She's worth going "nuclear" over (California Justice Janice Brown)

Orange County Times ^ | February 22, 2005 | Harold Johnson

[freedomdefender]

Will Senate Republicans go "nuclear" for California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown? Columnist Robert Novak reported recently that in March, the GOP will use Brown's now- stalled nomination to the federal bench as a test run for the "nuclear option" - a strategy to foil Democratic filibusters and confirm judges with a simple majority vote, through parliamentary hardball. ... But Brown's star power derives from more than her impressive personal story. She is an intellectual leader of California's high court and its most articulate voice for limited government and individual freedom.

A judge's first and last duty, in her view, is to protect citizens from bureaucratic bullying.

[Drango]

Janice Rogers Brown BUMP

[Rummyfan]

As for the nuclear option - DO IT! We aren't getting anywhere otherwise. Reid and Company need to be smacked down hard.

[SolidRedState]

A judge's first and last duty, in her view, is to protect citizens from bureaucratic bullying.

Exactly why the Dems don't want her, as well as the fact Bush nominated her. It's ok to block a nominee once in a while for particular reasons, but this is getting old. It's about time they rolled out the "nuclear option".

[philsfan24]

it would not be wise to implement the nuclear option. we have to be realistic. there is a chance that republicans wont hold power for the rest of the history of the country. remember that.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Personally, I want to see the Liberal Dems go after another brilliant sophisticated African American woman as they did Dr. Rice, who is now Secretary of State, despite their efforts.

We should be glad Liberal Dems are exposing their rank racial prejudices. Let them do it again, then confirm her.

[smokeman]

With all due respect, do you actually believe that this bunch of kook democrats would not use the nuclear option if they had the choice? I think you know the answer.

[Rummyfan]

Then if the Dems continue the filibuster, shut down the Senate and do nothing. The country by and large will be the better for it. Are we to wait two more years and hope to pick up more Senate seats? Two years after that the Presdient will be done.

[Soul Seeker]

It isn't wise to uphold the constitution?

Of course we won't be in power forever. No party ever is.

This is unconstitional. If we mean what we say about protecting the constitution than we must uphold beyond political calculus.

BTW, I doubt Republicans would ever have the courage to try this "filibuster" against the Liberals, and if they did? Count on the Democrats not being so timid to overrule them with the same procedure Republicans have been teasing for years.

[Eva]

You're right that the Republicans cannot expect to retain power forever, but then the Republicans have never filibustered judicial nominees either, and there is no reason to expect that they would ever do so.

[mongrel]

The Democrats are not a party of principle in their means to an end. Good is defined as having the right end result and it doesn't matter how you get their. Thus sexual harassment laws aren't applied equally across the board, they are applied only to men who are on the wrong side of "women's issues". Racial preferences are only for minorities who have the "correct" liberal view on issues. In the same way, the end result required for Democrats is that the courts be stacked with activist judges. The constitution, separation of powers, deference to public opinion, fairness, etc. are all only TACTICS to be used to achieve the implementation of their ideology. So frankly, the Democrats would use the nuclear option if they were in the same position as Republicans. The Republicans gain nothing by refusing to implement it.

[philsfan24]

i dont know honestly if they would or not but it has not happened yet. my worst fear is ten years down the road hillary sends her endless socialist judges down to the 51 dem senate and 218 dem house. God help us all if that ever happens.

[mhking]

Quit talking about it and just do it!

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[guitarist]

Brown is nothing special. Scalito, Edith Jones and several of the others are also quite worthy of going nuclear over!!!! (Brown may be the best, but it's probably a tie...)

[Carling]

it would not be wise to implement the nuclear option. we have to be realistic. there is a chance that republicans wont hold power for the rest of the history of the country. remember that.

In the current political party power structure, there is no way the Democrats could get a away with this option. I say this for one reason - Bush States vs. Kerry/Gore States. Too many seats in the Senate would be jeopardized by the Democrats doing this, and frankly, I don't see the Democrats gaining a solid majority for the foreseeable future.

[Born Conservative]

They just need to change the Senate rules back to where they need only a simple majority to pass a judicial nomination. Once they do that, we won't have any more of this filibuster bullfeces.

[jackieaxe]

I do not believe that demanding an up or down vote for a presidential nomination is a "nuclear" option. I would call it the constitutional option. Shame on the Democrats for their anti-constitutional actions.

[NCSteve]

I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks we shouldn't have said bad things about the Russians either. Or that we shouldn't kill terrorists because there are more of them out there.

News flash for you: appeasement fails every time it is attempted.