Stereotypes and filibusters: Labels don't stick to Janice Rogers Brown

Washington Times ^ | Monday, May 9, 2005 | By Nat Hentoff

[JohnHuang2]

The judicial confirmation process has become so savage in recent years that it would take a brave nominee to offer himself or herself for consideration. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, for example, has been charged in a recent NAACP "Action Alert" with being "hostile to civil rights" and "having extreme right-wing views." I do not agree with all of Justice Brown's opinions, but I write this to show how prejudicially selective the prosecution of her is by the Democrats, the NAACP, People For the American Way and her other critics. She was filibustered in the last Congress, and may be again, now having been sent to the floor on a 10-to-8 party-line vote by the Judiciary Committee. To my knowledge, not one of her attackers has mentioned the fact that in the case of People v. McKay (2002), Justice Brown was the only California Supreme Court justice to instruct her colleagues on the different standards some police use when they search cars whose drivers are black: "There is an undeniable correlation between law enforcement stop-and-search practices and the racial characteristics of the driver....

[Sun]

The liberal Dems are attacking our best and our brightest judicial nominees - the ones who would make the finest Supreme Court justices some day.

[emeryboard]

"...it’s not too much of a stretch to assert that the Democrats are against people like Brown and Miguel Estrada for reasons that have more to do with racial politics and less to do with perceived extremism...."



http://drtucker.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog/2005/05/minority_report.html

[pcottraux]

You know why the Democrats attack Janice Brown with everything they have, don't you? Because she, like Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts, represents a threat to them. She is an example of a minority who has succeeded *WITHOUT THEIR HELP*. She succeeded on her own, without the help of the Democrats and their rallies, protests, and big-government social programs. That's the kind of person Democrats fear the most.

[Sun]

Check out this Washington Times article:

washingtontimes.com/national/20050510-121748-5543r.htm

From the article:

"Yet polls show overwhelming support for laws requiring minors to get permission from a parent before getting an abortion. That support is even higher for laws that only require notification."

So THIS is why libDems won't let her come to the floor for an up or down vote? Should the government be raising our children, or should we?

Also, from the article:
"Justice Owen has been approved twice by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both times, all panel Democrats opposed her. She has majority support by the full Senate, but a minority group of Democrats has voted four times to prevent her from getting an up-or-down vote on the floor."