Newsweek: Calif. Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Supreme Court?

Newsweek ^ | Feb. 9, 2003 | Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper

[jern]

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.

[Always Right]

'You are taking the property owner's right to use his property as he wants and you are saying he is able to continue that use only if he pays you ransom,' Brown said. That, she continued, would be like her taking Schwartz's car and refusing to return it unless he met her demands. In many jurisdictions,' Brown said sharply, 'that would be theft.'

Seems like Brown is a homerun. The left will throw a hissy fit if she makes it.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Here is another example of her character:

http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/1098kb2.htm

"Soon after this decision in favor of parental consent, two of the four justices who voted on the pro-life side retired. Governor Wilson replaced them with Justices Ming Chin and Janice Rogers. Less than two months after the decision on parental consent, on May 22, the newly constituted California Supreme Court voted to rehear American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren.

On August 5, 1997, the court voted, 4-3, to overturn the previous court's April 4 decision, and declared the state parental consent law unconstitutional. In the majority were Chief Justice Ron George, and Justices Kathryn Werdegar, Ming Chin, and Joyce Kennard; in the minority were Justices Stanley Mosk, Marvin Baxter and Janice Brown. Chief Justice George wrote in an opinion shared by Justices Werdegar and Chin that the parental consent law could not pass the strict scrutiny required by 'the state constitutional privacy clause,' and so parental consent 'intrudes significantly on a privacy interest that past California decisions have identified as 'clearly among the most intimate and fundamental of all constitutional rights' (quoting Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, a 1981 abortion funding case.) 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.'"

[BenLurkin]

I have had one opportunity to observe the California Supreme Court first hand as they received oral argument on a number of cases. The court, including Brown mostly consists of very competent justices possessed of first rate intellects. My only reservation would be with the extent of her familiarity with Federal law.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020423/54938.html

You might like to go back to read my post about how this fine woman was brought up. I think you missed that part. :)

You are not going to find much that is "wrong" or deceiving about her.

[coloradan]

There will be no reason for every child over the age of 9 to be able to recite Miranda warnings or know a cop has to have a warrant if they want to come in the house or search. They won't know these things because they won't have seen them a hundred times on tv on the cop shows.

Is this an admission of the complete failure of government schools to teach basic facts about Constitutional rights and limitations of government power, such that kids have to learn these things on TV?

[mvpel]

She penned a dissenting opinion in the ruling in the Nordyke v. King and Great Western Shows v. Los Angeles cases in 2002:

Alameda County might be able to prohibit gun shows on county property, assuming the property is located within the geographic boundaries of the county and subject to the county' s regulatory jurisdiction. (Cf. Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (Apr. 22, 2002, S091547) __ Cal.4th ___, ___ [pp. 4-18].) But the county did not enact a prohibition against gun shows. Instead, the county prohibited, with limited exceptions, the possession of firearms on county property. (Alameda County Gen. Ord. Code, ch. 9.12, § 9.12.120; see maj. opn., ante, at p. 2.) That prohibition conflicts with several state statutes that expressly authorize certain persons to carry firearms without restriction as to place. (See, e.g., Pen. Code, § § 831.4, subd. (b), 830.9, 831.6, subd. (b), 12027, subd. (i) [provisions authorizing non-peace officers to carry firearms in certain circumstances]; see also id., § § 12031, 12050, 12051 [provisions authorizing licensed persons to possess loaded and/or concealable firearms].) Nothing in state law suggests that these authorizations to carry or possess firearms under certain circumstances are subject to local restrictions, and if they were, then a person authorized to carry firearms who happened to be traveling across the state would have to consult legal counsel each time he or she crossed a county line or entered a city, a rule that seems neither practical nor intended by the Legislature. (See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 898.)
[...cont...]
In short, we consider here a local restriction on firearm possession that directly conflicts with state law. The majority seeks to avoid the obvious preemption problem by the expedient of rewriting the ordinance to prohibit gun shows instead of gun possession. Alameda County might have enacted an ordinance prohibiting gun shows, but it did not, and the ordinance it did enact exceeds its regulatory authority.

She was the only one of the justices to pay any attention to the pivotal argument on implied preemption made by Nordyke attorney Donald Kilmer.

[Temple Owl]

She's 100 percent better than anyone William Jefferson Clinton would foist on us. I like her.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Well, she certainly understands the U.S. Constitution, and from her record, seems to try to protect it. This shows her stance re: the 4th...

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020305/53425.html

In a decision narrowing Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the California Supreme Court upheld the arrest of a bicyclist who did not have identification when he was pulled over for pedaling in the wrong direction on a one-way street.

The justices, ruling 6-1 Monday, also said the methamphetamine an officer found on the Los Angeles County bicyclist after the arrest could be used against him in court. Conrad McKay was sentenced to nearly three years for the drug charge after being stopped for a California vehicle code infraction punishable by a $100 fine.

The high court followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that validated a Texas motorist's arrest for not being buckled up ---- a 5-4 ruling saying police can arrest and handcuff people for minor traffic offenses.

Monday's decision, the second this year from the California justices limiting the Fourth Amendment rights of motorists or bicyclists to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, upheld a 1959 law allowing officers to arrest and search vehicle-code offenders who do not have identification.

"We conclude, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court precedent, that custodial arrests for fine-only offenses do not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the majority.

McKay's lawyer, Richard L. Fitzer of Los Angeles, said the decision, "is probably the price we're paying for 9-11" ---- a reference to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The justices said McKay could have been arrested or searched had he committed a minor traffic infraction while he was driving a car because driving and bicycling are subject to "the same rules of the road."

The court, however, left it to the "judgment of the arresting officer" on whether to arrest or follow a "cite-and-release procedure" whereby the violator is ticketed and released.

In a lone dissent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown argued that the decision gives police too much power by granting officers the right to focus on minorities in what she termed "unreviewable discretion to select the target of such enforcement activity."

The 34-year-old McKay, who is white, has served his sentence. Police found the drugs in one of his socks. He could not be located Monday for comment.

Brown said even if the law allows for the arrest of somebody who doesn't have a driver's license or other photo identification, authorities should not have unlimited power to search a defendant who has committed such a minor infraction.

The decision, she said, allows officers to "push past the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment."

The majority, meanwhile, said that, contrary to Fitzer's argument, the law does not require officers in the street to conduct "sufficient inquiries" to "accept verifiable oral evidence of identity."

Monday's decision is the second time this year California's justices have granted law enforcement authorities broad search-and-seizure powers.

In January, by a 4-3 vote, the justices ruled that law enforcement may conduct warrantless searches on motorists who do not possess identification or proof they own the vehicle, even if they are not arrested.

The justices ruled that, prior to an arrest, authorities could search vehicles for such documentation "within a vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found."

State Deputy Attorney General Thomas C. Hsieh, who argued before the justices for McKay's conviction to stand, said Brown's "concerns of racial profiling are just not a part of this case." He added that, if McKay had identification, "He wouldn't be in trouble at all."

The case decided Monday is People v. McKay, S091421. January's case is People v. Arturo D., S085213. The U.S. Supreme Court controlling case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

3/5/02

[SuziQ]

“She doesn’t have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks.”

Not necessarily. If she even HINTS at being pro-life, and doesn't support affirmative action, she'll have plenty of detractors among the rats!

[Kay Soze]

Democratic-progressive liberals will never allow another black on the Supremes.

Look what we went through with Thomas.

They had Ted Kennedy (with Joe Biden on his lap) slam black after black in a Mc Carthy-isque tribunal of lifestyles.

All while defending the President for sodmoizing a twenty year old girl in my White House and numerous, numerous other sexual encounters and even rapes.

The highest a black woman has ever made it in the democratic party is Anita Hill.

[optimistically_conservative]

Hatch Plans Changes To Judgeship Policy

Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch says he plans to change the "blue slip" tradition, referring to blue-colored approval papers that senators are asked to submit on nominees to fill vacant federal judgeships in their state. For the past few years, both home-state senators had to submit a positive blue slip for a nominee to be even considered by the Judiciary Committee. Under Hatch's plan, a single negative blue slip from a senator won't be enough to stop a Bush nominee. "I'll give great weight to negative blue slips, but you can't have one senator holding up, for instance, circuit nominees," said Hatch, R-Utah.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

I am just *loving* life these days!! :) (woo-hooooo!)

[Shooter 2.5]

We're discussing that on the other thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/839189/posts?page=4#4

She supported the gunshows because the cities overreached their authority with the state but then supported the Assault Weapons Ban because California doesn't have a Second Amendment in their state constitution. She sounds like a strict interpreter of the law but I don't know.

[montag813]

"During the Clinton administration, (Hatch) would not allow a nomination to move forward unless he had both blue slips," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee's top Democrat. "To do differently during the Bush administration would be inconsistent."

Yep, losing sure sucks, Comrade Leahy, doesn't it.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[JackTom]

Here is another recent, highly publicized ruling by the California Supreme Court in which Justice Brown was the lone dissenter. Question before the Court was: What constitutes a rape?

On Jan. 6, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that if a woman rescinds consent during the sex act, the man is guilty of rape if he does not stop immediately.

It also ruled that statements such as "I should go home" constitute an unambiguous "no" on the woman's part. The definition of rape has evolved again.

What are the facts of the case? Seventeen-year-old Laura T. attended an otherwise all-male party at which she did not drink. After allowing two teenaged boys to undress and fondle her in a bedroom -- acts she admitted enjoying -- she had sex with each. Laura did not say the word "no" nor did she resist. Instead, she said, "I have to go home."

Because John Z. continued for approximately four minutes after she first expressed what might have been reluctance, he was convicted of rape.

Rape is an abomination no civilized society can tolerate. But precisely because rape is such a serious crime, it is important to establish explicit and reasonable standards by which to judge the guilt or innocence of those accused.

If a woman (or man) clearly says "stop" during consensual sex, then the partner should be morally and legally constrained to do just that -- stop. But what if the partner proceeds in good faith on the basis of a "yes" given moments before? Common sense dictates that the rescinded "no" must be explicit and that the partner should have a reasonable amount of time to grasp the changed circumstances.

But the court ruled that sex becomes rape the instant the woman rescinds consent and it provided no guidance on what constitutes the withdrawal of consent.

The sole dissenting voice, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, found that none of Laura's statements were "unequivocal." Her requests to go home could have been interpreted as a need for reassurance or a request for greater speed.

This is a nontrivial point. The law assumes that all adults are responsible agents in sexual matters. (Laura T.'s age was not introduced as a significant factor in the court's conclusion.) The law assumes that women and men are able to make their wants known and, so, have a responsibility to do so.

[watsonfellow]

No you are tremendously wrong.
Some background.
A few years ago, four I think, Justice Brown spoke at Claremont McKenna's Ath.
The night before Alan Wolf, the Sociologist and budding Political Scientist and Relativist spoke about how great American culture was now that people were so "tolerant" of abortion and other liberal social fads.
Justice Brown spoke the next night and in a way continued the dialogue that Wolf started.
She did not talk about the law but about the enormous destruction that the liberal social values of the sixties had caused in our society.
She was articulate and pleasant, whereas Wolf was smug and arrogant.
It was an amazing speech, she is no Souter.

[Interesting Times]

Democratic-progressive liberals will never allow another black on the Supremes.

Look what we went through with Thomas.

Perhaps, but she poses the leftists with a rather tricky problem.

To torpedo Clarence Thomas, they selected a black female -- a double minority -- as the linchpin of their attack. In this case, they'll need something like a disabled black Hispanic lesbian dwarf, and it may be difficult to locate one who has actually met Justice Brown.

[strela]

She ain't no Rose Bird (thank Deity).

[freekitty]

I did not suggest she was incompentent; only that she may not have enough experience in the lay of the land as possible Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.