Bush Eyes Brown - The CA jurist who may replace Justice O'Connor ~ John Fund

Opinion Journal / The Wall Street Journal. ^ | June 26,2003 | John Fund

[Elle Bee]

The California jurist who may replace Justice O'Connor.

Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:01 a.m.

Only a handful of people know if a Supreme Court vacancy will be announced later today. The guessing in Washington is that Chief Justice William Rehnquist is now less likely to retire, given the White House's strongly expressed view that it doesn't want a vacancy. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor marches to her own drummer, and recent events have led several court observers to speculate she may step down this week.

[Elle Bee]

Click Logo to go to:

.

[white trash redneck]

I understand the President's desire to avoid a SCOTUS vacancy right now, but at the same time good riddance to Sandra Day O'Connor.

[Elle Bee]

there would be no fear if the feckless GOP Senate had some stones

.

[chachacha]

Good bye O'Connor. A person who had no clue!

[Lazamataz]

Bush Eyes Brown

And Clinton Eyes Blue.

Amazing how these things work out.

[Elkiejg]

Not only does Judge Brown appear to be Supreme Court material - but wouldn't it be fun to watch the RATS try to smear a BLACK WOMAN???

[LarryM]

If Bush had any guts, he would nominate Brown and let the left go on a Jihad against her. I don't believe he has it in him.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, they went all out against Thomas, a black man (but the wrong kind of black) and they sure aren't kind to Condi Rice (also the wrong kind of black woman).

[You Dirty Rats]

They didn't filibuster Clarence Thomas, which is what they would have to do to Justice Brown.

IMHO, only one issue matters for appointing Justices right now -- judicial restraint. Justices who confuse their function with that of the legislature are the greatest single threat we face in this country to our freedoms. Judicially tyranny is the last best hope of the Left in this country -- hence their desperate use of the filibuster to try and maintain their grip.

[randita]

Not only does Judge Brown appear to be Supreme Court material - but wouldn't it be fun to watch the RATS try to smear a BLACK WOMAN???

Liberals are only patronizing toward black liberals. Black conservatives are not "their kind of blacks", according to Sharpton.

[nathanbedford]

Not only does Judge Brown appear to be Supreme Court material - but wouldn't it be fun to watch the RATS try to smear a BLACK WOMAN???

If she is not sound on abortion, I will smear her; we should all smear her.

Where oh where does she stand on the great dividing question of our time?

In my grandfather's time it was slavery. In my fathers's time it was communism. Now it is the new halocaust, called abortion.

[Richard Kimball]

Justices who confuse their function with that of the legislature are the greatest single threat we face in this country to our freedoms.

You can say that again. The most disgusting aspect of the recent rulings isn't that it allowed racial preferences, as terrible as that was. It was the fact that the court doesn't even bother to pretend that the Constitution has any part of their rulings, now. They make it clear that their intention is to "fix society", not interpret the law by Constitutional standards.

[TheWillardHotel]

Picking Gonzalas is racial politics. When the Democrats do it, it is vile. Somehow, it has become wise for Republicans to do it.

[mabelkitty]

I think Ginsberg is going.

Hence Leahy's sweaty fear.

[VRWCmember]

If she is not sound on abortion, I will smear her; we should all smear her.
Where oh where does she stand on the great dividing question of our time?

Let's see if this gives you a clue where she stands:

While on the court she has not shied away from controversy. She has said some of her colleagues have "an overactive lawmaking gland" that compels them to second-guess legislators. A clear expression of her frustration with judicial activists came in 1997, when she wrote a dissent in a case where the court majority struck down a state law stipulating that minors had to obtain parental consent for an abortion. "This case is an excellent example of the folly of courts in their role of philosopher kings," she concluded.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra to the SCOTUS!

[You Dirty Rats]

I don't care where Justice Brown, or any other potential SCOTUS member, stands on abortion. They aren't supposed to be legislators. They are supposed to interpret the law, not make it.

Roe v. Wade was and is an abomination. Same goes for many decisions of the Supreme Court in the last forty years or so, including the decisions this week. They are abominations not because of the result, but because they are an abuse of judicial power.

The abortion question should be decided in the political process (i.e. legislature), not in the judicial process. As long as judges insist on usurping political power, they will continue to be corrupted by it and our society will be less free than it should.

[VRWCmember]

Then you should like Justice Brown, as she reserved her most scathing comments for the jurists who felt it was within their power to thwart the legislative branch by overturning laws.

[You Dirty Rats]

Like her?

If the reports accurately reflect her judicial philosophy, I LOVE her!!!

[JohnnyZ]

Her opinion led some liberals to tag her as "a female Clarence Thomas."

Sweet :)

I'm for Brown or Garza.