Celeste, I'm not going to this musical. I know everything I need to know from your review. From what you write, it's just going to be this predictable rah, rah, rah feminist evening I've seen enough of. Ensemble Theatre has become such a tiresome purveyor of accepted values. I read the description of one of their plays and it's like listening to NPR - I know what I'm going to be told and how I should feel about it, so why bother listening? That may be theatre with an “re” but it's not real theater.
Polly, I didn't want to say what you said here, it takes courage to speak the truth against the rolling tides of ideological abuse, so well done! If we were to rediscover the nature of and true meaning of the words "law" and "justice", which can only be truly understood by a recovery of the Natural Law, these 3 "supreme court justices" would be a mockery of all that is good and true. I will concede that these three women are iconic and might have their own Mr. Rushmore in a land completely taken over by the culture of death. Thank you for your bravery.
If I'm going to sit through an evening of justice, I'd rather stay home and watch Dirty Harry again on Amazon Prime. And lest any of the commenters here who identify as Trump-hating females accuse me of misogyny, no less than E. Jean Carroll wrote this: “Miss Polly Frost is so funny, so wildly intelligent, and so mean to the unfortunate half-wits who cross her path, she is the Edith Wharton of her generation.”
HA! Brilliant Polly! And yes of course, there is exponentially more justice in Dirty Harry than any semblance of justice in the play. One does not need to see any production entitled "justice" with the three main protagonists whose very lives are emblematic of the inversion of justice to mean a kind of slavery to sin. RBG and Sotomayor are shamefully pro-abortion a negation of the first true justice in the founding of the Great American Experiment, the right to life. (O'Conner did her part with her opinion on planned parenthood vs. Casey, though a little less celebratory about a mother murdering her very own precious child) Once you espouse literal death of humans as justice, you have left the path of sanity. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. These three women were/are pro-death and as the saint said "If a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me - there is nothing between." These 3 supreme court justices embody the end of Western Civilization and a totalizing culture of death that is clouding over the West. This is an unfathomable shame for our patrimony and beyond that, it is like making George Floyd statues, celebrating the death of virtue. That it is beautifully scripted and brilliantly acted out only elevates the malice of it all.
Polly, I am sorry to hear your reaction. I urge you to see the play, and then judge based on what you have experienced with your own eyes. I'd be happy to pay for your ticket -- seriously. This is an exceptional play, its production professional throughout. I hope you'll take me up on my offer.
Celeste, you are very sweet to offer me a ticket, but I would probably sit there channeling my late great friend, the New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael, who used to audibly sigh when she was bored during a screening.
Isn’t Sotomayor one of the 3 supreme court justices who voted AGAINST making it against the law in Tennessee yesterday for minor children to change their gender?
Yes. Sotomayor DISSENTED against a Tennessee law to protect MINOR children against gender affirming medical procedures. Key issue here is MINOR children.
In the play Sotomayor is big on the 14th Amendment Equal protection clause. One I really enjoyed! I had no idea it would be subjected to criticism as indicated in this comment section.
I’m unaware of TN Trans dissenting opinions; I haven’t researched any. You got me curious. Could be a parents right issue: parent has the right to decide on behalf of their minor child, even if care paid for by Medicaid or other public program. Or perhaps a plausible clause concern for the less than .1% misassigned a gender at birth, or maybe some other prior court decisions.
Polly- How do American females bond as women? You’re an author; a local with a work hiatus in NYC. I’d like to read articles from you in the SB Current. In response to your “should feel” post, no reader was told we “should feel” any particular way after seeing the play. What you message to me is biased, closed minds are intolerant, inconsiderate, and opposed to free speech regardless of political affiliation.
The show Justices messaged to me ‘civility’. I saw at the exit door my very liberal neighbors (often publicly we’ve disagreed politically since 1985), her father a judge. They smiled while telling me: “what insight on O’Connor’s foundation, her style: loved it. Did you like it?” Of course! I learned civility matters regardless of politics. Civility is a sub-theme. Bostonian Hannah-Beth in row three. Wonder what she learned on civility, inclusion? The Tea Talk prior to the show was on American women increasing life opportunities from the 1950s - 1990s. All free women have a shared interest in having options.
I have no idea what this sentence means “ What you message to me is biased, closed minds are intolerant, inconsiderate, and opposed to free speech regardless of political affiliation.” What are you saying?
Polly, I am now reading the comments from several days ago. Wow. Can't believe my enthusiastic review of the play -- a play about 3 extraordinary women -- generated such hostility. Toward the production and toward commenters here. What a nasty response to 93108: "ludicrous insult." Reread what she wrote you through the exchange. She was polite. Respectful. She even encouraged you to write an article about women, based on your own professional background.
Celeste, she was neither polite nor respectful. She said: “What you message to me is biased, closed minds are intolerant, inconsiderate, and opposed to free speech regardless of political affiliation.” I asked what she meant and she repeated that. And that's why I responded the way I did saying it was a “ludicrous insult.” I often like Montecito93108 but that was a ludicrous insult. As for your review generating “such hostility” about “3 extraordinary women” … they are/were not extraordinary women in my book. This is where you and I are different. One of my SBCC college professors (from the early 70s) came to see my one woman show about my father in 2017. He wrote me a letter afterwards about everything he disliked about my show. I loved it! And I still have it like every bad review or rejection I've ever gotten. He bought a ticket and drove all the way to Solvang to see it, then took the time to tell me what he disliked in it. I think of him as a real friend and had him over to our house for coffee and Banana Bread just last week. For me the worst thing isn't hating something I've written. It's not bothering to read it or be apathetic about it. But if someone, like Montecito93108, attacks me on a personal basis, that I don’t like or put up with. The choreographer Jerome Robbins (West Side Story) used to walk up to audience members after one of his shows and say “What'd you hate?”
Good to know M.Self that you don’t agree with their decisions. It is tiring which is why the show uplifted me and others. I haven’t seen so many smiling faces in a long time. Conservative and liberal each supporting each other privately as women, as friends, with very different approaches to the same goal: to be heard. The audience was split on decisions, based on applause at the performance I attended. Tension, suspense seemed the highest when Sandra Day O’Conner alone had to decide who would be POTUS Bush or Gore. The Bush Family her friends. A Florida recount before the Court: equal protection of variations on how counties tally votes differently or something . Justices split 4:4, she the tie breaker. She was also aware of a vacancy on the court for POTUS to fill. And her husband John was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. How would we handle this unimaginable pressure on our own? I left wanting to learn more. Did the play accurately reflect what happened?
This is to one side, and of course take it for what it’s worth (not much) … But since I volunteered that I was a classmate of the Wise Latina I’ll share my interpretation of her career.
Sotomayor was an affirmative action kid at Princeton (not an insult, she says so herself) … She wasn’t nearly as well-prepared as most of her classmates, and according to friends who knew her she wasn’t really as snappy and smart as most of us were. She was a dynamo in some ways, but she was intellectually ‘way outgunned— not an unusual situation for an affirmative action kid at an Ivy in the ‘70s to be in.
(Most of them were plenty bright and would have done well at a state school, but they floundered in high-powered environments. It was a cruel injustice to pluck ‘em out of nowhere and throw ‘em in the academic deep end. But the Ivies badly wanted to increase the numbers of nonwhite students so …)
Anyway, some affirmative action kids found refuge in the bullshit “Studies” departments that were invented for them (African American Studies, Women’s Studies, etc), and nursed resentments. Sotomayor did what the more resourceful affirmative action kids did. After struggling academically, she foregrounded her ethnicity and turned that into her career.
Her academic years weren’t in fact about academics, they were all about ethnic activism. The rest of us had to research and write about topics unrelated to ourselves. Sotomayor wrote about herself and her ethnicity, and made herself into a standard bearer for Puerto Ricans at Ivies. (Playing the “me and my ethnicity” card is the same way Michelle Obama got through Princeton some years later.)
How could the dippy liberals who ran the college (and later, the people at Yale Law) *not* throw good grades and a lot of awards at her? They wanted — in fact they felt they needed — a female Latino to promote into the establishment. Somebody was going to have to be that person. Why not Sonia? Sotomayor was shrewd enough, consciously or unconsciously, to ride that wave.
Call me a cynic, but that’s my account of how she became the Wise Latina of legend.
Interesting detail from the Wikipedia entry on Sotomayor: “She was influenced by critical race theory, which would be reflected in her later speeches and writings.” Critical Race Theory is MARXIST.
Excellent post Billy! It is hard to put too fine a point on how vacuous, shallow, arrogant, entitled, misguided, and vicious are souls like Sotomayor and the Obamas. They are all unwitting communists and maybe they truly don't know it, but they drank the coolaid- they have the preferred genes without the hinderance of intelligence nor the constraints of character and in their wake is a trail of the dead and destroyed and they probably don't lose a wink of sleep. Still, as your narrative implies, this is exactly what we asked for as a society.
Agree Sawbilly: Sotomayor definitely did not earn her admission to Princeton or Yale; or her Obama nomination to SCOTUS. Who did or does she know? Who are or were her connectors that resulted in her appointment? There’s definitely a correlation between failed or needy students and militant activists.
Appreciate reading your post. I’d like to know how Sotomayor got where she is. At least we know Justice K Jackson is connected to former Catholic speaker Paul Ryan; and for whatever reason, most SCOTUS appointments are Catholic. Why is that? (troubles me greatly: two indoctrinated at the same elite Catholic boarding school, or the latest one who doesn’t know what a woman is.).
Insofar as the play, Justices: seeing multi-talented Sio Tepper keeping the beat non-stop for 90 straight minutes, is worth the ticket price!! She’s been impressive since childhood. She has earned community accolades.
"It's Marxist!" And conservatism is liberal - yet you embrace the latter I presume. The first modernist plague was liberalism - marxism arose in response to the failures of capitalism and the abuse of workers. The wealth the revolution promised... never materialized for most people. Yes Marxists are godless materialists, yes they're deluded - but don't blane then without attacking the classical liberals first. It is ironic as a supporter of a revolution that overthrew the old order - to then condemn a subseauent subversive and revolutionary movement simply because its opposed to your own ideals.
Good article, thanks, but no thanks on enticing me to attend…reality is much more interesting than planned productions…
Take RGB…
[RBG]
Why was she 'selected'?
Who appointed her?
Remember [her] history.
Ref: 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:
>Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)
>Called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145)
>Insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169)
>Cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146)
>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>GINSburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)
>An indefatigable censor, GINSburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)
>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)
>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
Can you imagine celebrating a person like RBG? She is a hero to many disordered people- Justice Scalia did it just right, he loved her personhood as a human made in the image and likeness of God but hated her evil ideology. We should not be hateful towards reprobates like RBG, we should pity them and pray for them. We should never celebrate them or make cultural icons out of such deformed human beings. The upside downness of it all baffles the mind and soul.
Hey Montecito- there are only two possibilities here, either all humans are born fallen or they are not. I claim all of us are born fallen and our natures are corrupted, what that means specifically is that all humans since the Fall of our first parents have 1. A darkened intellect, meaning it is difficult to think clearly, 2. A weakened will, meaning we easily succumb to the temptations of things that are unnatural or bad for us, and 3. We have disordered appetites, this means we are sometimes attracted to things that are unnatural or bad for us. This describes the disordered person, which is all of us at birth, and then as humans grow and are either educated or miseducated, people make choices to cultivate habits that either put the disorder back into the right order, and this would be by following the Natural Law, or we choose those things that are bad for our souls and unnatural and become even more disordered by vicious habits. An example would be a person who believes that murdering an unborn child is a "right" displays a profoundly disordered intellectual and moral character. So in the end, I claim we are all disordered, and of course including me. On the other hand, I know there is a camp that thinks just the opposite and that everyone is born just fine the way they are and that if there are problems they can be solved by exterior changes- and if this is not true, that worldview is deeply disordered. So Montecito, do object to the idea that all humans are disorder to one degree or another?
RBG sounds like a textbook Bolshevik/Marxist to me. Undermine the traditional foundations of
identity and morality and collapse society. It’s a proven template. Worked great in the USSR and China. Working great here where we are facing demographic collapse as the sexes are increasingly estranged from one another. By 2030 45% of women ages 25 - 44 projected to be childless and single.
The Bolshevik/Marxists play the long game, with limitless funding by the banksters.
Excellent point Constantine! All these women mentioned and add on Ketanji by far the most deformed on the court in history, you see the progressive decrease in character and increase in ideology that is destroying the Great American Experiment. The world has convinced women that their personal "glory" and "success" is more important than all the beautiful things for which they were truly made. It is really gross and the most shocking thing to which most of the population seems blind, especially those who would celebrate such destructive crones, is that they all share the satantic principal that for a mother to murder her own child is a political right and a good. We have officially completely inverted the intellectual and moral order of reality where evil is celebrated as good and falsehoods are considered true. These horrible women lead the way. Scary.
DL: The show’s focus is the significance of women having a voice, a seat at the table or on the bench; and that justices now come from both genders, and varied ethnicities: AZ Christian white & Bush friend O’Connor, NY Jewish white Ginsberg, NY Puerto Rican Spanish capable Hispanic white Sotomayor. I don’t recall if Sotomayor’s religion ever mentioned in the show. For me, Justices a welcomed historical overview of SCOTUS. I was busy having babies 1992-2000, commuting between homes here and London; and caring for my immobile Parkinson’s cursed beloved mother and best friend.
Likewise DL, I appreciate your links to Ginsburg decisions to further school me on what I missed while in my female caregiver role having taken off my professional suit of 20 years earning and learning as a ‘female first - a pathfinder’ in the male only world of financing and development.
I get it, all voices matter, BUT a hard no for me celebrating/regaling RGB & Sotomayer…great respect for Justice O’Conner…can’t give my $$$ (stored work) to those under control of the NWO Cabal…
Montecito, I think you nailed why some of us don't want to go. You just explained what it's about and what I'm going to get out of it with “DL: The show’s focus is the significance of women having a voice, a seat at the table or on the bench; and that justices now come from both genders, and varied ethnicities.” I think all that is important. Yay, ladies, genders and ethnics. And it took me one minute to read. So now I don't need to go to the play. Thank you. However, had you written something like this: “Don't go to see this play unless you're prepared to have everything you believe about justice, RBG and women in powerful positions challenged and even upended” I would have bought my tickets by now.
Thrilled I saved you money Polly. You’ll simply miss out on an opportunity to enjoy an exceptional show. To each her own. I knew all the Carole King songs and about the play before Beautiful; same with Phantom, Mama Mia, Jersey Boys, and a hundred plus other shows viewed multiple times in NY, London, L.A. and elsewhere. You picked a compatible career as a critic, not a community organizer.
Nicely written piece, but I’d rather shoot myself than sit through this play, however well acted and snappily directed it apparently is.
Fwiw, I went to college with Sotomayor. Didn’t know her personally but had friends who did. They weren’t impressed. Sotomayor was a professional Latina even back as a college student, lol. Thank god I’m married to a smart, irreverent woman who has as little interest in rah-rah feminist baloney as I do.
Here's my answer to Sawbilly and the other naysayers who judge without any knowledge of the script, its music, and its fine stage direction. A few days ago, I was visiting my husband at Skilled Nursing during lunch, as I do. The best time of day to spend with someone in Dementia. One of the other residents asked to sit with us at our table. My heart sank. She has the reputation of being mean -- to staff, patients, and visitors. She'd previously been nasty to me. But I sucked it up, hekped her with her wheelchair, and brought her lemonade. And she humbled me. At one point, she for whatever reason shared with me the great tragedy of her life.Years before, her son had died tragically, run over by a train. I just allowed her to talk, often hard to understand she spoke so softly, but I listened. And felt shamed for having judged her. Life is not easy behind the walls of old people's homes. My job as a visitor to their home is to be gracious. To be open to the person they are, to their humanity which we all share. What does this have to do with your comment? Everything. Go and see "Justice." It's a great civics lesson. A great story about female friendship, including falling out. It's a wonderful play.
Celeste, reviewers should never order people to see what they review or tell them they need to see it, or that they need a civics lesson. One thing I learned in my two year stint as a movie reviewer was that if I believed in a film, I needed to make it sound irresistible, not tell readers they had to see it, which is like telling children they must eat their broccoli because it's good for them rather than preparing the broccoli in such a way they dig right into it. Your story about the mean woman is very touching, and I'm very sorry about your husband. But I don't need this kind of scold from you as part of a review. It makes me just never want to be on SB Current again. I don't need a mommy lecture. Btw, the last review you did of the documentary, October 8th, had the same effect on me. I didn't see it.
Please don’t go away Polly (never leave the battlefield)…water off a duck’s back Sister…love your “old soul” voice here since you have the extra abilities to see things for what they are…plus, your great storytelling!
Sawbilly- didn’t Obama intentionally appoint Puerto Rican New Yorker Sotomayor as a DEI to bring a Hispanic voice to SCOTUS? Enlighten me. How was she identified; how did she rise in the selection process for appointment? Who did she know? Currently we’ve a Catholic dominated SCOTUS, which concerns me.
I looked up Sotomayor judicial history in NY. She’s a cross over DEI nominee. Sotomayor served as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York (1992–1998, appointed by President George H.W. Bush) and as a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Second Circuit (1998–2009, appointed by President Bill Clinton). Her 17 years of federal judicial experience made her one of the most experienced nominees in decades, with over 3,000 opinions written or contributed to on the Second Circuit.
BR: This play is impactful, historical; I would not describe its intent as “fun”. Some Americans of both genders, both political parties, will just never “get it” which is a huge frustration to those of us who do “get it”!
Write a show on “Barrett’s relationship with the Dem justices.” MEMBERS OF SCOTUS ARE TO BE IMPARTIAL. Go view this show Justices. A turning point is the politicalization of the Court.
Bill, I think the piece is a great review of what seems like an interesting play. It doesn't read like a political opinion piece. We can address Barrett another time.
Thanks for recognizing that this was a review -- to be distinguished from editorial. I only write reviews about stuff I really really love. I loved this production. Good job, Ensemble Theatre!
Go see the play, Bill. It's a high quality production. If you take in a matinee, there's a "tea" before with notable speakers. I think Sunday's has the director talking.
Because of the politization of the city of SB, my former neighbors and the West Coast FBI thugs ... I'm sitting here in Dalton, GA with the Southern FBI thugs, lol. I think I had enough of observing a liberal judge during a trial in SB of a friend killed by an intoxicated driver. I've lost a lot of respect for judges, and they tend to turn me off.
One last comment from me and directed toward the person who misquoted my review, claiming -- and I quote -- that I was "ordering people to see [the play]" and "that they needed a civics lesson." Boy, do I wish I were still teaching argumentative writing at SBCC. That post would serve as the basis for an engaging and productive lesson plan: Never misrepresent the opponent's statement. I reread the review, searching for any referrnces of demands and shoulds (A dreadful word, "should," and one she herself levelled against me!) Near the end of the review, I wrote the word, "hope," twice. First, that I hoped readers would attend the play. Second, I hoped that attendees would bring the young people in their lives. HOPE. Look it up in the dictionary. As far as the civics lesson, I again plead innocent. I state in the review that the play is a lesson in civics -- which it is and was one of the great take-aways. I taught English for many years and ran the Great Books program at City College. All works of enduring profundity and beauty are at their essence, moral. They teach us the most valuable lesson of all, how to be human. What it means to be human. Our flaws and warts; iur ability to achieve greatness, valor, courage in the face of insurmountable odds. The great tales, both ancient and modern, TEACH. I would extend to all art: music, painting, sculpture, poetry. . . . Look up Sargent's "Gassed": All of what trench warfare entailed is contained in the painting.
You created a lively response today - and that's one of the many reasons SB Current is so important in this city. Reading the Independent these days, especially Angry Poodle, is as thought-provoking as attending a Marxist bingo game. But I still say a lesson in civics is the same as a civics lesson.
Excellent review and recommendation. “It’s a civics lesson that will imprint itself onto their souls.” Yep: souls enriched, minds expanded by departing audience. Agree Celeste, this show is exceptional.
The show has two parallel tracks. The chronology of historically significant SCOTUS decisions and the reality that the varied life experiences of justices — regardless of gender, partisan politics and their depth of Constitutional law knowledge — determines their ultimate individual opinions.
Men are different than women. Until the appointment of AZ Republican Sandra Day O’Connor, the opinion of any female was never heard to be considered. Women were out of sight, out of mind. Dependent on men. Period. How can that fact alone not touch the soul? Our perspectives need to be heard even as a “dissenting” voice.
What bonds American women crosses the artificial barriers of conservative and liberal. The first female appointment conservative O’Conner followed by liberal Ginsburg are the examples. Women are the nation’s caregivers: both mindful of their beloved husbands. After joined by Sotomayor, I was reminded that women prioritize those we love, and are forever grateful for those who love us.
Conservative O’Conner and Liberal RBG will be forever respected for proving we are undervalued assets regardless of politics. As pathfinders these two showed others that women matter: our opinions, strength, schooling, and even our choice of husbands are important. Subsequent trailblazer Sotomayer represents that a minority unmarried “diabetic” determined woman raised by a single mother can make it to the top! Each voice making a unique difference in judicial decision, yet at their core, bonded as women.
An added ovation, shout out for local now national super star Sio Tepper, Musical Director and performer. Sio was a young local “first female” top math competitor, who gave stellar classical piano performances at the Granada showcased by The Music and Arts Conservatory. Sio is beyond accomplished, now based in NYC. Hard to believe she is just in her early thirties.
What about giraffes? The platypus, ticks, (actually, most insects) galaxies & hurricanes viewed from above??? Really Steve? You think there is a god that thought all this up?
I dunno, maybe to both. But I'm not as naive as you and Steve to believe your God, the one God, is the only source of truth. I'm holding off judgement on all faiths.
Dan, it is a position of weakness to "hold off judgement on all faiths." That alone is the weakest faith, the false belief and false judgement that it is good not to judge. Naivety has nothing at all to do with my belief in God, in fact it was naivety that kept me an atheist for decades in my ignorant arrogance. God is the ultimate source of Truth, not the only source- although if you trace back all sources of Truth, they lead to God.
God does not make mistakes, but our first parents did and thus we have a fallen world. Then God gives us the unbearable compliment of his image imprinted on our souls which includes the free will to love Him or reject Him. Satan wants everyone to give false attribution of sin and error to God when we own both. Other than being glaringly obvious, there are intellectual proofs by unaided reason that conclude a prime mover, Aristotle and Plato figured that out on their own. Besides that, the intricacy, beauty, balance, perfection in the universe is a kind of natural art that requires a Divine Artist- not to mentioned all the materially scientific evidence that explains the proximate causes of matter, plants, animals, and humans, it is astounding that so many are blind to it all these days, even more astounding than elevating and celebrating evil women as objects of high culture and progress. We are truly insane these days.
I saw the musical. Yes, it does come down on the side of liberal ideology, but no worse than most all major media. (We've all developed a studier spine by now, or we should have.)
"Justice" illuminates and expands on the struggles and difficulties of trailblazers such as these three women - how they helped and supported each other regardless of ideology. We can enjoy it for what it is.
No minor should be allowed to mutilate or chemically alter their body to be something they are not. This is child abuse and the law should not allow it. There is also a movement to lower age of consent to sexual activity which this is part of. We need to have our laws grounded in morality, that means we need to have a shared moral system. Catholicism is the best one available due to its ability to resist temporal and political pressure better than other Churches. You don't have to become Catholic, but we would be wise to have our laws reflect Catholic morality in order to push back on the various forces promoting and encouraging sexual degeneracy and sexual identity confusion.
Celeste, I'm not going to this musical. I know everything I need to know from your review. From what you write, it's just going to be this predictable rah, rah, rah feminist evening I've seen enough of. Ensemble Theatre has become such a tiresome purveyor of accepted values. I read the description of one of their plays and it's like listening to NPR - I know what I'm going to be told and how I should feel about it, so why bother listening? That may be theatre with an “re” but it's not real theater.
Polly, I didn't want to say what you said here, it takes courage to speak the truth against the rolling tides of ideological abuse, so well done! If we were to rediscover the nature of and true meaning of the words "law" and "justice", which can only be truly understood by a recovery of the Natural Law, these 3 "supreme court justices" would be a mockery of all that is good and true. I will concede that these three women are iconic and might have their own Mr. Rushmore in a land completely taken over by the culture of death. Thank you for your bravery.
If I'm going to sit through an evening of justice, I'd rather stay home and watch Dirty Harry again on Amazon Prime. And lest any of the commenters here who identify as Trump-hating females accuse me of misogyny, no less than E. Jean Carroll wrote this: “Miss Polly Frost is so funny, so wildly intelligent, and so mean to the unfortunate half-wits who cross her path, she is the Edith Wharton of her generation.”
HA! Brilliant Polly! And yes of course, there is exponentially more justice in Dirty Harry than any semblance of justice in the play. One does not need to see any production entitled "justice" with the three main protagonists whose very lives are emblematic of the inversion of justice to mean a kind of slavery to sin. RBG and Sotomayor are shamefully pro-abortion a negation of the first true justice in the founding of the Great American Experiment, the right to life. (O'Conner did her part with her opinion on planned parenthood vs. Casey, though a little less celebratory about a mother murdering her very own precious child) Once you espouse literal death of humans as justice, you have left the path of sanity. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. These three women were/are pro-death and as the saint said "If a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me - there is nothing between." These 3 supreme court justices embody the end of Western Civilization and a totalizing culture of death that is clouding over the West. This is an unfathomable shame for our patrimony and beyond that, it is like making George Floyd statues, celebrating the death of virtue. That it is beautifully scripted and brilliantly acted out only elevates the malice of it all.
Speaking of E.Jean Carroll, her new book “Not my Type” comes out tomorrow.
expecting a whopper!!!
https://x.com/easternair355/status/1753989586181865927?s=61
https://x.com/leahrain77/status/1751294195363377611?s=61
https://x.com/dorybeutel/status/1933853792052576399?s=61
https://x.com/406naf/status/1935695742716272672?s=61
Polly, I am sorry to hear your reaction. I urge you to see the play, and then judge based on what you have experienced with your own eyes. I'd be happy to pay for your ticket -- seriously. This is an exceptional play, its production professional throughout. I hope you'll take me up on my offer.
Celeste, you are very sweet to offer me a ticket, but I would probably sit there channeling my late great friend, the New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael, who used to audibly sigh when she was bored during a screening.
Isn’t Sotomayor one of the 3 supreme court justices who voted AGAINST making it against the law in Tennessee yesterday for minor children to change their gender?
Very sick women.
Yes. Sotomayor DISSENTED against a Tennessee law to protect MINOR children against gender affirming medical procedures. Key issue here is MINOR children.
In the play Sotomayor is big on the 14th Amendment Equal protection clause. One I really enjoyed! I had no idea it would be subjected to criticism as indicated in this comment section.
I’m unaware of TN Trans dissenting opinions; I haven’t researched any. You got me curious. Could be a parents right issue: parent has the right to decide on behalf of their minor child, even if care paid for by Medicaid or other public program. Or perhaps a plausible clause concern for the less than .1% misassigned a gender at birth, or maybe some other prior court decisions.
Polly- How do American females bond as women? You’re an author; a local with a work hiatus in NYC. I’d like to read articles from you in the SB Current. In response to your “should feel” post, no reader was told we “should feel” any particular way after seeing the play. What you message to me is biased, closed minds are intolerant, inconsiderate, and opposed to free speech regardless of political affiliation.
The show Justices messaged to me ‘civility’. I saw at the exit door my very liberal neighbors (often publicly we’ve disagreed politically since 1985), her father a judge. They smiled while telling me: “what insight on O’Connor’s foundation, her style: loved it. Did you like it?” Of course! I learned civility matters regardless of politics. Civility is a sub-theme. Bostonian Hannah-Beth in row three. Wonder what she learned on civility, inclusion? The Tea Talk prior to the show was on American women increasing life opportunities from the 1950s - 1990s. All free women have a shared interest in having options.
I have no idea what this sentence means “ What you message to me is biased, closed minds are intolerant, inconsiderate, and opposed to free speech regardless of political affiliation.” What are you saying?
Polly: I’m saying what I wrote - “What you message to me is …”.
Montecito, I'm not going to defend myself against your ludicrous insult,
Polly, I am now reading the comments from several days ago. Wow. Can't believe my enthusiastic review of the play -- a play about 3 extraordinary women -- generated such hostility. Toward the production and toward commenters here. What a nasty response to 93108: "ludicrous insult." Reread what she wrote you through the exchange. She was polite. Respectful. She even encouraged you to write an article about women, based on your own professional background.
Celeste, she was neither polite nor respectful. She said: “What you message to me is biased, closed minds are intolerant, inconsiderate, and opposed to free speech regardless of political affiliation.” I asked what she meant and she repeated that. And that's why I responded the way I did saying it was a “ludicrous insult.” I often like Montecito93108 but that was a ludicrous insult. As for your review generating “such hostility” about “3 extraordinary women” … they are/were not extraordinary women in my book. This is where you and I are different. One of my SBCC college professors (from the early 70s) came to see my one woman show about my father in 2017. He wrote me a letter afterwards about everything he disliked about my show. I loved it! And I still have it like every bad review or rejection I've ever gotten. He bought a ticket and drove all the way to Solvang to see it, then took the time to tell me what he disliked in it. I think of him as a real friend and had him over to our house for coffee and Banana Bread just last week. For me the worst thing isn't hating something I've written. It's not bothering to read it or be apathetic about it. But if someone, like Montecito93108, attacks me on a personal basis, that I don’t like or put up with. The choreographer Jerome Robbins (West Side Story) used to walk up to audience members after one of his shows and say “What'd you hate?”
I’m a woman and so tired of this sort of celebration.
I personally don’t agree with their decisions.
Another way to divide us.
I honor a person first for their character then their actions. I don’t care if you’re a man, woman or any other immutable trait.
Good to know M.Self that you don’t agree with their decisions. It is tiring which is why the show uplifted me and others. I haven’t seen so many smiling faces in a long time. Conservative and liberal each supporting each other privately as women, as friends, with very different approaches to the same goal: to be heard. The audience was split on decisions, based on applause at the performance I attended. Tension, suspense seemed the highest when Sandra Day O’Conner alone had to decide who would be POTUS Bush or Gore. The Bush Family her friends. A Florida recount before the Court: equal protection of variations on how counties tally votes differently or something . Justices split 4:4, she the tie breaker. She was also aware of a vacancy on the court for POTUS to fill. And her husband John was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. How would we handle this unimaginable pressure on our own? I left wanting to learn more. Did the play accurately reflect what happened?
This is to one side, and of course take it for what it’s worth (not much) … But since I volunteered that I was a classmate of the Wise Latina I’ll share my interpretation of her career.
Sotomayor was an affirmative action kid at Princeton (not an insult, she says so herself) … She wasn’t nearly as well-prepared as most of her classmates, and according to friends who knew her she wasn’t really as snappy and smart as most of us were. She was a dynamo in some ways, but she was intellectually ‘way outgunned— not an unusual situation for an affirmative action kid at an Ivy in the ‘70s to be in.
(Most of them were plenty bright and would have done well at a state school, but they floundered in high-powered environments. It was a cruel injustice to pluck ‘em out of nowhere and throw ‘em in the academic deep end. But the Ivies badly wanted to increase the numbers of nonwhite students so …)
Anyway, some affirmative action kids found refuge in the bullshit “Studies” departments that were invented for them (African American Studies, Women’s Studies, etc), and nursed resentments. Sotomayor did what the more resourceful affirmative action kids did. After struggling academically, she foregrounded her ethnicity and turned that into her career.
Her academic years weren’t in fact about academics, they were all about ethnic activism. The rest of us had to research and write about topics unrelated to ourselves. Sotomayor wrote about herself and her ethnicity, and made herself into a standard bearer for Puerto Ricans at Ivies. (Playing the “me and my ethnicity” card is the same way Michelle Obama got through Princeton some years later.)
How could the dippy liberals who ran the college (and later, the people at Yale Law) *not* throw good grades and a lot of awards at her? They wanted — in fact they felt they needed — a female Latino to promote into the establishment. Somebody was going to have to be that person. Why not Sonia? Sotomayor was shrewd enough, consciously or unconsciously, to ride that wave.
Call me a cynic, but that’s my account of how she became the Wise Latina of legend.
Interesting detail from the Wikipedia entry on Sotomayor: “She was influenced by critical race theory, which would be reflected in her later speeches and writings.” Critical Race Theory is MARXIST.
Constitutional interpretation is 2nd fiddle to Sotomayor’s priorities of race and ethnicity. ‘Justice is blind’ is out of focus to this Justice. Pity.
Excellent post Billy! It is hard to put too fine a point on how vacuous, shallow, arrogant, entitled, misguided, and vicious are souls like Sotomayor and the Obamas. They are all unwitting communists and maybe they truly don't know it, but they drank the coolaid- they have the preferred genes without the hinderance of intelligence nor the constraints of character and in their wake is a trail of the dead and destroyed and they probably don't lose a wink of sleep. Still, as your narrative implies, this is exactly what we asked for as a society.
Agree Sawbilly: Sotomayor definitely did not earn her admission to Princeton or Yale; or her Obama nomination to SCOTUS. Who did or does she know? Who are or were her connectors that resulted in her appointment? There’s definitely a correlation between failed or needy students and militant activists.
Appreciate reading your post. I’d like to know how Sotomayor got where she is. At least we know Justice K Jackson is connected to former Catholic speaker Paul Ryan; and for whatever reason, most SCOTUS appointments are Catholic. Why is that? (troubles me greatly: two indoctrinated at the same elite Catholic boarding school, or the latest one who doesn’t know what a woman is.).
Insofar as the play, Justices: seeing multi-talented Sio Tepper keeping the beat non-stop for 90 straight minutes, is worth the ticket price!! She’s been impressive since childhood. She has earned community accolades.
"It's Marxist!" And conservatism is liberal - yet you embrace the latter I presume. The first modernist plague was liberalism - marxism arose in response to the failures of capitalism and the abuse of workers. The wealth the revolution promised... never materialized for most people. Yes Marxists are godless materialists, yes they're deluded - but don't blane then without attacking the classical liberals first. It is ironic as a supporter of a revolution that overthrew the old order - to then condemn a subseauent subversive and revolutionary movement simply because its opposed to your own ideals.
Carlism gang - out
Good article, thanks, but no thanks on enticing me to attend…reality is much more interesting than planned productions…
Take RGB…
[RBG]
Why was she 'selected'?
Who appointed her?
Remember [her] history.
Ref: 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:
>Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)
>Called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145)
>Insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169)
>Cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146)
>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>GINSburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)
>An indefatigable censor, GINSburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)
>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)
>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
https://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg
Can you imagine celebrating a person like RBG? She is a hero to many disordered people- Justice Scalia did it just right, he loved her personhood as a human made in the image and likeness of God but hated her evil ideology. We should not be hateful towards reprobates like RBG, we should pity them and pray for them. We should never celebrate them or make cultural icons out of such deformed human beings. The upside downness of it all baffles the mind and soul.
MeToo… https://x.com/fnowisthetime/status/1935745069279244739?s=61
Steven- what’s a “Disordered” person?
Hey Montecito- there are only two possibilities here, either all humans are born fallen or they are not. I claim all of us are born fallen and our natures are corrupted, what that means specifically is that all humans since the Fall of our first parents have 1. A darkened intellect, meaning it is difficult to think clearly, 2. A weakened will, meaning we easily succumb to the temptations of things that are unnatural or bad for us, and 3. We have disordered appetites, this means we are sometimes attracted to things that are unnatural or bad for us. This describes the disordered person, which is all of us at birth, and then as humans grow and are either educated or miseducated, people make choices to cultivate habits that either put the disorder back into the right order, and this would be by following the Natural Law, or we choose those things that are bad for our souls and unnatural and become even more disordered by vicious habits. An example would be a person who believes that murdering an unborn child is a "right" displays a profoundly disordered intellectual and moral character. So in the end, I claim we are all disordered, and of course including me. On the other hand, I know there is a camp that thinks just the opposite and that everyone is born just fine the way they are and that if there are problems they can be solved by exterior changes- and if this is not true, that worldview is deeply disordered. So Montecito, do object to the idea that all humans are disorder to one degree or another?
RBG sounds like a textbook Bolshevik/Marxist to me. Undermine the traditional foundations of
identity and morality and collapse society. It’s a proven template. Worked great in the USSR and China. Working great here where we are facing demographic collapse as the sexes are increasingly estranged from one another. By 2030 45% of women ages 25 - 44 projected to be childless and single.
The Bolshevik/Marxists play the long game, with limitless funding by the banksters.
Excellent point Constantine! All these women mentioned and add on Ketanji by far the most deformed on the court in history, you see the progressive decrease in character and increase in ideology that is destroying the Great American Experiment. The world has convinced women that their personal "glory" and "success" is more important than all the beautiful things for which they were truly made. It is really gross and the most shocking thing to which most of the population seems blind, especially those who would celebrate such destructive crones, is that they all share the satantic principal that for a mother to murder her own child is a political right and a good. We have officially completely inverted the intellectual and moral order of reality where evil is celebrated as good and falsehoods are considered true. These horrible women lead the way. Scary.
DL: The show’s focus is the significance of women having a voice, a seat at the table or on the bench; and that justices now come from both genders, and varied ethnicities: AZ Christian white & Bush friend O’Connor, NY Jewish white Ginsberg, NY Puerto Rican Spanish capable Hispanic white Sotomayor. I don’t recall if Sotomayor’s religion ever mentioned in the show. For me, Justices a welcomed historical overview of SCOTUS. I was busy having babies 1992-2000, commuting between homes here and London; and caring for my immobile Parkinson’s cursed beloved mother and best friend.
Likewise DL, I appreciate your links to Ginsburg decisions to further school me on what I missed while in my female caregiver role having taken off my professional suit of 20 years earning and learning as a ‘female first - a pathfinder’ in the male only world of financing and development.
I get it, all voices matter, BUT a hard no for me celebrating/regaling RGB & Sotomayer…great respect for Justice O’Conner…can’t give my $$$ (stored work) to those under control of the NWO Cabal…
Montecito, I think you nailed why some of us don't want to go. You just explained what it's about and what I'm going to get out of it with “DL: The show’s focus is the significance of women having a voice, a seat at the table or on the bench; and that justices now come from both genders, and varied ethnicities.” I think all that is important. Yay, ladies, genders and ethnics. And it took me one minute to read. So now I don't need to go to the play. Thank you. However, had you written something like this: “Don't go to see this play unless you're prepared to have everything you believe about justice, RBG and women in powerful positions challenged and even upended” I would have bought my tickets by now.
Thrilled I saved you money Polly. You’ll simply miss out on an opportunity to enjoy an exceptional show. To each her own. I knew all the Carole King songs and about the play before Beautiful; same with Phantom, Mama Mia, Jersey Boys, and a hundred plus other shows viewed multiple times in NY, London, L.A. and elsewhere. You picked a compatible career as a critic, not a community organizer.
Lol! You're hilarious.
Nicely written piece, but I’d rather shoot myself than sit through this play, however well acted and snappily directed it apparently is.
Fwiw, I went to college with Sotomayor. Didn’t know her personally but had friends who did. They weren’t impressed. Sotomayor was a professional Latina even back as a college student, lol. Thank god I’m married to a smart, irreverent woman who has as little interest in rah-rah feminist baloney as I do.
Here's my answer to Sawbilly and the other naysayers who judge without any knowledge of the script, its music, and its fine stage direction. A few days ago, I was visiting my husband at Skilled Nursing during lunch, as I do. The best time of day to spend with someone in Dementia. One of the other residents asked to sit with us at our table. My heart sank. She has the reputation of being mean -- to staff, patients, and visitors. She'd previously been nasty to me. But I sucked it up, hekped her with her wheelchair, and brought her lemonade. And she humbled me. At one point, she for whatever reason shared with me the great tragedy of her life.Years before, her son had died tragically, run over by a train. I just allowed her to talk, often hard to understand she spoke so softly, but I listened. And felt shamed for having judged her. Life is not easy behind the walls of old people's homes. My job as a visitor to their home is to be gracious. To be open to the person they are, to their humanity which we all share. What does this have to do with your comment? Everything. Go and see "Justice." It's a great civics lesson. A great story about female friendship, including falling out. It's a wonderful play.
Celeste, reviewers should never order people to see what they review or tell them they need to see it, or that they need a civics lesson. One thing I learned in my two year stint as a movie reviewer was that if I believed in a film, I needed to make it sound irresistible, not tell readers they had to see it, which is like telling children they must eat their broccoli because it's good for them rather than preparing the broccoli in such a way they dig right into it. Your story about the mean woman is very touching, and I'm very sorry about your husband. But I don't need this kind of scold from you as part of a review. It makes me just never want to be on SB Current again. I don't need a mommy lecture. Btw, the last review you did of the documentary, October 8th, had the same effect on me. I didn't see it.
Please don’t go away Polly (never leave the battlefield)…water off a duck’s back Sister…love your “old soul” voice here since you have the extra abilities to see things for what they are…plus, your great storytelling!
DL, you wrote “Please do go away Polly” - you want me to go away?
duly noted! (up is down, left is right?), must be the age factor…😎
Lol, see you on the battlefield!
Sawbilly- didn’t Obama intentionally appoint Puerto Rican New Yorker Sotomayor as a DEI to bring a Hispanic voice to SCOTUS? Enlighten me. How was she identified; how did she rise in the selection process for appointment? Who did she know? Currently we’ve a Catholic dominated SCOTUS, which concerns me.
I looked up Sotomayor judicial history in NY. She’s a cross over DEI nominee. Sotomayor served as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York (1992–1998, appointed by President George H.W. Bush) and as a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Second Circuit (1998–2009, appointed by President Bill Clinton). Her 17 years of federal judicial experience made her one of the most experienced nominees in decades, with over 3,000 opinions written or contributed to on the Second Circuit.
And yet, Justices Ginsberg and Scalia were the closest of friends. That wasn't just opera either. It was their shared humanity.
No comment about Amy Barrett, Trump's pick? I wonder about her direction in the Supreme Court.
The play focusses on the first three women appointed to SCOTUS, notably the relationship between Justices O'Connor and Ginsberg.
Fair enough ... the play might be more fun to introduce what you expect is going on with Barrett's relationship with the Dem justices.
BR: This play is impactful, historical; I would not describe its intent as “fun”. Some Americans of both genders, both political parties, will just never “get it” which is a huge frustration to those of us who do “get it”!
Write a show on “Barrett’s relationship with the Dem justices.” MEMBERS OF SCOTUS ARE TO BE IMPARTIAL. Go view this show Justices. A turning point is the politicalization of the Court.
Bill, I think the piece is a great review of what seems like an interesting play. It doesn't read like a political opinion piece. We can address Barrett another time.
Thanks for recognizing that this was a review -- to be distinguished from editorial. I only write reviews about stuff I really really love. I loved this production. Good job, Ensemble Theatre!
Go see the play, Bill. It's a high quality production. If you take in a matinee, there's a "tea" before with notable speakers. I think Sunday's has the director talking.
Because of the politization of the city of SB, my former neighbors and the West Coast FBI thugs ... I'm sitting here in Dalton, GA with the Southern FBI thugs, lol. I think I had enough of observing a liberal judge during a trial in SB of a friend killed by an intoxicated driver. I've lost a lot of respect for judges, and they tend to turn me off.
One last comment from me and directed toward the person who misquoted my review, claiming -- and I quote -- that I was "ordering people to see [the play]" and "that they needed a civics lesson." Boy, do I wish I were still teaching argumentative writing at SBCC. That post would serve as the basis for an engaging and productive lesson plan: Never misrepresent the opponent's statement. I reread the review, searching for any referrnces of demands and shoulds (A dreadful word, "should," and one she herself levelled against me!) Near the end of the review, I wrote the word, "hope," twice. First, that I hoped readers would attend the play. Second, I hoped that attendees would bring the young people in their lives. HOPE. Look it up in the dictionary. As far as the civics lesson, I again plead innocent. I state in the review that the play is a lesson in civics -- which it is and was one of the great take-aways. I taught English for many years and ran the Great Books program at City College. All works of enduring profundity and beauty are at their essence, moral. They teach us the most valuable lesson of all, how to be human. What it means to be human. Our flaws and warts; iur ability to achieve greatness, valor, courage in the face of insurmountable odds. The great tales, both ancient and modern, TEACH. I would extend to all art: music, painting, sculpture, poetry. . . . Look up Sargent's "Gassed": All of what trench warfare entailed is contained in the painting.
You created a lively response today - and that's one of the many reasons SB Current is so important in this city. Reading the Independent these days, especially Angry Poodle, is as thought-provoking as attending a Marxist bingo game. But I still say a lesson in civics is the same as a civics lesson.
Excellent review and recommendation. “It’s a civics lesson that will imprint itself onto their souls.” Yep: souls enriched, minds expanded by departing audience. Agree Celeste, this show is exceptional.
The show has two parallel tracks. The chronology of historically significant SCOTUS decisions and the reality that the varied life experiences of justices — regardless of gender, partisan politics and their depth of Constitutional law knowledge — determines their ultimate individual opinions.
Men are different than women. Until the appointment of AZ Republican Sandra Day O’Connor, the opinion of any female was never heard to be considered. Women were out of sight, out of mind. Dependent on men. Period. How can that fact alone not touch the soul? Our perspectives need to be heard even as a “dissenting” voice.
What bonds American women crosses the artificial barriers of conservative and liberal. The first female appointment conservative O’Conner followed by liberal Ginsburg are the examples. Women are the nation’s caregivers: both mindful of their beloved husbands. After joined by Sotomayor, I was reminded that women prioritize those we love, and are forever grateful for those who love us.
Conservative O’Conner and Liberal RBG will be forever respected for proving we are undervalued assets regardless of politics. As pathfinders these two showed others that women matter: our opinions, strength, schooling, and even our choice of husbands are important. Subsequent trailblazer Sotomayer represents that a minority unmarried “diabetic” determined woman raised by a single mother can make it to the top! Each voice making a unique difference in judicial decision, yet at their core, bonded as women.
An added ovation, shout out for local now national super star Sio Tepper, Musical Director and performer. Sio was a young local “first female” top math competitor, who gave stellar classical piano performances at the Granada showcased by The Music and Arts Conservatory. Sio is beyond accomplished, now based in NYC. Hard to believe she is just in her early thirties.
It sounds like an autopsy of this play would reveal the anatomy of confusion to a more sober age.
God doesn’t make mistakes.
Ever!
What about giraffes? The platypus, ticks, (actually, most insects) galaxies & hurricanes viewed from above??? Really Steve? You think there is a god that thought all this up?
Yep
And one day YOU,along with everyone else.
Will stand before him in judgement.
What will you say then?
I didn’t know?
Jesus Christ is the ONLY one who can save you.
There is salvation in no one else.
John-14-6.
Really Dan? Are you that shallow? Or just university educated?
I dunno, maybe to both. But I'm not as naive as you and Steve to believe your God, the one God, is the only source of truth. I'm holding off judgement on all faiths.
Dan, it is a position of weakness to "hold off judgement on all faiths." That alone is the weakest faith, the false belief and false judgement that it is good not to judge. Naivety has nothing at all to do with my belief in God, in fact it was naivety that kept me an atheist for decades in my ignorant arrogance. God is the ultimate source of Truth, not the only source- although if you trace back all sources of Truth, they lead to God.
God does not make mistakes, but our first parents did and thus we have a fallen world. Then God gives us the unbearable compliment of his image imprinted on our souls which includes the free will to love Him or reject Him. Satan wants everyone to give false attribution of sin and error to God when we own both. Other than being glaringly obvious, there are intellectual proofs by unaided reason that conclude a prime mover, Aristotle and Plato figured that out on their own. Besides that, the intricacy, beauty, balance, perfection in the universe is a kind of natural art that requires a Divine Artist- not to mentioned all the materially scientific evidence that explains the proximate causes of matter, plants, animals, and humans, it is astounding that so many are blind to it all these days, even more astounding than elevating and celebrating evil women as objects of high culture and progress. We are truly insane these days.
I saw the musical. Yes, it does come down on the side of liberal ideology, but no worse than most all major media. (We've all developed a studier spine by now, or we should have.)
"Justice" illuminates and expands on the struggles and difficulties of trailblazers such as these three women - how they helped and supported each other regardless of ideology. We can enjoy it for what it is.
No minor should be allowed to mutilate or chemically alter their body to be something they are not. This is child abuse and the law should not allow it. There is also a movement to lower age of consent to sexual activity which this is part of. We need to have our laws grounded in morality, that means we need to have a shared moral system. Catholicism is the best one available due to its ability to resist temporal and political pressure better than other Churches. You don't have to become Catholic, but we would be wise to have our laws reflect Catholic morality in order to push back on the various forces promoting and encouraging sexual degeneracy and sexual identity confusion.