|
Grex > Agora47 > #120: Bush Nominates Another Extremist | |
|
| Author |
Message |
gull
|
|
Bush Nominates Another Extremist
|
Oct 23 13:52 UTC 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. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 35:
|
Oct 23 14:30 UTC 2003 |
Someone PLEASE kill Karl Rove NOW!!
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 35:
|
Oct 23 15:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 3 of 35:
|
Oct 23 16:40 UTC 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. . . .
|
tod
|
|
response 4 of 35:
|
Oct 23 16:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 35:
|
Oct 23 17:40 UTC 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.
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 35:
|
Oct 23 18:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 7 of 35:
|
Oct 23 19:00 UTC 2003 |
re #3: which is no doubt why the Congressional Black Caucus spends
so much time hounding Colin Powell, right?
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 35:
|
Oct 23 19:36 UTC 2003 |
As expected, klg reduces matters of priciple to matters of race.
|
other
|
|
response 9 of 35:
|
Oct 23 19:36 UTC 2003 |
s/priciple/principle
|
krj
|
|
response 10 of 35:
|
Oct 23 19:53 UTC 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.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 35:
|
Oct 23 19:59 UTC 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.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 35:
|
Oct 23 20:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sabre
|
|
response 13 of 35:
|
Oct 25 02:01 UTC 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.
|
asddsa
|
|
response 14 of 35:
|
Oct 25 05:33 UTC 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.
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 35:
|
Oct 25 22:58 UTC 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.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 35:
|
Oct 26 13:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 17 of 35:
|
Nov 3 09:09 UTC 2003 |
florida? what happened to oklahoma?!
po
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 35:
|
Nov 3 16:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 19 of 35:
|
Nov 5 10:00 UTC 2003 |
wellll. i suspect not, but i any case, it wouldn't be tounge ...
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 35:
|
Nov 5 18:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 35:
|
Nov 7 17:40 UTC 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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 35:
|
Nov 7 17:46 UTC 2003 |
What's the "miracle" in this? It was someone expressing an opinion. People
do that all the time.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 35:
|
Nov 7 17:58 UTC 2003 |
Rev. Al don't just change like that. Praise the Lord. Halleluyah.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 35:
|
Nov 7 18:04 UTC 2003 |
I think it is very consistent for Sharpton. She is, after all, Black.
|