Bush May Tap Brown for Supreme Court

MSNBC, NEWSWEEK ^ | 2-9-2003 | Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper

[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.

[montag813]

"CHOOSE BROWN AND LOSE VOTES." Millions upon millions of votes.

I don't know what Rove is inhaling over there. Gun-owners will stay home and blacks wont change a single vote because of Ms. Brown.

[Shooter 2.5]

"There must be THOUSANDS of qualified jurists and other citizens who could do the job and about whom we'd NEVER need to worry.

I'll settle for nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices that know how to read on an eighth grade level. ;)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I'm happy and hopeful, but I'm sure that the left will break their collective necks to try to Bork her...

TOM DASCHLE: Hold muh bong an' watch this!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I hope Bush is able to nominate Judge Bork while he's in office.

The trouble is that Bork is too old, and some of the GOP senators who opposed him (e.g. Sen. Warner) are still in the Senate and are unlikely to change now. Too bad, I'd like to see him on the Court.

[need_a_screen_name]

Banning assuult weopons does not stop a gang member from shooting up a family on Sunday with an AK-47. They are illegally bought and sold daily so this issue either way, is NOT AN ISSUE, with me.

Why??? Are you gang member who doesn't care what the law says? The rest of us would like to LEGALLY on semiautos.

[RKV]

BINGO! The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Good stances on some issues is not enough for a Supreme. Even if she has plenty of melanin. Think Souter in a dress on this one.

[rwfromkansas]

She looks like a classy woman.

Her record looks even better!

[Kevin Curry]

Ammendment.

Please. Amendment (two m's, not three).

Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this up (big fingers screw up my own spelling all the time). However, this particular misspelling has been popping up all over the place far too frequently.

[rwfromkansas]

I notice you only replied to the article that makes her look bad. Interesting. Another article was posted where she ruled in a pro-2A manner.

She is not perfect though....I would prefer to have someone else unless I know more about why she ruled the way she did on the 2A cases.

[rwfromkansas]

Souter was a questionable choice......there never was any evidence he would be definitely conservative.

[rwfromkansas]

If that happens, conservatives will be peeved and Bush knows it.

[William Tell]

Shooter 2.5 said: "The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on the Right of Free Speach. They haven't yet ruled on the Second Amendment. Why do you think we have gun control in states like California that have no Right to Keep and Bear Arms in their state Constitution?"

--------------------------------------

At such time as the US Supreme Court rules on the "incorporation" of the Second Amendment, they will only be officially recognizing that the Second Amendment was included at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.

There is absolutely nothing preventing the Kalifornia Supreme Court from recognizing this on its own. If they are wrong, then the US Supreme Court can find a way to overturn their decision.

The Kalifornia Constitution does specify that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[rwfromkansas]

I do not believe the 14th was originally intended to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Therefore, if that is the reason for her decision, I have to agree wtih her. Frankly, if she gets in the court, such a position would make her rule in favor of school prayer etc...wow. She would be a goldmine! She does not appear to be anti-gun either, as she has conflicting rulings on teh subject....it depends on the authority in the case upon which she makes her rulings.

[fatima]

Here's a bump.

[commish]

Thats what I am seeing - she appears to make her rulings based solely on California law and Constitution.

I like that. If she does the same thing at the Federal level she will be a great pick.

I would like to know if the 2nd was mentioned at all in the arguments before the court though. If it wasn't then she ruled as she should have solely on the Basis of California Constitution, BUT if the 2nd was introduced by the lawyers arguing, then she could have used it over Cali law.

All in all she looks like a strict State Rights person. I will tentatively support her nomination until I know more though.

[RKV]

The one article about gun shows is tangental to 2nd Amendment rights - its more about commerce. The other case (ban) goes to the core of 2nd Amendment issues. The state government of Kalifornia is attempting to disarm the militia. They are attempting to do what the British wanted to do at Concord, and will get the same results if they continue.

[livius]

There was something there [in one of her decisions] to offend just about everyone," Uelmen at Santa Clara University said.

"Everyone" refers to liberals, of course. How can one not love somebody like that? Plus she looks like a judge, or what a judge should look like!

I'd never heard of her before, but she certainly seems like an interesting possibility.

[RKV]

Sorry to rain on your parade. You are engaging in wishful thinking and projection. Of course the BOR was intended to apply to the states, why else was the 10th Amendment passed? I realize that there is a long discusion on this that predates this thread, but for myself this fact is crystal clear.

[fatima]

livius,I have not had time to read this thread,maybe she has what we need.

[Mannaggia l'America]

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.

This guy is either very naive or he just landed here from another planet...