Bush May Tap Brown for Supreme Court

Thomas Sowell wrote an article last year touting her as the national top choice for conservative hopes across the board. How's that for an endorsement?

"An African-American female nominee is not going to be filibustered," he says.

What makes this man think so, after the media lynching of Clarence Thomas?

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

Thanks, he says, whilst trying to hide his red cheeks.

Normally, I pride myself on my spelling and grammar(at least whilst writing!), but amendment is one of those words I can never seem to get right.

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.

As always, ol' buddy, dead on target.

The problem with our courts is ideology and activism....not that they all can't be made to think like us, because that will never happen.

Judical activism, accepted, condoned and permitted to be acceptable...that is the disease. Brown is an enenmy of activism and a friend to the old stricture bound rules of judical behavior. Hip-Hip Horray

Here is what Thomas Sowell had to say about Justice Brown:

The Democrats cannot filibuster everything, and they certainly cannot filibuster each of the Bush administration's many judicial nominees that they kept bottled up when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. But Democrats may well save a filibuster as a sort of political version of a nuclear threat, in order to prevent President Bush from nominating a strong candidate for the Supreme Court -- someone who is in favor of enforcing the laws as written and who has the fortitude to stick to that position, despite all the pressures and temptations to "grow."
The administration may well find itself under great pressure to avoid a political bloodletting by not nominating someone who will rile up the Democrats. The voices of compromise are always seductive -- and too often over the years the Republicans have heeded those voices.
Democratic administrations have put some truly awful people on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, but Republicans have also appointed some of the worst judicial activists, both during the flamboyant Earl Warren era and in later years, when they appointed such justices as John Paul Stevens and David Souter, who have been more low key but have developed just about as much disregard of the written law.
Republicans have also put some wobbly "moderates" on the Supreme Court, like Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, who tend to try to finesse tough issues and split the difference. This turns the law into a guessing game for those who want to be law-abiding citizens and into an instrument of extortion for those who are litigious.
After decades of shameless judicial activism, the very concept of the rule of law can erode away unless there are people on the Supreme Court with the courage and the clarity to call a halt, and even consider overturning some of the more outrageously lawless Supreme Court decisions of the past.
Believers in judicial restraint face a major dilemma because such restraint applies both to following the laws as written and respecting legal precedents. Both these things make the law predictable -- without which it is not really law but just a set of arbitrary edicts, and courts are just places from which lightning can strike anyone without warning at any time.
Democrats do not have to worry about such considerations. What they want are judges who will produce the kinds of results that their political base wants -- especially on such issues as abortion and affirmative action. The next best thing is to be able to scare off the Bush administration by threatening a filibuster if the president nominates someone whose top priority is upholding the law, someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
When the next vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the Bush administration will face the choice between nominating someone who believes in the rule of law or nominating another "moderate" to avoid a filibuster by the Democrats. But there may be a way out of that dilemma.
What if the administration could find someone who is not merely an advocate of judicial restraint but someone with a strong record of having unabashedly practiced it? And what if it would be someone who would present real political problems to the Democrats if they filibustered or launched a smear campaign?
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has been a very tough advocate of applying the law as it is written. When her fellow justices have gone the judicial activism route, her scathing and brilliant dissents have punctured their pretenses without mercy. Moreover, she has shown herself to be as knowledgeable as she is tough-minded.
Why would the Democrats have to hesitate before launching a filibuster against her nomination? Because Janice Rogers Brown is a black woman. That shouldn't matter but the Democrats are the ones who have always made such things matter. Now they would be hoist by their own petard.

Now, I don't put a lot of stock in political commentators, tv pundits, or politicians in general, but Thomas Sowell is about as solid a mind as I've come across in the last twenty years. I'm going to support Justice Brown if she is nominated....tooth and nail / hammer and tongs !

I don't know enough about Constitutional Law to know if the California Supreme Court could rule based on the Federal Amendment. I do know they chose not to. That's why it's necessary to get a Federal ruling.

From what I have read so far, Brown has an ability to adhere strictly to written law. That may be a plus for us.

OK, I've read the article and most of the replies, and here's my general feelings, although note that I'm not a lawyer.

It seems that Brown is pro-states rights. It also seems like she is, at least most of the time, a stict constructionist. And I think her judicial record may be significantly more diverse than Judge Souter's in NH. California, being the largest state, and one of the wackiest legislatures and many wacked out town councils, is going to give the state supreme court lots to rule on. In a way, it's almost better than a justice come from California than NH. In NH, people aren't as wacky, and they don't pass wacky laws, so you never really know if a justice is going to vote the right way. In California, the supreme court is going to have to rule on all kinds of things.

Her ruling on the assault weapons ban is a bit questionable, but we don't know all the issues involved. We don't know what the briefs argued, as I'm sure no one here has read them yet. In particular, we don't know if the briefs challenged the law on second amendment grounds, or on state constitutional grounds.

In any event, before she's nominated, I'm sure that there are volumes that Bush's staff would be able to read to get a clear idea of how she really thinks. Because someone's ideology can't hide in California the way it could in New Hampshire. There's way too many nuts passing laws in California.

I am now reserving judgement...counselor...

Hah, Hah, Hah, you're cute....keep up your fun personality...

FreeGards From The Socialist Republic of Noo Yawk,

Karen AKA KLT

Thanks so much for the ping.

You are just believing what recent judicial decisions have stated. Thus, your opinion means nothing.

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.

Thats a valid area for debate. Its my contention that the 14th Amendment and States Rights are both opposite tools for citizens to protect their liberties.

States Rights is a method for a State to interpose against an overbearing Federal government, a club to be used on the central government to protect its citizens rights.

The 14th Amendment is a method for the Federal government to interpose against an overbearing State government. A club to be used on your State if it abuses its citizens.

The citizenry would then cling to the side that is best acting to protect their liberty (as stated in the Federalist Papers).

In this particular 2nd Amendment case, citizens should appeal to the 14th Amendment to protect their 2nd Amendment Rights (which is what you are doing) against the arbitrary power of a State. (This is exactly what the Sons of Confederate Veterans did when they were denied license plates by Virginia like everyone else).

In other cases you may appeal to States Rights to protect you against encroachment by the Federal government. Which is what is ongoing with several issues out west both liberal and conservative.

These tools work great as long as they are used to promote individual liberty. Unfortunately States Rights was used as an opponent of individual liberty in the past with States fighting to continue oppressive behavior against a Federal government seeking to stop it. Likewise, the 14th has been abused as a tool for the Federal government to enforce its social agenda on localities, States, and regions where it has no real authority to do so.

Thats why, to me, we should use both tools and not fool ourselves into a preference for one and a hatred for the other. They are both just tools.

(right now the Feds have the upper hand and States Rights have been severely weakened due to a bad reputation through misuse)

I am disappointed in the Judge's ruling preferring States Rights over the 14th since the 14th is the tool that best promotes individual liberty (2nd Amendment) in this case. But I am very pleased at her recognition of States Rights and the fact that she is not afraid of it and has not bought into the liberal dogma that it is inherently evil. I just think she came down on the side of the wrong tool (States Rights) in this particular case.

Agreed.

The powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor forbidden by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

I'd say that infringing on the RKBA is one of the things the Constitution forbids.

Thanks for the heads up!

If the Dems bork this candidate just like they tried to do with Estrada, it will reinforce the impression that the Demopukes are the party that forces minorities to the back of the bus.

Whereas the Republican Party is the party of Colin and Condi.

If Brown is against affirmative action and abortion, then the fight will be the dirtiest in our history. Hope she can stand up to the storm her nomination will create.

Check out her concurring opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer (2000).

Some snippets:

Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms – a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights – is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions. . . .
But surely, the right to preserve one’s life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one’s privacy.
The founding generation certainly viewed bearing arms as an individual right based upon both English common law and natural law, a right logically linked to the natural right of self-defense. Blackstone described self-defense as the “primary law of nature,” which could not be taken away by the law of society. . . . Extant political writings of the period repeatedly expressed a dual concern: facilitating the natural right of self-defense and assuring an armed citizenry capable of repelling foreign invaders and quelling tyrannical leaders.
After the Civil War a series of enactments, culminating with the Fourteenth Amendment, acknowledged the correlation between self-defense, citizenship, and freedom. Section 14 of the Freedman’s Bureau Act, which the 39th Congress passed over the President’s veto, provided: “That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, . . . the right to . . . have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery. . . .” (Freedman’s Bureau Act (July 16, 1866) 14 Stat. 176, italics added; see Halbrook, Second Class Citizenship and the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia (1995) 5 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 105, 141-150 (Second Class Citizenship).)
Halbrook concludes the Freedman’s Bureau Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment leave no doubt that “ ‘the constitutional right to bear arms’ is included among the ‘laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security,’ and property, and that ‘the free enjoyment of such immunities and rights’ is to be protected” (Second Class Citizenship, supra, 5 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. at p. 150) under the Fourteenth Amendment, which would confer citizenship on all persons born in the United States and imbue them with every right of citizenship, including the right to keep and bear arms. (Ibid.) . . .
The media keep the horrific visions of gun violence ever before our eyes. These acts of individual madness are undeniably tragic and totally unacceptable in a civilized society. But there are other horrific visions – the victims of which number in the millions – perpetrated by governments against unarmed populations. . . .
The framers could have had no conception of the massive scale on which government-sanctioned murder would be committed in the twentieth century, but they had a keen appreciation of the peril of being defenseless. That wariness is reflected in the Constitution.

How do you bork a qualified African-American without alienating a part of your base? People forget Clarence Thomas got through because demz couldn't take the heat after they tried to bork him. It'll be ten times harder with a black woman candidate.

I agree with you ultima....but....I still think they'll manage to do some kind of BORK.....

"ruled against abortion rights" ping

The demoncrats will publicly villify her for being "anti-choice." So why don't conservatives villify the pro-death crowd? Why are we supposed to tolerate their intolerance of pro-lifers? Why are we supposed to keep our mouths shut while the pro-death crowd Borks a pro-lifer?

I say we go get them. I say we get loud and in their faces for a change. Let's hold up pictures of aborted babies and make them defend "choice."

Why, thank you, Ma'am!

<]:^)~<

. She doesn't have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks.

Yup,and yet they are still going to insist on calling her a conservative. Then again,these same drooling fools keep insisting Ali Bubba is a conservative.

I will say that judging her STRICTLY from her photo alone,I can see why Ali Bubba thinks she is highly qualified.