I'm happy and hopeful, but I'm sure that the left will break their collective necks to try to Bork her...
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
I'll admit to prejudice: I have trouble trusting anyone from California. Is this woman for real?
Can't I just here how she is qualified as a man/woman who may potentially serve on the SCOTUS?!?
Can't we get beyond race and consider each person as a man/woman and not part of a racial group?
This crap is making me sick.
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.
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.
As for Chief Justice, I'd go for Thomas and/or Scalia. Try to put both of them in first. If the left borks them, so be it. Then nominate another strong conservative. The American people and the senators can only put up with so much borking before it gets old and people stop caring. Wear them down. And I'd love to see Thomas get a second shot and defending himself and I'd love to see Scalia defend himself to the intellectual midgets (uh, intellectual little people, in PC speak) on the left.
--------------------------------------------
Written constitutions were never intended to be enumerations of inalienable rights. The US Constitution even says that explicitly.
This decision indicates that Brown would likely adopt the ridiculous militia tests that have been invented to disarm the people.
This woman would obviously uphold the power of Kalifornia to disarm me. She is totally unfit to be a Supreme Court justice.
The implication of her decision is that freedom of speech could be outlawed in Wyoming by a state constitution amendment. What dangerous nonsense.
I'm a bit different from most here regarding potential judges; their opinions regarding abortion, for instance, mean as less than nothing to me.
What I would REALLY like to know about Judge Brown is, how does she feel about such REAL issues as the Second Ammendment, the War On Drugs, private property, free speech, and OTHER direct Constitutional issues.
Would she vote to overturn restrictive gun laws? How about seizures of property by environmental agencies? does she support the Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, and the Rights of Assembly and Grievance? What about Privacy?
Sorry to be blunt, but by zeroing on peripheral issues such as abortion to the exclusion of all others can be to risk a dangerous appointee. I WILL NOT trade all my OTHER rights so half the population should LOSE one of theirs.