Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush May Tap Brown for Supreme Court
MSNBC, NEWSWEEK ^ | 2-9-2003 | Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper

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 ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; janicerogersbrown; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-297 next last
To: nwrep
From California Abortion Rights Action League Newsletter- Summer 1997:

Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who is new to the Court since the 1996 decision, seemed clearly hostile to pro-choice arguments, challenging the trial court's authority to second-guess the Legislature's findings about teens and abortion.

41 posted on 02/09/2003 8:41:33 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Very conservative? Did he read her comments on semi-autos?
42 posted on 02/09/2003 8:44:08 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Thanks for the data. Too bad about Justice Brown, she would be a TERRIBLE choice for the US Supreme Court. The bill of rights applies to the states and did before the 14th Amendment. If, after the passage of the 14th Amendment, a judge doesn't get the applicability of the BOR to states they are CLEARLY UNWORTHY of their robes. That said, she does sound like the kind that a Bush would pick (e.g. Bush pere and Souter).
43 posted on 02/09/2003 8:44:38 AM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Sorry, she is NOT PRO-2nd. Period.
44 posted on 02/09/2003 8:46:18 AM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RKV
You have to wonder whether folks read what is posted, or just catch what they want and form their opinions from that.
45 posted on 02/09/2003 8:50:18 AM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Walkingfeather
A real what? Judicial tyrant sounds right to me. If a judge fails to recognize the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states (and absolutely so after the 14th Amendment), then they fail to meet the fundamental requirements for the job of judge. Being anti-abortion is great, but it is not the only test a judge must pass.
46 posted on 02/09/2003 8:50:28 AM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Thank God its Janice Brown & not Lee Pee (Out of Town ) Brown, failed Mayor of Houston & everything else he has touched!
47 posted on 02/09/2003 8:51:53 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
If Stevens were to leave and Brown was chosen to replace him you would see a bloody battle.

Too bad the CA court would become a little bit more liberal.
48 posted on 02/09/2003 8:56:09 AM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
I am sorry ... I imagine you have never heard of Judge Brown until a few minutes ago.... If that is the case you should shut your mouth now.... because when she is at her confirmation hearings you are going to look like an idiot. .... Unless you are one of those guys that is contridictory of everything and finds himself chasing people around a crowded room so they will listen to your ill thought out opinions that you have calloused your family with for years.
49 posted on 02/09/2003 8:56:44 AM PST by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
I resent Newsweak's raciest title to the article.
50 posted on 02/09/2003 9:01:17 AM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkingfeather
You have no rational basis to insult my family since you have no knowldege of them whatsoever. I find your comments offensive and you are on notice that I will inform the moderators and ask for you to be banned should you persist in your personal invective. Judge Brown has failed to support the 2nd Amendment when she had her chance - that is a fact or did you not read the post above with the details? That failure alone disqualifies her. Period.
51 posted on 02/09/2003 9:07:22 AM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KLT
You think so? I hope so...Brown sounds like an excellent choice....

So did David Souter.

Let's pass on Brown...Mike Luttig is ready to serve, and help restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the immovable bedrock of law.

52 posted on 02/09/2003 9:12:44 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
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.
53 posted on 02/09/2003 9:13:02 AM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nwrep; Shooter 2.5
Good - In sharp dissent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown said such an initiative by a local government "exceeds its regulatory authority."

The gun industry argued to the seven justices that local governments are powerless to regulate the industry because the Legislature has authorized gun shows on public property. The industry said the local laws were pre-empted by state rules.

Bad - But none of the state's seven high court justices agreed. "For good or ill," wrote Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the court, "the Legislature stood up and was counted on this issue, one of the most contentious in modern society."

In her opinion for the court majority, Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons.

"No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote.

The court majority also rejected the challenge that the law was invalid because it failed to ban all similar weapons.

"Doubtless, 10 years after Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act became law in California, many semiautomatic weapons potentially classifiable as assault weapons remain on the market here," Brown wrote.

"That may or may not be regrettable, depending upon one's view of this highly charged public policy question," Brown added, "but it does not amount to a constitutionally fatal flaw."

The court defended the law's provision that allows the attorney general to ask Superior Courts to add new weapons to the outlawed list. The role of courts in this is "a very narrow, essentially adjudicatory one," Brown said.

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

Now what I need to know is this
1. Is there a right to keep and bear arms in California's state constitution - if the answer is yes, then I'll be pushing for her defeat.
2. Did the gunmakers try and argue that the 2nd amendment applies to the states as well. If it is not argued, she can't rule that it is or isn't. If they argued that it did, then I'll be pushing for her defeat.

If the answer to both is no, I'm still undecided, and need to do more research on it. My support or opposition to Justice Brown rests on that issue.

54 posted on 02/09/2003 9:14:29 AM PST by Dan from Michigan ("Yippee Kai Aye......")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winin2000
I confess to being surprised at how ineffective the minority gambit proved to be in the case of Estrada.

I heartily disagree. Orrin Hatch's furious rampage against Schumer, Leahy and their chief Estrda-bashing source, Richard Bender, were absolutely devastating. We on FR who watched and commented were stunned to see Hatch unleash as he did, and the Dems were broken by it. There will be no fillibuster.

You will see the true impact when Schumer attempts to run for reelection, and runs square into furious Hispanics, who supported Pataki, and without whom he canot win.

55 posted on 02/09/2003 9:16:52 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
NEWSMAKER PROFILE Janice Rogers Brown Majority opinion -- passionate but hard to peg

Can you say "SOUTER 2"?

56 posted on 02/09/2003 9:19:36 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Double Tap
And where could you have come up with the opinion that she is pro 2nd amendment?

Have you not read posts on this thread which address your question? It's right in front of your face.

T-minus 34 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

57 posted on 02/09/2003 9:19:40 AM PST by rdb3 (1-2-3 I'm a 'G' as in 'guerilla.' If you're a Marxist, then I will peel ya...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Yes I have. She supported the ban on assault rifles. What part of that do you not understand?
58 posted on 02/09/2003 9:20:54 AM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Brown Sides with Calif. SC to Uphold Assault Weapons Ban

THERE IT IS! CHOOSE BROWN AND LOSE VOTES. GREAT STRATEGERY.

59 posted on 02/09/2003 9:21:31 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RKV
A real what? Judicial tyrant sounds right to me.

You've lost your mind.

T-minus 34 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

60 posted on 02/09/2003 9:22:14 AM PST by rdb3 (1-2-3 I'm a 'G' as in 'guerilla.' If you're a Marxist, then I will peel ya...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-297 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson