Skip to comments.The Replacements -- Why not Justice Janice Rogers Brown?
Posted on 07/10/2005 7:46:35 AM PDT by rdb3
THE WESTERN FRONT
Why not Justice Janice Rogers Brown?
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Forget about Social Security, tax reform and federal spending. With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation, Washington now has its summer project, and it's going to be a long, hot slog to its completion. President Bush isn't expected to reveal his candidate until next week. Until then, step one for Washington insiders, lobbyists, special interests and elected officials is to speculate and try to influence the president's decision.
To that, there's only one thing to say: Good luck. The president already has a good idea of who he'd like to see on the bench--more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases--and by sending back to the Senate this year a list of nominees whom Democrats had filibustered for spots on lower courts, he showed a willingness to fight for the judges he wants.
But if the fight comes down to abortion, it could be to the nation's peril. Apologies to all those who see overturning Roe v. Wade as paramount, but abortion isn't the biggest legal problem facing this nation today. We can all be appalled at the 40 million unborn children who have been killed over the past three decades. Each one represents a personal tragedy for both the mother and the child. Every effort must be made to move toward a "culture of life," as Mr. Bush once put it. Knocking the legs out from Roe would be a public service and move the debate to where it belongs--to state legislatures--and allow a little reason to prevail in, at least, banning things like partial-birth abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Why not? I think she's a good choice.
The best choice for the first replacement. A win, win for American.
Duh, because she's not Hispanic.
Janice Rogers Brown is going to be very busy soon:
". . . On another matter, TWO OF BUSH'S NOMINEES TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT ARE POISED TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON A PAIR OF CASES INVOLVING CHALLENGES TO THE US MILITARY'S DETENTION OF FOREIGN NATIONALS AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA. JANICE ROGERS BROWN AND THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, BOTH JUST PLACED ON THE BENCH LAST MONTH WERE PICKED AT RANDOM TO SIT ON A THREE-JUDGE PANEL THAT WILL HEAR THE CASES THIS FALL.
. . . Bush's district judgeships were rated 28 percent liberal in Carp's study. That put them well to the right of jurists appointed by Presidents Nixon, at 38 percent, and Ford, at 40 percent, and slightly to the right of Reagan and the first President Bush, both of whom were rated 32 percent liberal.
Wasn't she busy before accepting her current job?
I'm not a racist.
Yes. I'm glad someone else is making that point, because this issue often gets lost in all the hoopla over judges. We need to insist on someone who won't just rubber-stamp all of the administration's WOT measures.
Yes, she was busy at the STATE level . . . I agree with Hugh Hewitt: Justices need at least some experience at the FEDERAL level before moving to the 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.