Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed 56-43

She is AMAZING!!!!

She congeals the incoherent thoughts in my head.

You realize, I suppose, that any liberal who sees the above on his monitor will have to burn that
monitor.
Finally California washes away the shame of Rose Bird.

Woohoo. Praise the Lord and pass the ammo

Way cool. Hadn’t heard that yet. Janice Rogers Brown rules!

aw gosh darn it La Shawn - I’ve been waiting for Ms Brown’s approval so long I was spoiling for a fight… oh well anyhow.

Here’s a great speech she made in my home town a few years ago - I’m sure your readers will be interested!

(nice to see you’re still around kiddo!)

http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm

Janice Rogers Brown for Supreme Court!

Condi Rice for Prez!

Howard Dean for permanent DNC Chair!

Jim P. Good question, has the Kleagle ever voted for anyone of color in good conscience? Has he ever met a black he’d support? I’d be interested in seeing who were the exception.

Even wacko Jocelyn Elder didn’t get his support for Surgeon General.
“Mr. President, as America’s chief public health official, the Nation looks to the Surgeon General for guidance. The position of Surgeon General is particularly important at this point in our country’s history, given the extremely difficult problems facing our country, such as a high teen pregnancy rate, AIDS, and an inadequate focus on preventive care within our Nation’s health-care system. These are real problems that must be addressed.

I met with Dr. Elders before the August recess, and we discussed her views on a number of serious public health problems and the programs she advocates and has implemented in the State of Arkansas to combat these problems. I personally admire Dr. Elders, whose dedication and enthusiasm as a public health official is immediately evident. However, Dr. Elders has made controversial statements that have caused me, and many of my constituents concern. There are those in this body who believe that just such a controversial figure may be good for the Nation’s health care system–that a good shaking-up is what the system needs at this time. I do not agree. At this point in our Nation’s history, as we confront the challenge of reforming our health-care system and dealing with the difficult public-health issues facing our young people and our Nation as a whole, I believe that our country sorely needs a consensus builder to deal with these difficult issues. I believe that we need someone who can bridge the many gaps in this very diverse and complicated society. We need someone to bring us together to work toward solving the significant public health issues facing our Nation. I believe that Dr. Elders is a sincere and well-intentioned public health official, but I do not believe, at this point, that she is the right person for Surgeon General of the United States. ”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r103:1:./temp/~r103uCqlr1:e201152:

IOW, Blacks need not apply.

Today I heard some disgusting comments made about Justice Brown by Charles Schumer, accusing her of wanting to be a dictator of sorts. Is Senator Schumer clinically disturbed, or is he simply one of the lowest, meanest members of the Senate?

Janice Rogers Brown is an activist judge. Even her fellow justices that sat on the Supreme Court of California challenged her tendency to put in her own activist judicial philosophy in her decisions.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50

Second, I’m tired of hearing this argument that these justices are opposed because of their faith or their values.
This type of faith based opposition hypocrisy is exposed in this piece
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050530&s=mcgarvey

Finally, way the Republicans use the 76% support of Janice Rogers Brown is highly inaccurate

Conservatives tout how Janice Rogers Brown “was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.” This claim is highly misleading, because it does not clarify how judicial elections work in California. According to the League of Women Voters guide to judicial elections in California:

Justices of the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal serve 12-year terms. They are on the ballot only in November every four years when a governor is being elected. Justices who were appointed after the last gubernatorial election and those who are running for reelection after the expiration of the terms are listed without opposition on a nonpartisan ballot. Voters decide whether they continue in office or not by voting Yes or No. If the vote is No, the governor appoints a replacement who will be on the ballot in 4 years at the next gubernatorial election.

Since the ballot does not identify Janice Rogers Brown as a Republican appointee and Brown does not run against any opponent, a 76% of the vote under these circumstances doesn’t mean much. In addition, many liberals vote Yes on all nominees as a matter of principle, because they believe in keeping the judiciary independent from elections, regardless of whether they ideologically agree with the justice or not. Many of the Yes votes were cast out of respect for the office, not necessarily the person holding it, due to distate for the nasty 1986 right-wing campaign that ousted Chief Justice Rose Bird from the California Supreme Court. For example, the left-leaning San Francisco Bay Guardian has generally had a policy of opposing No votes in Supreme Court elections when making endorsements, but that is in no way an endorsement of Janice Rogers Brown personally

Danielle,
Please explain why you feel she is an activist judge (as opposed to just stating that others on the bench think she is). Just because the majority of the bench is left wing loonies, doesn’t mean the majority is correct (I thought we learned this lesson in grade school)…

so give us some examples so we can take your complaint seriously at least.

I guess it’s early and I am in form

Montie,
To the democrats, activists judges are suppossed to be like blacks, jews and homosexuals. Their exclusive rubberstamps on all issues. Like spoiled children, they do not like the notion of someonelse playing with their toys.

Ok SCSI, I’ll go with both.

Danielle, it’s not activism to adhere to the law, as in the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. That is called being true to the oath of office. Activism is practiced by liberal judges who distort the law and insert a personal agenda that is quite often at odds with the law.

Darkstar wrote, “Like I said, I don’t see why conservatives are mad about the “compromise”.”

It was a kicking a can down the road for the 7 Republicans and they didn’t come to realize that they were not confronting the issue.

I can understand people being upset when people don’t confront an issue. Just some of the rhetoric was over the top. Can you understand someone not liking their leaders confronting an issue Darkstar? For instance union leaders not trying to confront an issue and just kicking a can down the road or a district attorney not confronting an issue or a governor not confronting an issue. Again. Yes. I agree some of the rhetoric was a bit much. It isn’t the end of the road. But the issue will return when Democrats start filibustering good people again. I know you monitor this site pretty well. You saw that Ruth Bader Ginsberg has said some pretty off the wall stuff and she was confirmed like 96-3 or something. Janice Rogers Brown did not deserve to be treated the way she was treated by Democrats. And…. I agree with the rulings or dissents that she made that Democrats don’t like. Like the Remo Hotel dissent.

#21 Danielle,

The independantjudiciary is not independant nor even moderate. They are partisan and misleading and with agenda. I’ve addressed this in previous posts.

Name a decision she made that you disagree with and why. Research and state please.

Danielle, go cry me a river. Ya’ll had your fun messing up the legal and economic systems, but like all bad things must come to an end, sooner or later. Sooner, faster, please, sooner, faster.

My opinion is that her opposition was even greater because of which court she was appointed to. The D.C. bench sees way more of the more influential cases to work its way through the system. If she were appointed elsewhere, opposition would still be great, but not as vociferous or ugly. Her decisions and dissents are a textbook on true conservatism, and the way things ought to be (to borrow from Rush). Any question about what she would say in regards to the Kansas Supreme Court and its school funding decision?

I think her appointment should be made into a national holiday. I am excited that she has taken the next step towards the SC.

well i’m not too angry. I love republicans.. they pander to christians.. don’t actually do anything about these so called morals … and then they give my immigrant and idol worshipping family huge unnecessary tax cuts. The way I look at is this: If people in Mississippi want the government to spend their tax dollars on Iraq depsite the fact the nation had no WMD, you know Muslim people are hypersensitive (Newsweek), and no matter how you conduct the “liberation,” they will view our intervention as an occupation (especially when you use words like Crusade) and this distrust will make the situation even more volatile and create an environment that gives birth to infite Osamas rather than on their deteriorating public schools and lack of health care.. and at the same time give my idol worshipping family tax cuts because Billy and Allen want to get married (even though the Government can’t do anything about making them straight) then so be it. THANK YOU.. Thats why hardworking immigrants are taking over this country. Keep spending your Sundays at Church worrying about abortion and what Billy and Allen are doing in their own homes, while immigrants begin to take over the nation. You look at all the rich houses in the district I live in Northern VA.. they are all owned by Indians and Koreans (Doctors, lawyers, entrepeneurs.. etc.) I love it.

You started out well “danielle,” as your previous comment shows. As this blog is run by a Christian, use common sense and don’t offend me if you want to stick around. I won’t tolerate anti-Christian jabs on this site. Couldn’t care less about who owns what house, as long as they’re not criminal aliens. Contain your contempt, or move on to another blog. - Admin

“Use common sense.” What are the odds? A left wingnut once again ventures into the house of a conservative Christian, spouts a Leftist and anti-Christian screed, is “rightly” skewered by commenters and the hostess, then responds with vitriol. To what purpose? To make herself feel better, I suppose, because, in the end, she speaks only to herself, convincing no other commenter of the correctness of her viewpoint. Common sense? Hardly.

Can I get that duck agrodolce?
What she said in 2000, was:
As a conservative judge, I initially accepted the conventional wisdom [about Lochner]…. You all know the drill…. ‘Lochnerism’ is the strongest pejorative known to American law. [But] even conservative judges who take the rule of law seriously are appalled by legislative actions which violate the whole spirit, if not quite the letter, of provisions clearly designed to limit government.” Unless judges enforce these “extra-constitutional” rights, she said, “a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy — a license to steal, a warrant for oppression.”

Which is not to say that Lochnerism is always right, or that it is always wrong; the danger of worshiping the Lochner disent is that it encourages group think and knee jerk reactions.

“the danger of worshiping the Lochner disent is that it encourages group think and knee jerk reactions.”

The funny thing is that the lochner dissent is the one that allows for more legislative freedom in economic policymaking.

Put another way, it’s not necessary to agree with every application of every bit of law as it is seen by Justice Brown in order to support her confirmation. I don’t agree with everything my wife says either, but we’re still married.

Economic policymaking is just one of the state government’s activities that has been taken to
inexcusable excess!!!

Happy now actus?

Oops. didn’te get the whole comment in.

the question is whether its the courts or the legislature that get to make economic policy.

“That is, no work days longer than 10 hours in the bakery business, and no work weeks of more than 60 hours.
If only I were a law student with quick access to this kind of data.”

IIRC, that is correct. 60 hours isn’t really much of an excess is it?

Actus, does not Lochner establish federal oversight of state functions by overriding a sovereign state’s decision? Even though I personally disagree with the state’s legislation, it’s the business of that state, not the feds.

In addition, the dissent you like so much would simply reverse the outcome, but would still be the federal government engaging in interference in a state matter by locking the state decision up for good.

The Supreme Court may have a valid role here, in the real world. But in theory I’m just pointing out the federal determination of economic policy that results, no matter which way the ruling went. I get very nervous whenever the federal government acts upon anything regarding economic policy.

“the state legislature would be free to do what it wanted.”

How so? If the dissent became the majority opinion, then how could the state change policy if so inclined, say via an election year realignment? With great difficulty, at best, once the feds stick their noses in.

“It is, however, plain reading of the constitution that congress can preempt state regulation. So long as congress itself can act, it can override the states.”

Be specific. What do you mean by that? Coinage? Duties and tariffs? Interstate commerce?

This whole business of judicial interpretation is a very delicate balancing act. The Founders intended it to be so, with separation of powers, checks and balances, multiple ways for one or two branches of government to stop the abuses of another branch.

But the Founders were crystal clear and absolute about the Constitution being a limiting document, a tool for the sovereign states to grant only specific and enumerated powers to the federal government, while retaining ALL other powers. The feds are prohibited from doing ANYTHING not specifically authorized by the Constitution. This is the point lost on the left today, and the point being trampled to death by the judiciary, the Congress (including, sadly, clueless Republicans), and the White House.

“How so? If the dissent became the majority opinion, then how could the state change policy if so inclined, say via an election year realignment?”

The dissent said that the federal judiciary cannot use the constitution to strike down economic state regulations as a violation of some due process contract right. The state could change policy the same way it made the policy — by passing a law in its legislature.

“Be specific. What do you mean by that? Coinage? Duties and tariffs? Interstate commerce?”

Among some people there is debate about in what areas congress can act. But there is no debate that if congress can act in an area where states can also act, then congress is the one with the ability to preempt and override the states, and not the other way around. This is the supremacy clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The feds can’t make laws superior to state law unless specifically granted that power by the Constitution. That’s why the above so-called “supremacy clause” uses the words “in Pursuance thereof” to define the process. Laws which are created without specific Constitutional authority cannot, by definition, be “in pursuance” of the Constitution. Unfortunately for us all, liberal interpretations have thoroughly corrupted our federal system.

The true “supremacy clause” is the 10th Amendment.

Actus, you’re right, while the Indian Removal Act was a tragedy, Andrew Jackson was a nice guy.

It’d be nice if some politicians had the fortitude to buck the courts every once in a while to keep them in balance.

My point is I’d like to see current examples, the past is past.

“My point is I’d like to see current examples, the past is past. ”

People clearly pass unconstitutional laws. Utah just passed an internet filtering law that is clearly unconstitutional.

Clearly unconstitutional? That’s a bit premature. We’ll see.

Liberal courts, led by the nose by the Utah ACLU, will probably find a reason to declare it unconstitutional. But a law requiring only that a porn filter be offered as an option at the subscriber’s discretion? Doesn’t sound very heinous to me, and hardly a threat to the 1st Amendment.

Ok then, can you explain what the Utah law does, and what I have misstated? And then can you explain how it’s the same as the Pennsylvania law?

“The website you referenced has not updated itself to show the Utah law as it exists. That site apparently is looking at what was first proposed.”

You’ll notice a press release, as well as a complaint filed — both dated june 9th. The latter has more detail than the former. Included in this extra detail is the date in which the law was signed (paragraph 3).

Towards the bottom of the screen, on march 22 and 8th, you have the law being signed and passed. This is right above the headline describing the PA law being struck down.

RedBeard. He has a reading comprehension problem. The point was won but lost I’m afraid.