Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: counterpunch

I agree!

"By far the strongest, however, is Brown's - the court's main opinion, in which she was joined by three other justices. She gave Proposition 209 a broad and forceful reading, interpreting it to outlaw not just explicit quotas but also race and gender "goals," because "a participation goal differs from a quota or a set-aside only in degree.

Brown set the measure in historical context, hailing it as a statement of the venerable rule that no one should be treated better or worse than another on account of race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." The U.S. Supreme Court had veered from this principle, Brown noted; Proposition 209 represents a decision by the California electorate to return to it, reasserting a goal of "equal opportunity for all individuals" rather than "entitlement based on group representation."

Justice Brown is committed to racial equality because she is committed to individual rights, and to protecting individuals, of all colors, against government abuse, even when the abuse is based in a popular consensus. Just as the small hotel owners of San Francisco should be free unjustified government coercion, and no contractor should be denied business because of race, so Mr. McKay should be free from arbitrary exercises of state power. Since many small entrepreneurs are members of racial minorities, protecting business against intrusive government meddling is more relevant to their welfare than most of the incendiary causes in Jesse Jackson's bag of tricks.


Brown is also a strong believer in individual property rights:

""Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco," she observed. The City had become a "neo-feudal regime." She reprimanded fellow jurists who automatically give a pass to confiscatory land-use restrictions. "Once again a majority of this court has proved that 'if enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.' But theft is theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery."


Read the article from 2003 about her:

Judging Janice Rogers Brown

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10636


40 posted on 10/23/2005 10:12:26 PM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: FairOpinion

JRB in 2005 = GOP in 2006

SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it


41 posted on 10/23/2005 10:18:13 PM PDT by counterpunch ( SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: FairOpinion
Judging Janice Rogers Brown

She was my hope from the very beginning. So, does that make me:

a. sexist

b. elitist

c. racist

d. all of the above

43 posted on 10/23/2005 10:24:17 PM PDT by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson