Not good for Judge J.R. Brown or us ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bg

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
903
Location
When you find out, let me know..
Here's an article on what may pan out to be the agenda for the 2nd
choice regarding the Supreme Court. We really do need a person who
favors the 2nd Amendment as well as sees it as and indiv right. I confess
I don't know hoot about the other Judges mentioned and really don't know
about Judge Brown, but I believe she is firm on RKBA''s. Am I mistaken
once again ? >
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApmykT...9/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20confirm.html
Conservative allies of the White House said the new criteria could hurt the chances of Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a 2005 Bush appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a favorite of the president's conservative base.
Click to expand...
 
Janice Rogers Brown it should be. She believes in the Constitution of the United States of America, a necessary qualification I'm not sure Roberts possesses.

From the article:
Republican strategists close to the White House worry that Judge Brown, an African-American known for her fiery speeches to conservative crowds, might try to fight back against vigorous questioning. Other conservative strategists say that she also lacks experience on the federal bench and that supporting her highly ideological oratory might strain the solidarity of the Senate Republican caucus.
Click to expand...
I think this paragraph sums up nicely Washington D.C. in 2005. Republicans, presumably conservative, are afraid to stand up for conservative judges. They're afraid she might defend herself against the idiotic questioning of the left-wing commie bastards in the Senate? What a bunch of pansies! Supporting her conservative views would strain the solidarity of the Senate Republicans? :barf: Quick, please, tell me again how Republicans are better than Democrats and that I should vote for them 'cause a fascist is better than a communist and their views are almost better than Democrats and Bush is a good and honorable man who leads his loyal Party members down the right and good path in the interest of all that is best for his er, our, fine country an' if that means a liberal Supreme Court justice to appease the commie party, then so be it but it's ok 'cause we already got a Chief who at least read the Constitution once.
 
The leading Dem in the Senate already said he doesn't plan to vote for Roberts. They will do anything just to be the opposite of Republicans. Speak your mind and be honest, the Dems will rip you as an ideologue and the Reps will get scared and back off, say nothing and the Dems will say they can't be sure about you and vote against you. Darned if you do darned if you don't... but Roberts' strategy is probably the best one. Otherwise you get Borked.
 
Since, for the first time in a long time, we actually have the votes to force a Justice Brown down their commie throats, why aren't we doing it? The answer is that the so called conservatives of the Republican Party don't want her. They would like you to believe that they are just scared of riling the Dems, but since they have the votes to put anyone they want in, that is a thin disguise. In actuality, they do not believe what Brown believes about limited government. That's why they won't put her up. That's the only real reason.
 
Since, for the first time in a long time, we actually have the votes to force a Justice Brown down their commie throats, why aren't we doing it?
Click to expand...

The Republicans have 60 votes to confirm a Justice Brown? Or were you suggesting that the Republican exercise the nuclear option in order to confirm Brown and then hope that they never lose 5 seats because then the Democrats will have the same ability to seat their own judges with only 50 votes?

I doubt either Brown or Owens gets the nod. Both were considered pretty controversial for lower court nominations and drew a lot of criticism from the left. I suspect that the NYT is throwing those names out there to stir up the left and associated fund-raising and that a more realistic list of judges are those further down in the story.
 
The article sounds like an attempt to sway Republican decision-makers more than any sort of factual reporting.

Nobody had a clue who the last nominee was going to be until the White House wanted people to know. In fact, the media swore up and down that the nominee was going to be Edith Clement, right up until the White House announced otherwise.

So why should we expect the media to be any more "in-the-loop" this time?

EDIT:
Theoretically the White House DOES have the votes needed to get Brown confirmed. The 7 Democrat deal-makers promised, on their honor, not to block nominations except under extreme circumstances. They all agreed that Brown wasn't an "extreme" nominee. The only question is whether the 7 Democrats will keep their promise.
 
They all agreed that Brown wasn't an "extreme" nominee.
Click to expand...

They agreed to confirm her to federal court. I don't know if that is the same thing as agreeing to appoint her to SCOTUS. We also don't know what backroom deals were cut to get that nomination approved.
 
If they try to be difficult on Roberts, I dont see why the repubs should do them any favors over Brown. Roberts was a mister rogers nominee- there was literally nothing anyone could object to about him. If the Dems oppose him, it should be fairly simple to paint them as being partisan.

Let us also not discount the value of being a black woman. The race card didnt get Thomas a 100-0 vote, but he did make it through.

Brown isnt an "extreme" nominee from the sense of being qualified or not, but she is definitely "extreme" when you take everything she has ever said into account. However, this isnt really fair in light of the treatment Roberts got. There is certainly nothing "worse" in JRB's record than what Roberts put into his Reagan administration briefs.
 
Regrettably, I'm not too sure the Republicans have the actual senate votes to over-ride vehement Dem opposition to a genuine conservative SCOTUS nominee.

Ya gotta figure that the wishy-washy RINOs like Ohio's DeWhine (sic) and Voinovich, plus the New England soccer-mom/bobsie-twin girls (Snow and Collins), plus the always-hot-for-headlines Hagel (Iowa) and McCain (Az), and even the cantankerous old chair-fart, himself (Spector) are highly likely to oppose any real conservative.

OTOH, there could be a few moderate Dem senators cross-over (like Nebraska's Ben Nelson) to save themselves from subsequent punishment (dis-election) by their states' gun-owner vote (a la poor Tom Daschle).

So, it'll be close -- real close. And it'll be the biggest political war of the decade (outside of the Bush vs. Gore recount in 2000).

So stock up on them thar' eeevil semi-automatics. The Posse Comitatas Act is on it last legs and New Awleens style Second Amendment "intrusions" (For The Common Good, of course) executed by just-following-orders National Guardsmen -- with the approval of the Supreme Court -- might be comin' around the bend.
 
I'm not sure the republicans have the stomach for a real fight over anything. Very few real conservatives up there who stand for much except re-election.
 
The Republicans have 60 votes to confirm a Justice Brown? Or were you suggesting that the Republican exercise the nuclear option in order to confirm Brown and then hope that they never lose 5 seats because then the Democrats will have the same ability to seat their own judges with only 50 votes?
Click to expand...

DAMN STRAIGHT!!

I have been in favor of nuking those Democrat/Commies for a LOOOONG time!!

In fact, we should have gotten the ball rolling by nuking the soviets back in 46 and the chinks in 48!!

Problem is the RINOS in the senate have lost their cjonies!!!!
 
Ya gotta figure that the wishy-washy RINOs like Ohio's DeWhine (sic) and Voinovich, plus the New England soccer-mom/bobsie-twin girls (Snow and Collins), plus the always-hot-for-headlines Hagel (Iowa) and McCain (Az), and even the cantankerous old chair-fart, himself (Spector) are highly likely to oppose any real conservative.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't Lincoln Chaffee be in there someplace, too?

Anyway, I'd LOVE to see the White House nominate someone who wouldn't be confirmed, but WOULD FIGHT BACK in the questioning.

For example if Teddy Kennedy asked a candidate about private attorney-client talks, wouldn't it be great if, on national TV, the judicial nominee said "Senator, in the interest of full disclosure, why don't YOU set an example for us by releasing all notes and transcripts of YOUR talks with your attorney in the 48 hours after you killed Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, and while you're at it, explain your participation in the "waitress sandwich?""
 
I'd love to see him nominate someone like Brown, just to see some lefty heads explode. Who knows, maybe the President is also entertained by exploding heads...and a SC Justice will stay around providing ongoing fun for a long time... :D

Not really holding my breath waiting for it to happen, but it would be fun.
 
So stock up on them thar' eeevil semi-automatics. The Posse Comitatas Act is on it last legs and New Awleens style Second Amendment "intrusions" (For The Common Good, of course) executed by just-following-orders National Guardsmen -- with the approval of the Supreme Court -- might be comin' around the bend.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have had enough and finally going to jump in on this. There was no confiscation of weapons from law-abiding citizens by the National Guard. Now there were occasions that NG soldiers removed weapons from either suspected loot houses or unsecured homes. All of these weapons were then turned over to the BATF for further processing. I do hope that the rightful owners get their weapons back. But if they don't, at least the gang bangers and other bad guys don't have them either.

Flamesuit on.
 
The next nominee will be chosen based upon how well the person will hold up under questioning about Roe v Wade. Other issues will be explored, but it's Roe that matters.

It would be suicide to have baggage suggesting that any RKBA infringements would be overturned. I don't see that we have that support on the Committee beyond maybe Jeff Sessions. Janice Rogers Brown ain't it. Given some years as a District Judge, I think she would be credible. Right now, she would just be the token black female.
 
In actuality, they do not believe what Brown believes about limited government. That's why they won't put her up. That's the only real reason.
Click to expand...

Same reason Thomas would never get the nod for Chief, IMO. Last thing the power structure wants is a pesky court impeding or even dismantling it. You can bet whomever it is will have no problems with "settled law" and "respect of precedent".

Ok, I have had enough and finally going to jump in on this. There was no confiscation of weapons from law-abiding citizens by the National Guard. Now there were occasions that NG soldiers removed weapons from either suspected loot houses or unsecured homes. All of these weapons were then turned over to the BATF for further processing. I do hope that the rightful owners get their weapons back. But if they don't, at least the gang bangers and other bad guys don't have them either.
Click to expand...

Umm... so all the guns in unoccupied homes should be confiscated (maybe forever) so "bad guys" (obviously not the confiscators, right?) don't get a hold of them? Stay the blue blazes away from my home and voting precinct. That is lunacy.
 
I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the President nominated someone
based on race and gender. That's why I still cringe at a possible
Gonzales nomination.. :(

That WOULD be bad news. I'd still prefer to see Dr.Ron Paul as the pick.
 
To antarti,
If you re-read my post I stated that we removed firearms from suspected loot houses and/or unsecured homes. The homes that we removed firearms from were unsecured and there was no way to secure them. If we had left the firearms be the next thing you know someone, maybe even a child, gets ahold of weapon and kills an innocent person. Then everyone would be up in arms that the National Guard didn't secure the weapon after knowing it was unsecure. It is a no win situation. But all in all in my eyes we did the right thing. At know time did we un-arm a law abiding citizen nor did we break down any doors to enter a home and then take weapons. If you are not down here doing the job don't complain about the ones down here doing the job.
 
As a courtesy to those who read this thread in order to learn about the chances of Justice Brown being nominated to SCOTUS, please take the off-topic subject of New Orleans firearms enforcement to another thread or PMs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top