Sotomayor: She may be Catholic … but rest easy … she doesn’t attend Mass.

Well the mainstream media has finally caught on to what we at RVO have already blogged on twice. Once here and here … although I must admit both posts were to point out the absurdity of it all.

Now the AP has noticed … but don’t worry … Sotomayor isn’t one of those “church going Catholics.” (Emphasis mine). Much thanks to Ann Althouse for pointing this out.

But far from forming any unified bloc, the justices would represent the vast diversity of American Catholics, from weekly churchgoers to the occasional attendee.

Sotomayor, a parochial school graduate, has said nothing since her nomination about how she practices her faith.

The White House said: “She currently does not belong to a particular parish or church, but she attends church with family and friends for important occasions.”

That would make her what religion experts call a “cultural Catholic,” someone who identifies with Catholicism and its traditions but is not active in the church.

More than half of U.S. Catholics rarely or never attend Mass, and they tend to have more liberal views than frequent churchgoers on abortion, gay marriage and other issues.

On the high court, Sotomayor would join a group of regular Mass attendees: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“Cultural Catholic”? I have been Catholic all my life and I didn’t know we had two kinds, “cultural” and what … “actual”? I must say I am baffled. But it does explain a lot when I read polls that say half of all Catholics are pro choice or 50% of Catholics voted for Obama, despite his past stance on not just abortion but also late term abortion … real late.

But I have to ask, unlike Judaism, Catholicism is not defined by heritage. How does one call themselves Catholic if 1. you never attend mass and 2. Do not believe in Church dogma much less doctrine (please don’t ask me to explain the difference and if you consider yourself Catholic and don’t know the difference, I rest my case). Quite simply you are not. You can call yourself a rose all you want … but if you are a daisy … that’s what you are.

As for Catholics on the Supreme Court, I wonder why Americans are not saying something about the fact that soon they will make up 6 of the 9. Is that diversity? I am Catholic and I am not so sure this is a good idea … or for that matter … that it even makes a difference.

Maybe that’s what Bill Press meant when he said this:


Feinstein on Sotomayor: “Just One Word”

Oh, but what a word it is. Watching Face The Nation yesterday was a jaw dropper. Read more

Gibbs and Obama now speaking for Sotomayor

When you see the Drudge headline, you’ll probably assume that Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter, was interviewed and said that she chose her words poorly. The current Drudge headline, which includes a prominant picture of Sotomayor reads CHOSE WORDS POORLY.

Follow to the Associated Press story and you quickly find out that Sotomayor has been quiet since the nomination announcement, and Obama and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs are now officially speaking for her. My emphasis added.

… “I’m sure she would have restated it,” [President] Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. …

“I think that when she’s appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is,” Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.

The president’s damage control underscored how the White House is eager to stay on message as the battle to publicly define Sotomayor picks up.

Obama’s top spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters about Sotomayor: “I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”

Gibbs, however, said he did not hear that from Sotomayor directly. He said he learned it from people who had talked to her, and he did not identify who those people were. Sotomayor herself has made no public statements since her nomination became official Tuesday and was not reachable for comment.

Look, she’s going to get in unless some early summer surprise comes around, but that does not mean conservatives should shut up about her judicial record and her feelings about the Constitution.

For those of you who state we need to shut up or the Republican Party is going to loose Hispanic votes, what did Bush’s outreach to Hispanics during his administration “buy” the GOP? It’s not about race at all, it’s about political (socialist/liberal/conservative/libertarian) principles.

Sotomayor first hispanic Supreme Court justice… well, maybe not

The nomination of Justice Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court has been heralded in many circles. If confirmed, it is said that she will be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. That is, unless you discount (or count) Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Read more

Sotomayor Roundup – Gingrich, Malkin, Forbes

I wanted to put up a post with some links to the Sotomayor nomination from out site and others.

The “Rush called a racist” post is really a pretty good look not so much at Rush but some of the comments made by Sotomayor that may ultimately become her undoing.

BTW, Newt Gingrich has now joined the call for her withdrawal because of what he believes to be racist comments.

On Wednesday, Gingrich tweeted: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.’ new racism is no better than old racism.”

The “Liberal Talk Show Host” post is a great example of a nomination shell game. The left is pushing its “compelling story” line rather than compelling credentials which may or may not exist but when pressed … Press could only come up with “She’s the sixth Catholic”?

BTW … Michelle Malkin is all over this one too.

Democrats are eager to celebrate diversity, you see, as long as the diversely-pigmented pledge allegiance to the Left for life.

Finally a link to an article I talked about today at Forbes

I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The “or else” was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: “We agree with the district court that [Wasser’s] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants’ demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.”

There’s more out there but for now this should do and we will add as time goes on.

Liberal talk show host points out Sotomayor’s religion

The first Latina Supreme Court Justice, check. The third woman, check. How about her religion? Read more

Rush … taken out of context … is labled a racist.

This was just too much to pass up. Former New York State Supreme Court Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder is asked to comment on comments made by Rush Limbaugh in which Limbaugh calls Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a reverse racist. Read more