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.

[William Tell]

sneakypete said: "No,but it clearly guarantees the individual the RIGHT to own the weapons the common infantry soldier would be expected to have or use."

People at the time of the Revolution owned ships armed with cannon. For sea-going warfare, that was the ultimate weapon available. There were no restrictions. The idea that the Second Amendment includes a limitation on the type of arms which may be owned is a new idea invented by those who are not willing to amend the Constitution to outlaw nuclear weapons.

[RKV]

Agreed.

[dirtboy]

If the state had done it, it would have been interesting to see her opinion then. Since we don't have that, I will have to conclude that her opinion on guns and gun rights lies in her support of the assault weapons ban.

No, you cannot. What you can conclude is that she is a practitioner of judicial restraint, as she resisted the temptation to expand her dissent beyond the immediate boundaries of the case before her, something good conservative jurists do.

[dirtboy]

Justice Janice Brown wrote that for the majority to have reached their conclusion, they must have ignored "the historic limits of the federal Constitution," have rewritten "the privacy provision of the state Constitution," and have abrogated "the constitutional interests of parents in an opinion that cannot survive any level of scrutiny, much less strict scrutiny."

I like it...

[justshutupandtakeit]

As usual, Jefferson's rhetoric does not measure up to his actions. He had no problem with state prosecution of Federalist newspapers when they were critical of his administration. George Clinton, his ally and 2d VP, prosecuted the editor of a newspaper for criticizing TJ. Hamilton's masterful defense led to the NY law being changed.

Not only was the press not protected from State action but the states often established state churches. Jefferson's own state did so, to his mortification. Mass. had an established church, the Congregational, funded by taxpayers. States fined people for not attending church and prosecuted many actions which fall under privacy.

Slave states routinely prosecuted anti-slavery speakers, allowed presses to be destroyed even editors killed for speaking against the Slaverocracy. Magazines and newspapers were taken from the federal mails when anti-slavery. So much for freedom of the press and free speech.

Only when the amendments were blanket statements such as "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" or such as in the other amendments except for the First did they apply to the states.

[outlawcam]

The bill of rights applies to the states and did before the 14th Amendment.

With the exception of the first amendment, I agree with you completely. However, the contrary view received a unanimous opinion in Marshall's Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). Now, incorporation was never intended in the passage of the fourteenth amendment, but it wasn't unanimous that it was even needed, either. Still, in order to prevent the kind of debate that spurned "nullification," language was inserted into the fourteenth amendment protecting, further, individual liberties from state governments. Whether or not it was needed, I don't know. However, I would offer that perhaps inserting that language in there when the original Barron case was incorrectly decided actually encouraged the incorporation theory invented by the Supreme Court.

[RKV]

Tom was a human. What else is new? I think the majority of the principles in his writing are correct and should provide us guidance. It seems reasonable to read the other founders as well for confirmation. Sorry, but I don't have the time to respond in more detail - whole books have been written on the subject by brighter people than me.
Also...
1) Hamilton won, didn't he?
2)State churches were met with resistance and ultimately disestablished.
3) Suppression of speech doesn't make it right, then or now.
Simply put, my reading of American history is that when one group wants to tyranize another they rationalize it by finding inovative ways to limit the applicability of the BOR - like the way DemocRATs wrote Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise blacks.

[1Old Pro]

Souter was a disaster. I'd like to hear more about her opinions which were expressed personally, as in writings, conversations, etc.

[rwfromkansas]

exactly

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, Hamilton lost that case because the NY law (like that of many other states) did not exclude prosecuting newspapers for sedition etc. While the Alien and Sedition acts (which the Republicans were screaming to high heaven about) allowed truth as a defense in trials of newspapers the State acts did not. Thus, the fact that Crowell's statements in the Wasp were true did not prevent a conviction. After Hamilton's death the law was changed.

Jefferson's writings are at a terrible variance with his actions. He is the most overrated president we ever had and the one notable achievement of his administration, the Louisiana Purchase, came about through sheer luck. And he didn't even believe the U.S. constitution allowed it.

[ken5050]

Just wondering.....do you find the sub headline...."Movin' on in.."etc...offensive.....?it seems to pander, dontcha think?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since I find about 75% of what is printed in the lamestream press offensive I do find that offensive. Too cute by half but had a Republican said it we would never hear the end of the bloviating accusations of racism from the pressitutes.

[Redbob]

I'm with you: I'm awfully wary of any judicial nominee coming from the Left Coast, and the fact she worked for Pete Wilson doesn't exactly send me into paroxysms of joy, either.

[Kryptonite]

I remembered that shortly after posting my comments, and stand corrected. Still, she upheld the incredibly-vague "assault weapons" ban....

[RKV]

I'd say that the author of the Declaration of Independence was not overrated - quite the opposite. To say that he shared the prejudices of his time is clearly true at the same instant.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson's destruction of the U.S. military led to the burning of Washington under his successor when the British invaded. He barely escaped impeachment as Governor of Virginia because of his lack of understanding of military matters and his incompetence in handling them.

His attempts to undermine Washington's foreign policies were just short (if that) of treason and led W. to cease speaking to him. After the flacks J. hired to run a republican newspaper started personal attacks on W. including calling him a thief W. no longer had any regard for him. After leaving office W. never again communicated with him.

The Jefferson of 1776 and his time in the Senate was not the same man as in 1801.

As far as his ideas being in accord with his times goes, I prefer a man who leads against Evil not one who temporizes and pretends to lead. Many of the founders hated slavery and worked to end it Jefferson pretended to but did nothing after the Northwest Ordinance and, in fact, provided the intellectual underpinning for the South's secession through the Ky. and Va. Resolutions and their theory of nullification. This was essentially denying the U.S. Constitution's role as the Law of the Land. Fortunately, he was out of the country while the Constitution was written and ratified or I feel sure he would have led the forces opposed to its acceptance perhaps to victory.

While by all accounts he was a kind master he freed none of his slaves after his death as did W. The only slaves he freed were his children by Sally Hemmings and those connected with her. I don't blame him for the affair with Hemmings since she was his wife's half sister (1/8th black) and he promised his wife on her death bed never to remarry.

The political rhetoric (and outright lies) his party used during the 1790s was little short of insanity. I suggest you research his policy towards the military and treachery towards the administration he served as Sec. of State before you accept the leftist view of him. He has been lionized by Leftist professors for almost two centuries.

His economic views were complete foolishness and, if implemented by the nation, would have left the U.S. too weak to resist dismemberment by the European empires on our borders. His bitter enmity towards one of our nation's true heroes, Alexander Hamilton, and the methods he used is a disgrace to his reputation. It is no accident that one of his greatest allies (and the man most responsible for his being president) killed H. then after doing J.'s dirty work he was in turn destroyed politically with J.'s help.

The real Jefferson is not the one spoken of in public. He is, however, the true founder of the DemocRATic party.

[ZULU]

"We don't know that yet. She supported gunshows when it was in the relm of her ability but she supported the assault weapons bill because California doesn't have a Second Amendment."

Does California have a law against slavery???

The Bill of RIghts applies everywhere unless specifically refering to the powers of the Federal Government. The Second Amedment does not specifically refer to the federal government. I think she is a stealth liberal on this issue and I don't want her there.

The Second Amendment people helped put Bush II in office. He'd better not forget it, or he won't be re-elected. Pro-Second Amendment People should not re-elect to office politicians who seek their support, then ignore them afterwards. Rural gun states helped put Bush II over the top. If he puts an anti-gunner in the Supreme Court, he can go ask the damn Democraps for votes. As far as I'm concerned he'll never get mine again - period.

[RKV]

And Hamilton didn't have a well deserved reputation for hitting on other men's wives, didn't have capital A Ambition and didn't die in a duel. You are right about the Jeffersonian heritage of the RAT party, so I can hardly say he was perfect. Hint: no one is. What I value in his service to the US and in his writings is his concern with human liberty. That I value very highly. So if the quote I entered earlier was from 1787, does that make it half OK, since that is between 1776 and 1802.

[Shooter 2.5]

"Does California have a law against slavery???

Yes. It's right there in their constitution. I had the same questions as you did and so I checked. Don't shoot the messenger. Until we get a U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment ruling, the anti-gun states with no Second Amendment in their state constitutions can pretty much do as they please. I don't like it anymore than you do but facts of life like this are what put my Brother in Law behind bars for having a Smith 39 in his sock drawer.