Janice Rogers Brown

[Rower_CPU]

Even after the successful Estrada filibuster, Bush continues to nominate far right-wing justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/25/opinion/25SAT1.html?th

Of the many unworthy judicial nominees President Bush has put forward, Janice Rogers Brown is among the very worst. As an archconservative justice on the California Supreme Court, she has declared war on the mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear. And she has let ideology be her guide in deciding cases. At her confirmation hearing this week, Justice Brown only ratified her critics' worst fears. Both Republican and Democratic senators should oppose her confirmation.

Justice Brown, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has made it clear in her public pronouncements how extreme her views are. She has attacked the New Deal, which gave us Social Security and other programs now central to American life, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution." And she has praised the infamous Lochner line of cases, in which the Supreme Court, from 1905 to 1937, struck down worker health and safety laws as infringing on the rights of business.

Justice Brown's record as a judge is also cause for alarm. She regularly stakes out extreme positions, often dissenting alone. In one case, her court ordered a rental car company to stop its supervisor from calling Hispanic employees by racial epithets. Justice Brown dissented, arguing that doing so violated the company's free speech rights.

[Frohickey]

Far right wing? Janice Rogers Brown?

If anything, Justice Brown is more of a libertarian, than anything else. She is eminently qualified for the DC Court of Appeals. The Democrats just don't want someone on the bench that can read the US Constitution and see what is and isn't there.

Weird thing is that Republicans are not averse to Janice Brown. This is party that has a group that would like to have government mandate religion. I think Justice Brown would clamp down on that in a heartbeat.

She's actually very good for 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights. You won't see me complaining about that.

[zimv20]

oh look, there goes the moderate bush nominating yet another moderate judge. my, how the country has moved left in the past few decades. and will the american-hating liberals try to block the nomination?

why can't the socialist-commie-let-terrorists-bomb-our-liberal-public-education-schools democrats just agree with bush and stop hating america?

:rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Actually, I would rather that the way it works is that if a judicial office is not filled within 2 years, the office goes away PERMANENTLY.

And the only way to fill it again, is to open another judicial slot, which takes another 2 years to get back.

So, lets say the DC slot has been vacant for 2 years, it goes away. To get it back, another 2 years has to pass before the slot is opened.

[Desertrat]

To judge the entire "New Deal" as good because of Social Security doesn't give any sort of true picture. And, as it has become, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, to be charitable...

There are a lot of things that might be considered "good" if provided by our government, but that doesn't mean they meet the test of Constitutionality.

If she's that strict on interpretation, I'd like to see somebody bring a lot of the anti-terror laws into her court. :)

'Rat

[SPG]

Sounds more like an ultra conservative hack with an agenda than an impartial arbiter of the law. Back to the minor leagues, or better yet, off to retirement.