Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
Speaking of Gonzales, do you see him as the next nominee? I have been predicting Gonzales' section since Roberts was nominated. If it's not Gonzles now, it will surely be for the third opening, if there is a third opening.
I honestly don't know. I see two primary camps in that prediction department.
One camp predicts that Gonzales will be a pick, nominally because the pick will energize Hispanic voters, and perhaps because Bush rewards loyalty (another crony pick), or because Bush wants to stick a needle in the eye of the uber-right-wing conservatives who objected to the Miers nomination, since he knows these same people object to Gonzales on the frounds that GOnzales has demonstrated judicial activism (see TX parental notification cases).
The other camp predicts that Bush will avoid a Gonzales pick, for the same reasons noted above. That he is not vindictive, and that he intends to honor his campaing promise to nominate strict constructionists, where "strict constructionist" can be fleshed out with the benchmark examples of Thomas and Scalia.
And since I don't, I can't.
I have seen nothing in Blackwell to indicate that he is not a man of character, and we need him to govern this state.
I have heard that JRB is pro-choice (only recently). Do you know if that's true?
She has been my first choice as SC nominee from the beginning, but if she isn't pro-life, I have a problem with supporting her.
That's fair enough. Did Dr. Dobson make a statement lately that reflected a change of heart?
I emailed him a very tactful letter asking him to comment on the 1993 speech. I respect Dr. Dobson very much.
As I've asserted on numerous occasions, a person's PERSONAL attitude toward an issue is not a good indicator of how that person would rule, if in the position of being a judge of the facts and the law.
In this particular decision, Brown came down on the pro-life side of the issue. Her side lost.
In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997), the majority struck down on state constitutional grounds a statute requiring pregnant minors to secure parental consent or judicial authorization before obtaining an abortion.In a lengthy dissent, Brown castigates the court for acting as a super-legislature. She states early in her dissent, "The fundamental flaw running throughout [the majority's] analysis is the utter lack of deference to the ordinary constraints of judicial decisionmaking--deference to state precedent, to federal precedent, to the collective judgment of our Legislature, and, ultimately, to the people we serve."
She is particularly dismayed by the court's lack of deference when, as here, the standards dictated by state, federal, and legislative precedent are clearly derived from history, context, and text. With regard to the statute itself, it is notable that Brown (1) finds the statute's age limitation not unreasonable, and (2) acknowledges a liberty interest in parents' controlling their children that is "historically more sacrosanct than a minor's right to privacy."
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2003_03_23_SCOTUSblog.cfm
Lots more good stuff at that link, not all of it about Brown, but much of it including cites to other cases where Brown rendered an opinion.
Here is the ACLU take on the case ...
http://www.aclunc.org/reproductive-rights/ca-court.html
Keep in mind, the ACLU is talking about the majority in the case, and Brown dissented against the majority opinion.
Sorry to field the post to Cbolt, but you might want to read this:
"...As I noted in an earlier piece, pro-life minority nominees represent the perfect storm for Left-leaning opposition groups: non-conformist role models from the Left's most reliable voting blocs who may one day be in a position to reconsider Roe v. Wade. In that regard, Janice Rogers Brown could well be the Storm of the Century: A black female who has been nominated to the court viewed as a springboard to the Supreme Court and who may not view Roe as the zenith of constitutional jurisprudence.
Thomas Sowell adds the kicker: "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."
Source: NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200505170812.asp
Or, how about this:
"Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School maintains that the Democrats unprecedented filibuster of federal appellate-court nominees is driven by the partys imperative to retain its political advantage with minorities and women...[and] notes that nominees such as Miguel Estrada, who is Hispanic, Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, Bill Pryor, a brilliant young Catholic, and two white women, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. are victims of Democrats determination not to allow any more conservative African-Americans, Hispanics, women or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200505030805.asp
If you've "heard" that she's pro-abortion, it would seem to me that she might be the target of an early whispering campaign designed to reignite conservative backlash against JRB as a questionable candidate. Just my $0.02.
Can you give me the origin and nature of the SC blog (who are Goldstein and Howe?), and who is writing the analysis of her there? (I love her references to Hogwarts and Gandalf!)
Thanks for the help.
No apologies necessary. I want all the info I can get. Thanks!
It would appear the '93 speech affected him too.
I will try to find the Thread with the link for you.
That information I do not have.
Kinda off topic, but season 1 of Hart to Hart was released Tuesday on DVD!!! Watched the pilot movie with commentary from RJ and Stefanie and it was priceless. Worth the $40!
(Just watched 3 episodes the other night and our tapes are wretched! Well worn. :)
He definitely withdrew his support after reading the '93 speech.
OK.....thanks anyway.
You are wrong to thing that a Reagan Democrat likes RINO's. As evidenced my Reagan's success, they like straight shooters.
All of the 'Reagan Democrats' I know are and have been union workers that are as conservative as Ann Coulter, have NRA stickers on their trucks, right next to the Union Yes stickers.
McCain will fail as miserably as Gerald Ford did in the 70's.
You folks never have understood who your true enemy is.
It is not the center!
It is your counterparts on the left.
Focus on the Family Action - October 27, 2005Colorado Springs, Colo. -- Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson issued the following statement today in response to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her name from consideration:
"I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Miers' withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court.
"In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.
"When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support, based on what I was able to discover about her. But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy. Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy. Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary."
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.