Posted on 05/09/2005 5:03:14 PM PDT by CHARLITE
For 200 years the Senate carefully considered the professional track record of any judge nominated for the federal bench.
That changed five years ago when ranking Democrats decided to turn the Senate Judiciary Committee into their own personal meat grinder. Despite having nearly 100 federal judgeships to fill, these Democrats resolved to torpedo most of President Bush's nominations. This partisan blood oath – as opposed to careful consideration of each jurist's record – now decides who presides over our federal courts.
At least one major implication is that the dearth of federal judges (one-eighth of all federal judgeships still remain to be filled) will undermine the administration of justice in this country.
The latest victim is Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the first black woman to sit on California's Supreme Court. Brown has been re-nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Bush, a position that is widely regarded as a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Brown's track record is impeccable.
Senator Bill Frist is now threatening to utilize the "nuclear option" if Democrats again try to railroad the president's nominees. This scenario has created much dissention in the Senate and, if not immediately worked out by the leadership, could seriously set back Senate decorum 100 years.
Nonetheless, the Democrats have dug in their heels in opposition. Unable to criticize Justice Brown's professional conduct, the Democrats have taken to attacking her through a series of reductive and increasingly racist smears.
First the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized her "right-wing" statements in speeches, as though the roles of public speaker and judge are even remotely comparable.
Then the New York Times editors wrote that "she has declared war on the mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear. And she has let ideology be her guide in deciding cases." But even a cursory review of her record makes clear that Justice Brown is firmly entrenched in the mainstream, as evidenced by the fact that she wrote more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court.
Most insidious is the suggestion by certain Democrats that Justice Brown is "not black enough." Senator Chuck Schumer of New York criticized Justice Brown for voting against "minorities" and "low-income" people.
Schumer makes no mention of specific cases where Brown ruled against "minorities" and "low-income" people who actually deserved to win. He just oh so casually insinuates racism. In effect, Schumer is criticizing Brown for treating the Constitution as colorblind (wasn't this one of the major goals of the civil rights movement?).
Now a handful of racist Democrats in the Senate – and the black leaders they drag in tow – are joining in on the race-baiting. "She makes Clarence Thomas looks like Thurgood Marshall," sneered Rep. Diane Watson, a California Democrat. A joint press release by the NAACP and People for the American Way calls Justice Brown a "far right dream judge."
And Hilary Shelton, director of Washington's chapter of the NAACP, said President Bush nominated Justice Brown solely "to get some kind of credit because she is an African-American woman." The Black Commentator called Justice Brown a "Jim Crow era judge, in natural blackface."
A cartoon posted on its Web site, www.blackcommentator.com, was even more insidious. It depicted President Bush referring to Brown as "Clarence," while introducing her to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Just like that, all of Judge Brown's hard work – she rose up from a segregated Alabama community to achieve personal and professional success – dissolves beneath the hurtful and reductive label of "Uncle Tom." This is no different from using the "N-word" to sum up an individual.
This is the approach the Democrats take every time a conservative minority is nominated for a position of prominence. This is what I call "new racism." It's about systematically preventing conservative blacks and Hispanics from achieving positions of prominence in this country. It's about summing up complex human beings by the color of their skin. And it sends the damaging message that because we share the same skin color, we all need to think, act and vote the same way.
American blacks and Hispanics are complex human beings. They should be allowed the intellectual freedom to arrive at those views and values that are the best mesh with their individual personalities. Whites can vote for whomever they choose. But minorities are told that they must be liberals or they're traitors to their race.
This is one more assault on intellectual freedom and diversity, conducted by patronizing Democrats who still feel they know what is best for blacks and Hispanics.
"I have only one agenda when I approach a case, and that is to try to get it right," Brown told the Senate Judiciary Committee at her confirmation hearing.
It's a shame that at this late date, ranking Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are more interested in the hue of her skin.
Wow! Somebody finally figured this out.
Ping
Does the NYT really believe that its values are "mainstream". The left'sinsistence that Marxism is an American value would be comical if it weren't so ugly.
Perhaps someone can tell me which Party is the true representative of the KKK clan? Perhaps the Party that has a former Klansman as its elder Statesman.
First major interview Reid gives as Minority leader he states Thomas doesn't have the intellectual capacity to be on the Court. Condi Rice is nominated and its met with racist editorial cartoons in prominent Lib papers, berated by the mental lightweight Boxer. Brown is nominated for a promotion and possible contender for the SC, and she faces bigotry flimsily disguised as a conscientious filibuster.
Or more precisely, you're not black unless you're liberal. Which explains why Clinton was the first black President.
What an insult... to Clarence Thomas ! How dare Miss Watson compare one of the greatest jurists in history (Thomas) to one of the worst jurists (Marshall) ! Now I will say in Marshall's defense, he was a great LAWYER with a legitimate cause, but he was the very definition of an activist on judicial matters.
"....President Bush nominated Justice Brown solely 'to get some kind of credit because she is an African American."
What a totally ignorant statement. President Bush doesn't have to prove anything to anyone at this stage of the game. He's into his second term and his support for Justice Brown is based on the fact that she is a capable person.
What do you want to bet that Killery will soon announce that she wants to be the "second black President?!"
With that ass of hers, that might not be much of a stretch.
I think Bush should nominate her to replace Rehnquist. We need a Chief Justice that hasn't been ensconced in the federal system for decades.
She won't say it, but I'm sure someone else will, if she wins.
If I remember correctly, Justice Brown had to be re-elected to the bench in California. I think she received something like 70 or 80% of the votes. I wish that fact got more publicity. Only in the NYT is 70 to 80% not "mainstream." I guess the NYT will start writing about that 70% extremist fringe any day now.
[E]xtremist tactics are especially ironic from those who have tried to portray Justice Brown as an "extremist" right-winger who would be dangerous on the federal bench. The fact that Justice Brown received a 76 percent vote of approval from California voters in an election to confirm her appointment to the state Supreme Court hardly fits the label that Senator Schumer and other liberal Democrats are trying to pin on her.
California voters are hardly known for being on the far right. Yet they gave Janice Rogers Brown the highest vote of approval among the four justices on the same ballot.
"...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
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.