Posted on 10/20/2003 9:36:25 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court to become a federal Court of Appeals judge has brought out vicious special interest groups with their long knives -- and a long record of smears and character-assassination, going back to the campaign of wholesale misrepresentations that defeated the nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987.
Leading the charge against Justice Brown, as it did against Judge Bork 16 years ago, is the grossly misnamed organization "People for the American Way." This is a far-left group with only contempt for American traditions and culture. They want judges who will dismantle the Constitution of the United States for the sake of current left-wing fashions like racial quotas and unlimited abortions.
They obviously think that the pious words in their name will conceal the brutal realities of what they are and what they do.
Judges who believe that their job is to uphold the Constitution, instead of replacing it with left-wing social engineering, are anathema to "People for the American Way." That they are spearheading the character assassination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown is completely predictable.
Because Justice Brown is black and conservative, she is being denounced as "another Clarence Thomas." Like Clarence Thomas, she is also being denounced as "unqualified" by people who have never read a word she wrote. Anyone who does read Justice Brown's opinions will discover a wealth of knowledge, a command of logic and an unflinching honesty about the law and about some efforts of her colleagues to compromise legal principles.
"Error," Justice Brown said in one dissent, "does not improve with repetition. The third time is not the charm." In another dissent, this time in a child-custody case, Justice Brown said: "Today's decision maximizes the self-interest and personal convenience of parents, but poorly serves the state's children who deserve as much stability and security as legal process can provide."
What the left-wing can never forgive her for is upholding the right of California voters to ban racial quotas. More than four and a half million Californians voted for Proposition 209, which outlawed group preferences and quotas. But liberals wanted the state Supreme Court to over-rule the voters. Janice Rogers Brown refused and instead wrote the majority opinion upholding the voters' right to make the laws under which they live.
In the country at large, the real issue behind all the sound and fury is that special interest groups like "People for the American Way" want judges to impose items in the left-wing agenda that cannot be imposed through the democratic process.
Nowhere in this country are racial quotas likely to get voter support. But such quotas exist because elected officials do not have to risk their careers by voting for quotas because they can leave that to judges.
That includes not only liberal judges but also weak-kneed "conservative" judges like Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, who on issue after issue tend to split the difference and go along to get along.
What really scares the left about Janice Rogers Brown is that she has guts as well as brains. They haven't been able to get her to weaken or to waver. Character assassination is all that the left has left.
Look to see Justice Brown portrayed as evil incarnate and a threat to the republic. Already the character assassins are throwing around words like "extremist" and a conservative "activist." The truth has not cramped their style in the past and is unlikely to do so during the current confirmation hearings.
The real question is whether the administration that nominated Justice Brown will mount a serious counter-attack or leave her out there, twisting in the wind, the way it did with Miguel Estrada and its other judicial nominees.
Have you seen anything by anybody, anywhere, defending Janice Rogers Brown? The attackers have been mobilizing for months but there is very little sign that those who nominated Justice Brown have made any timely efforts to mobilize counter forces.
So that's the issue. I thought it might be something like that. Progressive rage against "counterrevolutionaries" who threaten what they consider won ground borders on the insane.
Sowell BTT.
None other then Arlen Specter.!!
Hmmmmm. JAN 20, 2001 - OCT 21, 2003. One, two, (almost) three, .........
What do you think the chances are of her even making it to the full senate for a vote? Like another poster stated, NONE of "W's" appointees at(?) or above the appellate level have even been voted on. They are all held up by genteel senate rules. Stinks!
FGS
The Republicans didn't have the majority in the Senate when Bush first took office. They couldn't even get a nominee out of committee. I suppose, since they have had the majority, they could have filibustered. They could have brought the Senate to a stop, while Bush was trying to gather support for Iraq and the country was trying to recover from September 11 and a recession. Personally, I don't think the public would have seen that as a worthy priority.
Let the Dems win their little battles. Come election time, the party of diversity will have to defend their treatment of a Hispanic, black, woman and Christians. I am betting the public won't be with them and they will be made to pay. A longer process to be sure, but in the end far more successful.
I'll wager on twisting in the wind for $500, Alex.
The public won't even know the battles existed if we don't put up some kind of stink.
Come election time, the party of diversity will have to defend their treatment of a Hispanic, black, woman and Christians. I am betting the public won't be with them and they will be made to pay.
I wouldn't call that a safe bet at all. They will be distracted by whatever interests them at the time. Court appointments aren't high on the list compared to the economy or the WOT, and the Republicans will have to pay cash for the people to even know who those nominees were.
A longer process to be sure, but in the end far more successful.
If Hillary becomes President, you'll rue the day you folded so easily.
They will come campaign time.
I wouldn't call that a safe bet at all. They will be distracted by whatever interests them at the time.
They will be no more distracted then they were when you suggest the Republicans should have filibustered. It's my opinion holding up 4 or 5 of these nominees, who would have been otherwise confirmed if not for the minority, is more likely to make a point than fighting it out one by one. I just don't think the public would have seen that as a priority worthy of the times.
If Hillary becomes President, you'll rue the day you folded so easily.
This is exactly why I don't want the Republicans to changes the rules. The Republicans must save that strategy in the event of a Hillary or a Dean.
Don't misunderstand, I happen to find the judiciary a critical issue and have nothing but bitter contempt for the way Democrats have treated Estrada, Pickering and others. I take the long view only because I don't think the general public understands nominee by nominee. I have greater hope that they will understand when the whole of the Democrats "obstructionism" is presented. I could well be wrong though.
That's not the least bit true. Bush has nominated about 45 CCA judges, and 29 or 30 have been confirmed so far, a dozen this year alone.
That's hard to assert given the repeated opportunity to show how far the Slave Party will go on a repeated basis.
I take the long view only because I don't think the general public understands nominee by nominee. I have greater hope that they will understand when the whole of the Democrats "obstructionism" is presented. I could well be wrong though.
It just seems to me cynical game playing. If the Democrats were willing to hold up the war and let our soldiers die over Owen or Pickering, Bush could have made a hell of a scene out of that. He could have the opt out of appearing totally unprepared for such viciousness. As it is now, the Slave Party will dismiss his nominations en masse as a claque of extremists and turn it against Bush as a move to deflect criticism over the war. It seems to me your long view is fraught with unnecessary peril and that the best stragegy was to play it straight by calling the Democrats' bluff when they chose to filibuster.
Leading the charge against Justice Brown, as it did against Judge Bork 16 years ago, is the grossly misnamed organization "People for the American Way." This is a far-left group with only contempt for American traditions and culture. They want judges who will dismantle the Constitution of the United States........Guys, As another writer wrote, "Diversity for groups like 'People for the American Way.' is only 'skin deep'." I would add, "If that!"........More than 4.5 million Californians voted for Proposition 209, which outlawed group preferences and quotas. But liberals wanted the state Supreme Court to overrule the voters. Janice Rogers Brown refused and instead wrote the majority opinion upholding the voters' right to make the laws under which they live.The real question is whether the administration that nominated Justice Brown will mount a serious counterattack or leave her out there, twisting in the wind..........
===============================
This would be a good time for the Bush administration to stand up. This woman believes in property rights and limited government. Peace and love, George.
So effortlessly did she dispense with her critics that I was almost embarrassed for them. Her intelligence and thoughtfulness made her opponents look dumb, her empathy and equity made them look harsh, her strength and no-nonsense analysis made them look weak and feckless.
Not even the lunch break strategy session could save the dems. It is no wonder Schumer's rush to the camera was done at schumerdoubletime...
The Ds are understandably terrified. Justice Janice Rogers Brown is a natural for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.