Posted on 02/09/2003 7:35:21 AM PST by nwrep
Justice Janice Brown
Supreme Court: Moving On, Moving In, Moving Up
A vacancy could open up in the U.S. Supreme Court soon
By Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper NEWSWEEK
Feb. 17 issue: It's been nine years since the last vacancy opened up on the U.S. Supreme Court. That historically long drought could end this year with at least one resignation. Eager White House aides are stepping up preparation efforts, vetting candidates and contemplating a special media operation to deal with a potential confirmation battle.
Other observers think Bush could take another approach, appointing California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown instead. Brown is a conservative African-American who's ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights. Her nomination would let Bush add the court's third woman and second African-American in one swoop. And White House lawyers have already interviewed her. Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues cases before the court, believes Brown could even get the nod for chief justice. "An African-American female nominee is not going to be filibustered," he says. She doesn't have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks. And after months of bitter Senate fights over nominations to lower courts, that could have an appeal all its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
I'm happy and hopeful, but I'm sure that the left will break their collective necks to try to Bork her...
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
The RATS have no compunction to BORK anyone who doesn't agree with everything they say or do....
I'll admit to prejudice: I have trouble trusting anyone from California. Is this woman for real?
From the Calif. Supreme Court Website
Since May 2, 1996, Janice Brown has been an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. From November 4, 1994, she was an Associate Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. From January 7, 1991, to November 1994, Ms. Brown served as Legal Affairs Secretary to Governor Pete Wilson. The job included diverse duties, ranging from analysis of administration policy, court decisions, and pending legislation to advice on clemency and extradition questions. The Legal Affairs Office monitored all significant state litigation and had general responsibility for supervising departmental counsel and acting as legal liaison between the Governor's office and executive departments.
Prior to joining Governor Wilson's senior staff, Brown was an associate at Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, a government and political law firm.
Before joining the firm in January 1990, Brown served for two and a half years as Deputy Secretary and General Counsel for the state's Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, working primarily with business regulatory departments. Brown came to BT&H after eight years (1979-1987) in the Attorney General's Office, where she worked in both the criminal and civil divisions.
From 1977 to 1979, Brown worked for the Legislative Counsel.
| San Francisco Business Times - December 18, 2000 http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2000/12/18/editorial2.html |
 |
Printable Version |  |
 |
Email Story | |
 |
Want a Reprint? | |
 |
More Print Edition Stories |
Two weeks ago, the California Supreme Court used Proposition 209 to strike down a government program based on race and gender preferences.
The unanimous decision was of great interest, not only because it outlined the broad scope of voter-approved Proposition 209, which banned preferences statewide. The decision also showcased the boldness and acumen of Janice Brown, a rising star on the court who is gaining national notice.
Justice Brown, the court's only black member, wrote the majority opinion--and an impressive piece of work it is. The case involved a San Jose program that forced contractors bidding for city contracts to conduct outreach to minority- and women-owned subcontracting firms and to solicit their participation in the contractors' bids. Contractors failing to take measures oriented to race and gender were rejected for city projects, even if they submitted the lowest bid.
The San Jose program clearly violated Prop. 209, which says, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
In her majority opinion, Brown observed that a race-and-gender-based participation goal "differs from a quota or set-aside only in degree; by whatever label, it remains `a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status' as well as sex." Therefore, "such a goal plainly runs counter to the express intent of the historic (U.S.) Civil Rights Act and, concomitantly, the intent of Proposition 209." Enlightening analysis
In addition to invalidating the San Jose program, Brown presented an enlightening analysis of the federal and California judicial and statutory history of race-and-gender preferences. In particular, she focused on the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, which forbids race-and-gender discrimination in employment, and the judicial case law that followed its enactment. This focus was necessary, she noted, because Prop. 209's ballot arguments referred to the Civil Rights Act several times. In her analysis, she observed that Sen. Hubert Humphrey, one of the Act's major supporters, said that the Act wouldn't result in preferential treatment based on race. She also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court originally ruled that Congress passed the Act to "outlaw discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority."
Only later did the Supreme Court reinterpret the Act to permit race-conscious practices. Prop. 209, according to Brown, was intended to return anti-discrimination policy to the original intent and interpretation of the Civil Rights Act where "preferences for any group constitute inherent inequality" and are thus "an anathema to the very process of democracy." Sniping at Brown
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Ron George, a white male, sniped at Brown's opinion and defended the good intentions of preference supporters. He claimed a difference between racial segregationists and race-conscious affirmative-action advocates.
Yet, as UC Regent Stephen Nakashima has eloquently stated, "Discrimination in any form inflicts unjust injury on its victims; the injury is no less because the person who, or the institution which, inflicts it purports to act with good intentions."
Brown's opinion tolls the death knell for California government programs based on race and gender preferences. Her powerful analysis also shows why she should be considered for a position on the United States Supreme Court.
Lance T. Izumi is director of the Center for School Reform at the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco-based public policy think tank.
© 2000 American City Business Journals Inc.
Web reprint information
All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
Everyone speculated how perilous and difficult it would be for RATS to smear a Hispanic. If there's any evidence that they've held back on Estrada, I sure can't see it. And this was without any paper trail or judicial record to demagogue. Had they found something to sink their teeth into, can you imagine how ugly it would have gotten?
As to any unwillingness to do such a thing to a black female, two words: Denise Majette!
I'm sadly of the opinion that RATs believe they've got such a hammer lock on the non-white vote that they can abuse them with impugnity so long as they use the canard that he's not actually "one of them." And they may be right!
There is a up to $500.00 (not to exceed ever $25,000) fine to any one that kills an 'endangered' fox, or upsets/touches certain turtle nest eggs along our shores. Under the detailed listings of the federal Endangered Species Act.
There is a $350.00 to $500.00 'amount due' to kill the human species. (AKA abortion) And in second/third human trimesters; scissors are jabbed into the HUMAN head and the brains are sucked out-In elective surgeries- daily, in the United States, all under the guise of a woman's "right." The only real "right" is the "right" to remain silent.
When will humans become "endangered" and protected?
When will the so called pro-"choicers" realize basic science skills of the food-chain? Human's are NOT at the bottom of the food-chain.
Do they really see what they do, with their political correctness all in the guise of a "woman's right"?
Friday, January 31, 2003
Page 1
State Supreme Court Rules:
Judge Erred in Finding Acquitted Murder Defendant ?Innocent?
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge erred in granting a rare finding that an acquitted defendant was ?factually innocent? of murder charges, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown, writing for a unanimous court, said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge L. Jeffrey Wiatt abused his discretion in granting Jeanie Louise Adair?s?petition for an exoneration that beyond the jury?s ?not guilty? verdict.
Brown agreed with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler, who as an assigned justice pro tem authored the Court of Appeal?s decision overturning Wiatt?s order, that it was error for the trial judge to grant the factual finding in a case where there was sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict.
Statutory Scheme
?From the statutory scheme [of Penal Code Sec. 851.8], we conclude that although the appellate court should defer to the trial court?s factual findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence, it must independently examine the record to determine whether the defendant has established ?that no reasonable cause exists to believe? he or she committed the offense charged?,? Brown wrote. ?Applying that standard to the facts of this case, we find that defendant failed to carry her burden.?
Prosecutors accused Adair of beating her husband, Robert Adair, to death with a baseball bat in their Sylmar condominium in 1996 for $400,000 in life insurance money.
The jury acquitted her after she contended that the jealous wife of a man with whom she was having an affair set up an attack on the defendant, and that Robert Adair was killed when he walked in on it.
She said a man dressed up as a gas company employee, presumably hired by the jealous wife, tied her up and threatened her while he robbed her house.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The District Attorney?s Office later conceded that a jury could have had sufficient reasonable doubt to acquit. But prosecutors fought Adair?s petition for a factual innocence finding, which would have expunged her arrest record and constituted a conclusion that the facts not only supported reasonable doubt, but also proved she did not commit the crime.
Wiatt granted the petition soon after the 1999 trial, but stayed his ruling to allow the District Attorney?s Office to appeal.
In making what lawyers on the case said was an unprecedented finding of factual innocence following a jury trial, Wiatt said he was persuaded by the lack of blood on the defendant?s clothing; a timeline of Robert Adair?s activities that was consistent with his wife?s testimony as to the time he arrived home, while the alleged intruder was still in the house; medical evidence contradicting the prosecution?s theory that Jeannie Adair?s injuries were self-inflicted; and the ?uncontroverted? testimony concerning the faux gas company employee.
But Brown agreed with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge cannot grant a finding of factual innocence merely because he or she believes that the evidence supports acquittal.
For the defendant to be declared innocent, the evidence ?must exonerate, not merely raise a substantial question as to guilt,? Brown said. The justice agreed with the Court of Appeal panel that ?there was clearly enough evidence, (albeit circumstantial), to have allowed the jury to convict defendant.?
Fidler, in his opinion for the Court of Appeal?portions of which were incorporated by Brown into her opinion?said the record could support a finding that Adair beat her husband to death with a bat and to cover up her crime made up the story about the man in the gas company uniform. He also said that since her husband had discovered her affair and was planning to move to Las Vegas with their two children, Adair had a personal and financial motive for killing.
The case is People v. Adair, 03 S.O.S. 516.
Copyright 2003, Metropolitan News Company
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.