has no reason to doubt Sotomayor’s position on the issue. “I feel as comfortable as I could possibly feel,” Boxer said.
Are you f-ing kidding me?
Face it, the Democrats have been itching to ditch Roe for some time. The lack of outcry or even interest in the prospect, along with the pervasive tolerance for misogyny taken to it’s extreme over the past year, has given them the green light. You can’t defend a right when the generation of women most affected by it — those with functioning ovaries — don’t care enough to demand it.
So good, let it go. Sometimes you have to hit bottom to see there’s a problem.
*****A
-
ea says:
Uh, the “she´s Catholic, so she´s probably (whatever)¨ comments really show that people just can not let go of their prejudices when attributing thoughts, feelings, or actions to others. My recollection of survey data is that most self-identified Catholics favor access to abortion services (Sorry, can´t identify a recent source and not inclined to look.) Also, the last I remember of exit surveys from women who actually terminated their pregnancies, the percentage of those who self-identified as Catholic was the same or higher than those who did not, but I do not recall if this reflected the background population.
Really, some people need to look beyond their own white, middle-class, Protestantism.
-
Violet says:
Uh, the “she´s Catholic, so she´s probably (whatever)¨ comments really show that people just can not let go of their prejudices when attributing thoughts, feelings, or actions to others.
I don’t think it’s prejudice. I think it’s simply that most people know the Catholic Church prohibits abortion and has historically been hostile to contraception (that’s a pretty famous fact), while far fewer people are aware of the polls and surveys showing that most American Catholics ignore Rome on that stuff.
Really, some people need to look beyond their own white, middle-class, Protestantism.
And some people need to get off their fucking high horse. Yeah, this blog is chock full of Protestants who harbor scary prejudices against evul Catholics. And “white”? Jesus Christ.
-
Kat says:
Wait, wait… I thought Roe was the reason I had to vote for Teh Precious or I would be betraying women for generations to come! I thought I couldn’t consider third party candidates who actually cared strongly about issues I believe in because of Very Important Things Like Roe.
Darn, have I fallen behind on my O-propaganda again? He isn’t even curious about Sotomayor’s position on abortion and didn’t even post the question? So hard to keep up… I’ll need a doubleplus good citizen’s guide to correct thought in order to keep track.
-
Violet says:
Just to make it blindingly clear on the “prejudice” crap, because I am really not in the mood for this shit:
In comment #6, Anna Belle said “IF she’s pro-life, that is. Keep in mind that as a Catholic, it’s likely she is pro-life.”
With that comment, did Anna Belle reveal herself to be a monster of bigotry? No. She merely revealed that she is unaware of the extent to which American Catholics are, from Rome’s point of view, bad Catholics. She revealed that she is, alas, not up to speed on the data showing that nowadays, American Catholics are about as pro-choice and pro-contraception as everybody else.
So that’s it. Anna Belle’s big crime against humanity is that she’s not adequately up to speed on the fucking demographic data vis-a-vis American Catholicism. Twisting that into evidence of bigotry and throwing around “white middle-class Protestantism” is so fucking ridiculous I can’t stand it.
-
Sis says:
Hmm. My experience with French Canadian Roman Catholic women I know and work with is they will have abortions under duress, but they won’t *support* them.
Back in the the day, I saw somethign similar with the BCP and my Catholic girlfriends.
In the 1960s in Canada unmarried women couldn’t get the BCP. My roommates then, both Catholic, got the pill under the counter somehow and used it all the years I knew them–but would not eat pork and beans on Friday. I watched one of them spit out her mouthful and run shreiking into the bathroom to bleach her mouth, I guess. She was the BCP innovator among us.
-
Violet says:
Based on the White House statement, Sotomayor was raised Catholic and “attends church for family celebrations” or something. Code for she’s not really much of a practicing Catholic, if at all.
Having spent much of my life around Catholics, I think the Catholic connection is a non-starter. The US is full of highly-educated nominal Catholics like Sotomayor who are about as likely to care what Ratzinger thinks as I am.
-
Carmonn says:
“Uh, the “she´s Catholic, so she´s probably (whatever)¨ comments really show that people just can not let go of their prejudices when attributing thoughts, feelings, or actions to others.”
Uh, 90% of the time comments like that actually come from Catholics and reflect our experiences. Yeah, the majority of us may be cultural Catholics-in-name-only, but everyplace I’ve ever lived Catholics have been in the majority, and anti-choice positions often tend to be overrepresented in politics. Not necessarily the majority, but overrepresented. There is a strong anti-choice faction among religious Catholics and they make their voices heard. Right now, there are 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court, and 5 anti-choice votes. It’s not like it’s a completely unreasonable prejudice. The same thing holds for Evangelicals, there are certainly pro-choice Evangelicals, but the not-unreasonable assumption is that Evangelicals are more likely to have anti-choice views based on experience where a large percentage of Evangelicals are involved in politics. We’re talking about religions with tenets and ideologies, no some kind of alleged racial predisposition.
“Really, some people need to look beyond their own white, middle-class, Protestantism.”
It’s not 1920 and we’re not exactly an oppressed minority or great cultural mystery. In fact, we sometimes seem to have an outsized influence on public policy. Most people have actually even met a couple of us, not just studied us as a curiosity in the anthropology museum. But it’s not that simple, either. The last time I looked at a piece of campaign literature, I found myself puzzling over all the references to the candidate’s involvement in Church activities, wondering if she was trying to send a message or indicate something. If I had kids, I’d never ever raise them Catholic, so I wonder if THAT means anything when a politician has kids. Maybe I’m being unreasonable, but I don’t think I am. *shrugs* I don’t see that as the same as trying to portray Catholics as Archie Bunkers based on nothing as seen in Campaign ‘08 (”Latinos hate Blacks! Of course they love Hillary!” “Of course Obama can’t carry a high population state–that’s where the Catholics live!”).
-
Anna Belle says:
Actually, ea, I’m an atheist, not a Protestant, so speak for yourself about assumptions and prejudice, ffs. Violet hit the nail on the head when she said the LEADER of the Catholic Church requires his subjects to be pro-life, or live the lie that is adherence to all things Catholic, except when the person’s American liberal values give them a squiggly feeling.
-
Anna Belle says:
Violet, thanks for your defense, but it isn’t necessary. I am aware of those studies, but what I said is still true. The vast majority of American Catholics are pro-life, even if that is simply because they accept the authority of the Pope.
In addition, Sotomayor’s case is complicated by the fact that she is Latina. Latino Catholicism is much more close aligned with Rome than white American Catholicism is. Latina/o Catholics tend to have a far higher incidence of pro-life sentiment than white middle class Catholics. That is also clearly demonstrated in those studies.
Finally, I am aware of how many Catholic women have abortions, but I am also aware that plenty of people who actually march around in pro-life rallies have them when it is convenient for them as well. Whether a person has actually had an abortion is no reflection at all on the public face they offer with regard to their abortion views.
So what I said is true. I am not bothered by the false charges of bigotry at all. Let the sheep bleat away in the ways they learned from other sheep; I am well outside the influence of the herd.
-
Anna Belle says:
Last comment, I swear! :)
While I don’t think the Catholic thing is exactly a “non-starter,” (especially considering there are already five Catholics on this bench, which constitutes the highest authority in the land) I do think it should be looked at in perspective. Regular readers here and at my own blog know that I ultimately support this nomination for some very good reasons: She is female, and there is no evidence of overt authoritarian leanings.
-
M. A. Liginter says:
I am glad this is up for discussion. We (femisex) have written our doubts about SotoMaybe.
and a last look at Carhart v. Gonzalez (and other rulings) shows that the 5 Roman Catholics voted to allow JDs to become practicing MDs on a woman’s body. A travesty!I must say, given SotoMaybe’s writings (Gag Rule is not a violation of free speech and her abortion is Akin to killing a child comment in a ruling on forced abortions, well there is plenty of chilling for me. (more details of this quote can be found on our post if you want deets.)
It is utterly fair to worry about Sotomayor’s religion when she has been so careful to not rule or talk about this issue, when she has ruled in favor of Bush over Center for Repro Rights, when…so much is at stake.
-
Branjor says:
Well, I grew up in a family of many catholics (but was raised episcopalian myself) and all of them except my parents’ generation (with the exception of my parents) was pro choice.
