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.

[Shooter 2.5]

Yes, except the anti's refuse to recognize what the Second Amendment means. Without a ruling to show them, they ignore it. A strict interpreter of the law will say there was never a ruling on what it does say. This is exactly what Robert was trying to point out yesterday.

Since Caifornia doesn't have a Second Amendment, the law should have pointed directly to the Federal Bill of Rights. They don't see it that way. If we get a ruling, some of the state constitutions will be unconstitutional. Texas, for one.

[Double Tap]

No attempt has been made to fool anyone. We, not you though, were having a discussion on this topic. You made the first personal attack. I did not retaliate, or report your post. So how have I protested too much?

Who do you think you are fooling?

[rdb3]

Again, your card has been pulled. You may try to switch, but it won't work.

The "first" personal attack, right? Talk about chutzpah.

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.

[Arkinsaw]

I was getting more and more excited reading her positions until I got to this one.

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.

State governments cannot violate God-given rights. State Legislatures do not trump the Bill of Rights.

That being said, I think you can stop worrying about her being a Souter since she is obviously even more States Rights than me!

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

She won't be tapped as Chief Justice, Scalia probably will.Thanks for your thoughts.

[Double Tap]

The conclusion that we are coming to is, unfortunately, that the rule of law is, NOT! That each individual fiefdom can make up it's own rules ignoring what is clearly written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That can only lead to one thing.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

So do I.

[Double Tap]

Please try to speak in english. What "card" has been pulled? And where did I make a personal attack.

[rdb3]

Please try to speak in english. What "card" has been pulled? And where did I make a personal attack.

And I'm the personal attacker, right guys?

Oh, boy.

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.

[Double Tap]

What game are we playing? What "card" could you be talking about. Come out and say it, plain and simple, for us simple minds.

[Shooter 2.5]

Now you understand. That's what the gunowners in Morton Grove, Illinois found out over twenty years ago.

They also found out the justices of the Supreme Court weren't interested in Civil Rights when they refused to hear the case.

Except it doesn't lead to only one thing. It leads to getting more conservative candidates which leads to conservative politicians which leads to conservative judges which leads to conservative rulings.

[mware]

This is going to be very interesting if he nominates her.

[Shooter 2.5]

Since you heard her speak, did she give any indication she would support the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights?

[Lunatic Fringe]

I seriously doubt she would appointed Chief Justice right off the bat. I believe that honor will go to O'Connor.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings Caipirabob, FReepers, et al:

Frankly, I don't care what race the Supremes are, as long as they defend the Constitution of the United States with conservative bias.

With forums like Free Republic, we can learn about the record of SCOTUS nominees, instead of relying upon mass media spin, filters, and silence.

Once again, a $10 per month investment in FR gives awesome intellectual return upon the investment.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

This bantering about pro/ anti ban of assault weapons making this judge a bad choice is what we need to get ready for, the leftist dems will attack her as well. This thread can banter for days on this...semi automatic or not... gun collecters rights... or not. Is semi automatic defined in this ban? I doubt she or anyone can touch gun collecters rights.

[Shooter 2.5]

O'Connor was one of the justices who indicated she wanted to retire. Brown could very well replace O'Connnor.

I was hoping more of the leftists would retire like Ginsburg.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

O' Connor I believe would not want CJ. I would bet on Scalia as CJ.

[Arkinsaw]

Since you heard her speak, did she give any indication she would support the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights?

This is actually a pretty weird debate. The complaint really seems to be that she is "too conservative" in regard to States Rights. In effect, she has not applied the 14th Amendment to this case and instead has let State law trump Federal.

I've heard the argument many times here on this forum that the 14th does not apply to the States when we are talking about other Civil Rights laws. We need to have some consistency. The 14th Amendment doesn't just apply to OUR favored Civil Rights. We can't pick and choose. Many here would cheer if she gave a ruling supporting a State ban on abortion and ignored the Federal position. Same thing, different issue.

I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed in her take on the case despite the fact that I like all of the other positions I've seen so far.

That being said, there are several opinions that Justice Scalia has given that I disagree with strongly on a Constitutional basis (seizure of property without trial for one) yet he is still my favorite Justice and I agree with the majority of his stances. I would not disqualify him because of these differences. I am not inclined to disqualify Justice Brown either at this point.

I think rdb3's complaint is the tendency to extrapolate her views on all subjects based on a case we disagree with and to disqualify her completely for it. If I were to apply that standard then I would be railing against Scalia for his goofy stand on property seizure and ignore everything else he stands for.

[Shooter 2.5]

"Is semi automatic defined in this ban? I doubt she or anyone can touch gun collecters rights.

Yes, semi automatic was the number one criteria for defining a so-called assault weapon. If you were a legal collector of military battle rifles, the next morning you woke up as a felon.

This shouldn't be an either/or case. A person who respects freedom and life should be able to see the evils of both abortion and gun control.