Grex Agora47 Conference

Item 120: Bush Nominates Another Extremist

Entered by gull on Thu Oct 23 13:52:42 2003:

Janice Brown is yet another example of George W. Bush's tendancy to
favor ideology over qualifications.  The California Judicial Nominations
Evaluating Commission rated Brown not qualified for the state supreme
court on two occasions.  In addition, a large minority of the ABA
Federal Judiciary Committee found her not qualified for the D.C.
Circuit, and *no* member of that committee rated her as well-qualified.  

She has strongly pro-corporate leanings, and is willing to ignore
established precident in order to support them.  For example, she wrote
a dissenting opinion in a case involving the firing of a worker who blew
the whistle on a company that was shipping defective parts for
airplanes, arguing that the government had no right to create exceptions
to at-will employment.  She also dissented in a case accusing Nike of
making false statements, arguing that commercial speech should be
protected in the same manner as individual speech and that a precident
set 60 years ago should be overturned:  "In 1942, the United States
Supreme Court, like a wizard trained at Hogwarts, waved its wand and
plucked the commercial doctrine out of thin air."

She has expressed strongly anti-government views in her writings and
public speeches: "Some things are apparent.  Where government moves in,
community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to
control our own destiny atrophies. ...The result is a debased, debauched
culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

In a 1999 speech, she argued that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated
into the 14th amendment, and thus none of the First Amendment
protections restrict what state governments can do.  This is a pretty
frightening position from someone who would presumably be in line for a
Supreme Court position.

My suspicion is that the Republican majority will fully support her,
both because of her strong right-wing positions and because, as a Bush
nominee, they're practically obligated to.  Because she's black, if the
Democrats filibuster to try to block her appointment the Republicans
will play the race card.  In fact, this has already started: "She is a
conservative African-American woman, and for some that alone
disqualifies her nomination to the D.C. circuit." -- Orrin Hatch.

Links:

Alliance for Justice report:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/Brown%20Report%20FINAL.p
df
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100900,00.html
35 responses total.

#1 of 35 by other on Thu Oct 23 14:30:07 2003:

Someone PLEASE kill Karl Rove NOW!!


#2 of 35 by jp2 on Thu Oct 23 15:42:44 2003:

This response has been erased.



#3 of 35 by klg on Thu Oct 23 16:40:27 2003:

Justice for Justice Brown
Debra Saunders, October 23, 2003 
Be clear why the Congressional Black Caucus and other so-called civil-
rights groups oppose California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers 
Brown's appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia.  It is not because Brown wrote a decision that upheld 
Proposition 209, the voter-approved initiative that ended racial and 
gender preferences in California state hiring, contracting and 
admissions.  It's not because she was on the losing side of a 4-3 
California Supreme Court ruling that overturned a law requiring 
parental consent for a minor's abortion. 
What really gets under caucus members' thin skins is that Janice Rogers 
Brown is a black conservative.
You see, the all-Democratic caucus holds that it alone represents the 
African American community, that the Democratic Party essentially owns 
black Americans and that African Americans owe the Democratic Party.  
Thus, caucus members will hound any black person who escapes the 
liberal plantation. . . .


#4 of 35 by tod on Thu Oct 23 16:49:21 2003:

This response has been erased.



#5 of 35 by rcurl on Thu Oct 23 17:40:16 2003:

I watched Sen. Durkins commentary on Justice Brown, and it was quite
critical of her extreme neoconservative views. Her response, though, was
mostly to act personally injured about the cartoon about her that Durkin
brought up - probably the least relevant part of his commentary. 



#6 of 35 by tod on Thu Oct 23 18:18:06 2003:

This response has been erased.



#7 of 35 by mcnally on Thu Oct 23 19:00:44 2003:

  re #3:  which is no doubt why the Congressional Black Caucus spends
  so much time hounding Colin Powell, right?


#8 of 35 by other on Thu Oct 23 19:36:14 2003:

As expected, klg reduces matters of priciple to matters of race.


#9 of 35 by other on Thu Oct 23 19:36:33 2003:

s/priciple/principle


#10 of 35 by krj on Thu Oct 23 19:53:01 2003:

Rane in resp:5 :: "neoconservative" really gets badly abused these
days.  It does *not* mean "extreme conservative."   The Bush
administration has a lot of neocons in it, but they are by no means
the whole pie, and in Congress the neoconservatives do not have 
excessive power.

The original neocons were former leftists, in some case out-and-out
communists, who switched sides in the Cold War, more or less. 
Neocons these days are more concerned with global power issues and 
support using America's power to reshape the world in our favor.
Neoconservatives led us into the recent war in Iraq, 
they'd been pushing for such a war for years before Sept. 11 2001.
 
But outside of a general tilt towards business interests and away
from individuals, I don't see the neocons as having as extreme a 
domestic agenda as is ascribed to Justice Brown in these postings.
I've never heard anyone I think of as a neoconservative argue that 
the 14th amendment should not apply to the states.
 
One might better characterize these views as "paleoconservative;"
a leading spokesman for this point of view is Pat Buchanan, who was
passionately against the war in Iraq.
 
The Neocon/Paleocon split within the Republican party pops up 
in a number of places.  In general:
  
   The Neoconservatives support the projection of American power 
   overseas, and they are passionate supporters of Israel.  
   On US social issues they are generally quiet, though I'm willing
   to listen to folks tell me I'm wrong on that.  
 
   The Paleoconservatives want to strip the Federal government of 
   power; they want America to stop meddling overseas and they are 
   critical of support for Israel.  They tend to extreme social 
   conservative views: anti-gay, pro-fundamentalist-Christian, 
   anti-social-services.  They are rabidly anti-taxation.
   In general, I characterize them as wanting to repeal the 20th 
   century.  :)
 
But I digress.


#11 of 35 by gull on Thu Oct 23 19:59:37 2003:

Re #3: Did I call it, or what?

The Republicans are hoping that, by playing the race card, they can get
a black ultraconservative into a position where they can't get a white
ultraconservative.


#12 of 35 by tod on Thu Oct 23 20:12:27 2003:

This response has been erased.



#13 of 35 by sabre on Sat Oct 25 02:01:21 2003:

Ha Ha 
The cocksucking liberals looked like the bigots and FOOLS they are in
contesting this fin example of black womenhod. Janice is a perfect judge.
The republicans made the liberals look like the far left commies they really
are. The election will go quite well for us. I hope the stupid ass democrats
contest every one Bush nominates. It will only result in a total exposure of
their sick and perverted agenda. America is a conservative nation.64% of all
Americans claim to be conservative.

gull you are one stupid bastard. I have beat your sorry ass in every debate
you summoned the courage to challenge me in. You finally twit filtered me
because your arguements were so weak they couldn't withstand my great
debating skills. I will agree on one thing though...you are a great
masterbater....you sick nut-chinned anal assassin.
Henceforth I shall call you the nut-ninja.


#14 of 35 by asddsa on Sat Oct 25 05:33:26 2003:

re 13 He's a ninja but he doesn't use a machette?! He only masturbates?!  You
live in a sorry world indeed if that's all your ninjas can do.


#15 of 35 by gull on Sat Oct 25 22:58:17 2003:

Re #13: Respond to some of the actual points in my message and we can have a
debate.  So far all you've done is name-calling, which I'm not really
interested in.


#16 of 35 by tod on Sun Oct 26 13:01:20 2003:

This response has been erased.



#17 of 35 by tsty on Mon Nov 3 09:09:09 2003:

florida? what happened to oklahoma?!
po


#18 of 35 by tod on Mon Nov 3 16:33:24 2003:

This response has been erased.



#19 of 35 by tsty on Wed Nov 5 10:00:25 2003:

wellll. i suspect not, but i any case, it wouldn't be tounge ...


#20 of 35 by tod on Wed Nov 5 18:38:27 2003:

This response has been erased.



#21 of 35 by klg on Fri Nov 7 17:40:25 2003:

PROOF THAT GOD EXITS!!

            (How else can you explain this miracle??)

The Washington Times reports Al Sharpton, racial demagogue and 
Democratic presidential candidate, urges Democratic senators not to 
filibuster President Bush's nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown 
for the Circuit Court of Appeals. "I don't agree with her politics. I 
don't agree with some of her background," Sharpton says. "But she 
should get an up-or-down vote."

Sharpton's comments came in the wake of a news conference by "black 
leaders" . . . whose idea of "civil rights" is to demand rigid 
ideological uniformity from all black would-be public servants.  "Mr. 
Sharpton echoed the concerns of many conservatives-especially black 
conservatives-that Justice Brown is being opposed because she doesn't 
conform to the Democratic ideology that many blacks espouse," reports 
the Times.


#22 of 35 by rcurl on Fri Nov 7 17:46:43 2003:

What's the "miracle" in this? It was someone  expressing an opinion. People
do that all the time.


#23 of 35 by klg on Fri Nov 7 17:58:49 2003:

Rev. Al don't just change like that.  Praise the Lord.  Halleluyah.


#24 of 35 by rcurl on Fri Nov 7 18:04:52 2003:

I think it is very consistent for Sharpton. She is, after all, Black.


#25 of 35 by tod on Fri Nov 7 20:11:07 2003:

This response has been erased.



#26 of 35 by rcurl on Fri Nov 7 20:15:20 2003:

Whose?


#27 of 35 by bru on Sat Nov 8 04:17:54 2003:

soare many of the black leaders who have opposed her nomination.


#28 of 35 by rcurl on Sat Nov 8 05:47:48 2003:

Sharpton opposes her too, but just suggested that a vote be held.


#29 of 35 by other on Sat Nov 8 05:57:21 2003:

Ever since Tawana Brawley, Sharpton has been nothing more than a 
publicity-craving racist demagogue, as far as I'm concerned.

Just goes to show what a bit of persistence and a lot of time can 
do.


#30 of 35 by bru on Sat Nov 8 13:15:48 2003:

I think thats whre the miracle comes in.


#31 of 35 by other on Sun Nov 9 06:38:59 2003:

It's not a miracle.  It is merely a reflection of the mass stupidity 
of the American people and its media.


#32 of 35 by tsty on Fri Nov 14 07:48:58 2003:

s'alright .. dont' worry .. they ahve cable .....


#33 of 35 by tsty on Tue Nov 18 06:31:06 2003:

aren;t these udges teh ones labled 'neanderthal' by that famous dui-driver?


#34 of 35 by tod on Tue Nov 18 23:04:23 2003:

This response has been erased.



#35 of 35 by willcome on Thu Nov 27 08:20:53 2003:

\/\/h0r3


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: