She'll pass, but narrowly. She's personable and brilliant. But she can't quite explain her ideas because she's never had to do so: like many Ivy Leaguers, she thinks saying the right words makes it so.
Let me be more specific: she is telling the Senate she's against judicial activism, even that she's an "originalist," and yet she can't bring herself to define the word "woman" or to tell us how many unenumerated rights might yet be found to exist that aren't in the text.
The child porn stuff is toxic to Republicans and will guarantee there isn't much of a crossover. The question isn't whether she's right about the need for more lenient or flexible sentences for sex offenders -- that's a policy debate (the kind of debate she says she doesn't want to have on other topics, as a judge). The problem is that the public was told that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) was lying. It turns out he was telling the truth about her record, and the only defense the Democrats have is to claim that she's right on the substance of the issue. Yes, Hawley is making them die, proverbially, on the hill of child pornography. (Normally Republicans aren't quite that clever or adept -- so, well played.)
She'll be a reliable liberal vote on the Court, and will not have much of an impact, except perhaps as a role model, for which purpose we are to be reminded that she is a certain kind of "woman," whatever that outdated term might mean.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
