Law & Justice: May 2009 Archives
It's hard for me to interpret what President Obama is saying in defense of Sonia Sotomayor:
President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.
There are several ways this could be interpreted, and I think the President was intentionally ambiguous so that we can each believe in the way that makes Sotomayor look the best in our own minds.
1. Sotomayor didn't mean what she said. She meant to convey an entirely different meaning, and she would have restated herself to convey that meaning if she had the opportunity. (Which she didn't?)
2. Sotomayor meant what she said, but if she had known that she would be nominated to the Supreme Court eight years later she would have phrased it more ambiguously so that her beliefs couldn't be so easily held against her.
3. Sotomayor meant what she said but now wishes she could take it back because she has changed her mind.
4. Sotomayor meant what she said but now wishes she could take it back because she thinks it will hurt her chances of being confirmed.
Is there another option? Which of these really speaks well of a person who could very well get a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court?
A couple is claiming that a San Diego County official has threatened to shut down their home Bible study unless they apply for a permit. Please.
Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"
The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.
Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
If this happened (I smell a hoax) there's no way their Bible study will ultimately be stopped. It's ludicrous.
Why do I smell a hoax? Saying "amen" and "praise the Lord" cannot possibly be on any list of questions that the county uses to determine whether or not a religious use permit is required for anything. I just find it hard to believe that any government employee would ask those kinds of questions, even if a permit were legitimately required.
