[Drjones]

What an intelligent woman!!! I've highlighted the awesome quotes. She has said some great things. America needs a person like this for President!!!


http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7645574p-8585924c.html


Judge Brown defends record as Democrats question speeches, decisions

Published 10:51 a.m. PDT Wednesday, October 22, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Federal appellate nominee Janice Rogers Brown on Wednesday defended her work as a conservative California jurist and said the personal opinions expressed in some of her speeches would stay separate from her role on the bench.

Brown, a California Supreme Court justice and Sacramentan, has been nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a court that is seen by many as a training ground for the U.S. Supreme Court.

But her conservative positions worry Democrats, who at a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing criticized what they called her "right-wing" statements in speeches and judicial decisions. (I wonder if she mentioned the US Constitution to get her labeled as a "right-wing extremist." :rolleyes: )



"Justice Brown, your record is that of a conservative judicial activist, plain and simple," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... when it doesn't comport with your political views."
But Brown said she would keep her personal opinions out of her future work. "I absolutely understand the difference in roles in being a speaker and being a judge," she told the committee.

The 12-member D.C. appeals court decides important government cases involving separation of powers, the role of the federal government, the responsibilities of federal officials and the authority of federal agencies. It now has five Republican and four Democratic appointees.

A 54-year-old black woman from the South, Brown supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability and opposes affirmative action.

She has been quoted as calling affirmative action programs "entitlement based on group representation" and similar to Jim Crow laws. Durbin also quoted her as saying, "Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies." (AWESOME!!!)

"You have described the year 1937 -- the year in which President Roosevelt's New Deal legislation started taking effect -- as 'the triumph of our socialist revolution,'" Durbin said. "Given that the federal government and its role in our lives is your major responsibility if you're appointed to the D.C. circuit court, I hope you can understand why some people have taken great issue with statements you have made and the philosophy which you bring before this committee."

Brown said she was speaking to an audience of young law students and was trying to make them think. But she stood by the statements. "The speech speaks for itself," she said.

Republicans attacked Brown's critics. "Justice Brown is hardly out of the mainstream, a conclusion buttressed by the fact that she wrote more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Being black brings her opposition, Hatch said. "She is a conservative African-American woman, and for some that alone disqualifies her nomination to the D.C. circuit," he said. (We all know how racist democrats are, so that they are opposed to a black non-liberal isn't surprising in the least.)

Senate Democrats have not said whether they will filibuster Brown.

The Senate has confirmed 165 of President Bush's U.S. District and appeals courts nominations. Democrats are filibustering three judicial nominees and forced one, Miguel Estrada, to withdraw his nomination.

-- Associated Press

[Bill Hook]

And the surprise is? ;)

[FPrice]

Ho hum. Just one more outstanding conservative judge nominated by the Republicans to then be left to fend off the criticisms and insults by herself when the Republicans turn tail and run.

[labgrade]

Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.

" ... You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... "

Which means that she readily disagrees with liberal rulings previously handed down.

Do I have that right?

Star shell to brighten the night here.

[Drjones]

" ... You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... "

Which means that she readily disagrees with liberal rulings previously handed down.

Do I have that right?

Star shell to brighten the night here.

I've never understood that concept of "judicial precedence."

Just because someone else thought it right doesn't make it right.

[tiberius]

I've never understood that concept of "judicial precedence."

Just because someone else thought it right doesn't make it right.


True, but the principle of precedence lends an important stability and consitency to court decisions. Imagine a system where past decisions could not be used as guidlines, it would be complete chaos based on individual whims (or at least more so :)). It does not prevent past decisions from being overruled when needed, however.

[Drjones]

True, but the principle of precedence lends an important stability and consitency to court decisions. Imagine a system where past decisions could not be used as guidlines, it would be complete chaos based on individual whims (or at least more so ). It does not prevent past decisions from being overruled when needed, however.

I'm not saying that judges shouldn't be allowed to use precedence, I'm just saying that it's stupid, IMO.

And if it doesn't prevent past decisions from being overturned, then it's irrelevant, isn't it?

[tiberius]

And if it doesn't prevent past decisions from being overturned, then it's irrelevant, isn't it?

I don't think so. Because the judge should cite it in their decision and explain why they are going against precedence. By doing this, they are making a stand that can then be decided by either the preponderance of future cases or a higher court. Also, since most legislation is written so vaguely, we expect the courts to interpret it when needed. Without the use of past decisions, the legislation would be interpreted widely for different, but similar, cases.

[labgrade]

"True, but the principle of precedence lends an important stability and consitency to court decisions."

But only if actually based upon the consistent rule of law, & not on some judicial activism.

Is there any dispute whatsoever regarding what the bill or rights say?

Any!?

I'd guess I would very much hear your interpretation of who thigs are now versus how they were clearly delineated. Please do take the time to elaborate.

"... it would be complete chaos based on individual whims. "

It is freakin' now, for jumpin' jimminy!

We've got "RICO provisions" where you have to prove that you "had your money legally" (property confiscations), "home rule laws" (which totally violate the US & state conostitutional/bill of rights provisions), .... ahhh!

"Or at least moreso ... "

"Or at least moreso ..... " I donn't even know where to start with this.

Y'all have a good time. I'm am so totally outa here (again).

But first, you "scholars" who believe that any infringement, based on a ruling by a court has true legal standing ought to go take a quick read of the founding of this country, the bill of rights, and why.

True, they've "legal standiing" in that there's those who will enforce it, & may God have pity on what they've done to this country. & you too, those who have bought into this.

So very sad.

[tiberius]

Dude, where are you coming from?????

We were just discussing whether judicial precendence should be used by judges or not. This particular judge or any specific cases were never mentioned. I think we can all agree that our judicial (and legislative and executive) system is mess, but that is not what I (we) were discsussing.

[Frohickey]

This is the same Janice Brown (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8098&highlight=janice+brown) that we have 6 threads for in TheHighRoad.

Psst... she's pro-2A. :D :D :D

[Jack T.]

Good oppertunity for yet another filibuster. . .

I really wish Sen. Frist would make them stand up there and read the phonebook for their filibuster. . .

[ARperson]

I think it's time for the conservatives to play the race card once and for all. I'd flat out ask the Dems why they don't want a black woman sitting...or the perfectly acceptable Hispanic Bush nominated awhile back. Let's use their own tactics against them. All is fair in love and war. :evil:


But that's in a perfect world....

[Jeff White]

It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate. They are too spineless to fight for them. When I see some recess appoinments or the Republican majority in the Senate vote in rules that require a fillibuster to be a fillibuster in the true sense of the word, I'll believe that the Republicans are serious about leading.

I'm sorry, I'm tired of the hand wringing and whining about the evil Democrats stopping the Bush agenda. The Republicans are the majority party, they obviously don't want to win.

Jeff

[BigG]

Heck, they just don't like her because she's black, a woman, and sees through their hypocrisy. :evil:

[Spot77]

In addition to being pro 2nd, she's VERY pro 4th amendment

I listened to all the Senators interrogating her today. She's pretty bright, and seemed to keep her cool very well.

[Waitone]

Well and good. She is indeed an impressive person though I'm not familar with her decisions.

Now we'll see if Bush and Co. learned a lesson over the previous nominee fiascos. The question I want answered is has the administration grown a spine and decided to actually fight and go to the mat for its nominees.

I hear noise spinelessrepublicans plan a judicial offensive. My attitude is:

"Don't tell me what you will do; show me what you did."

[Standing Wolf]

Leftism is the last bastion of overt racism in America.

[alan]

Given that the nominee is "an Afro-American, Female, Conservative", one assumes that thjat must present some difficulties for her opponenyts, except for the conservative part.

[deanf]

Just one more outstanding conservative judge nominated by the Republicans to then be left to fend off the criticisms and insults by herself when the Republicans turn tail and run.

I just finished watching most of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Hatch did a good job of supporting her and allowing her to respond to the negative comments of the democrats.

She came off as very smart, very articulate, and very frank. She did not refuse to discuss some issues, as I've seen previous judicial nominees do. She stood by her previous decisions and statements, and defended them well.

Senator Hatch actually brought up the fact that she voted with the majority in a California gun case that ended in a decision that was not favorable to our side. They discussed it for some time, Senator Hatch trying to make the point that if she's no friend of the NRA, how could she not be a friend of the democrats? (the NRA apperently heavily criticized her after the decision.)

[Zak Smith]

deanf,
Senator Hatch actually brought up the fact that she voted with the majority in a California gun case that ended in a decision that was not favorable to our side. They discussed it for some time, Senator Hatch trying to make the point that if she's no friend of the NRA, how could she not be a friend of the democrats? (the NRA apperently heavily criticized her after the decision.)

I'm just watching this re-run now on CSPAN. It was a great quote. He asks her why she ruled "against guns" in that gun control case, and she said,

The California Constitution does not include the right to bear arms, like the USC does. It does include the right to fish.

Besides revealing her views on the 2A, it was a rip on CA. :D

-z

[alan]

I saw some of the television footage, just a small part thereof, however respecting the judges past opinions, findings and such, as I recall, she voted AGAINST LE, in writing against indiscriminate searches and seizures in one California case that involved the stop and search of a bicylist, who was riding their bike "the wrong way".

In any event, the pro-gun nature of President Bush or his administration is open to some quesdtion, with or without Judge Brown.

[Zak Smith]

She sure believes in limits on Government power.

-z

[Frohickey]

Real Player video of Janice Brown senate confirmation (http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/jdrive/smil/e102203_sen.smi)

Wow... she's purty. :D

[Ed Brunner]

IO was muchly impressed with the lady.
I hope that she is supported by the people who nominated her.

[labgrade]

labgrade('s) initial:

"Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.'

(& as I said, I barely skimmed the initial post & "but this jumped out at me."

" ... You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... "
&
"Which means that she readily disagrees with liberal rulings previously handed down."

"Do I have that right?

Star shell to brighten the night here."

(wherein there was a brief segue into "judicial interpretation.")

With:

tiberius' /Scott
"... it would be complete chaos based on individual whims. "

Lab's
"It is freakin' now, for jumpin' jimminy!"

tiberius',
"I don't think so. Because the judge should cite it in their decision and explain why they are going against precedence. By doing this, they are making a stand that can then be decided by either the preponderance of future cases or a higher court. Also, since most legislation is written so vaguely, we expect the courts to interpret it when needed. Without the use of past decisions, the legislation would be interpreted widely for different, but similar, cases."

& again, .... (& all I was addressing, at the time)

"Quick skim, but this jumped out at me.'

Well 'n good enough for me for a college class on legal matters, where nothing matters one whit why we lose, or retain our rights.

My "counter," if you will was regards to the whereins & whynots that the judiciary rules one way or the other the effect actual change in the future interpretation of our legal system.

Sorry you didn't catch the (real) drift of the initial segue - nor the basics of our federal, or state constitutions.

We do have as set/match/game/ law system which definatively states that we do have ceratin inalienable rights, not granted by any "state'[ entity," but by our Creator. & that these are, among others, life, liberty & the persuit of "happiness."

Any dispute? & really, that's the crux. Any dispute here?

Do we, or don't we, tiberius?

That was what I was addressing, & nothing more, or less by my segue into the "Quick skim, but this jumped out at me." digression.

Do you agree, or disagree to my initial premise?

Our polticial system has drifted so far from what it was decided to be, to what it is destined to become.

Sorry that you can't keep up. (so sad - not a slam at you, but at the legal system as a whole, & what it has become.)

"Judicial precedence" now-a-days "decides precidence."

Total BS! For a fast-track = there is not one thing that is allowed (based on the bill of rights) to ever go to the "next level judiciary." They all stop Right Here! based upon the bill of rights.

Take a look at your basic pyramid (for anything analytical).

You gots yer basic "bottom feeders" who "decide/eat" something, which gets kicked up to the next level (food-chain, or legal system) which gets to then play upon the "only thing offered," based on "office politics" & "what can you afford??

That "only thing offered" is the same thing that is kicked upwards to the next level judiciary.

Our juiciary system is so bastardized as to no longer be recognisable.

But I digress (but based upon pro & con experience/s).

I would only wish that every one of you could, at the least, experience our judicial system, at a personal level, so you could have some semblance of experience.

Without the personal experience, you are a "babe in the woods" (& clearly "an idiot" (without any negative conotations associated there-abouts)) = without any association, you really have no idea whatsoever about what goes on ....

As a final:

"judicial precidence" has no matter whatsoever, other than ...

... for what the courts deiced, based on what some other "judicial nominy decided previously." & that, usually based upon their predisposed party afilliation, which equals how they would "interpret" your rights.

Essentially, what "you'd" decide as a "judiciary decison" is that "your "RKBA" (as decided by an anti,) is that "you can't!"

Is THAT satisafactory?

It is, after all, judicial prcidence.

(ref NFA '34, ruling in the affirmative '39, Lautenberg Amendment, GCA '68, GCA '86)

Please do respond.

[Drjones]

UPDATE:

New article at the bee. I actually thought it could pretend to resemble a balanced article! Oh joy!

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7707440p-8647094c.html

[Langenator]

There's some good stuff in there for my letter to Murray and Cantwell

[Drjones]

Bump.

People obviously haven't read this thread and need to before making comments about her.

[Bainx]

Err, no, Mr. Douglas, I said....you are judge of Apples, not Appeals.;)

[Langenator]

For any of you considering writing to your Senator(s)-and all of you should-or letters to the editor, you can find some excellent info on Justice Brown at http://committeeforjustice.org

Still working on my letters.