What happened to Janice Rodgers Brown's nomination?

[funkyflathead]

I heard it was supposed to come up for a vote acutally. Is this true???

Thanks

[La_Serpiente]

1. You can read this editorial by the New York Times

A Manufactured Crisis on Judges

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/opinion/10MON2.html

Conservative activists have been demanding that Senate Republicans do more to push through the Bush administration's most extreme judicial nominees. So the Republican leadership is planning a 30-hour talk marathon later this week to protest the Democrats' blocking of a handful of candidates. To up the public-relations quotient, there may be calls for votes on three controversial female nominees. Lost amid the grandstanding about a "crisis" in judicial nominations are the facts: 168 Bush nominees have been confirmed and only four rejected, a far better percentage than for President Bill Clinton.

Bush administration nominees have been moving through the Senate at a rapid clip: in his first three years in office, President Bush has gotten more judges confirmed than President Ronald Reagan did in his first four. When Republicans controlled the Senate, more than 60 Clinton administration judicial candidates were blocked.

What conservative interest groups are unhappy about is that Senate Democrats are balking at a small number of nominees who lie well outside the mainstream. How far outside? Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court justice nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has publicly questioned incorporation, a well-settled legal doctrine holding that important parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. (At her confirmation hearing, she insisted that in fact she now accepts incorporation.) Alabama's attorney general, William Pryor, whose nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has been kept unconfirmed through filibuster, called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination" of constitutional law in our history.

The Republicans are expected to put the focus in this week's talk-marathon on three women: Justice Brown and Carolyn Kuhl, who have yet to be voted on by the full Senate, and Priscilla Owen, whose nomination has been filibustered. Republicans will no doubt charge Democrats with sexism, as they have made accusations of anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic bias in other cases. But much of the opposition to these nominees, including from Democratic women in the Senate, is based on their stands on issues of concern to women, including abortion rights, privacy and workplace discrimination.

Despite promising 30 hours of debate about judicial nominations, Republican leaders have not said whether they will allow Democratic senators to be heard. It would not be a bad thing if the talk marathon turned into an old-fashioned Senate debate. If all the facts came out, the public would see that the real problems are caused by the Bush administration, Senate Republicans and the hard-driving conservative activists who, when it comes to judicial nominations, are pulling the strings.

[funkyflathead]

2. Nice to know she hasn't been voted on by full senate

Hope they fillibuster her even if they are called racists (which they are not but the media will paint them as).

[La_Serpiente]

3. I would filibuster

while I was watching the hearing, I wasn't sure, but it seemed like she said that companies deserve free speech rights.

That kind of made me open my eyes.

[mbali]

9. That's not even the half of it:

Janice Rogers Brown is not only an extreme right wing ideologue, but she consistently injects her personal views into her decisions and almost ALWAYS comes down on the side of corporate interests and against civil rights for workers, women, the disabled and minorities.

For example, she has criticized politicians for "handing out new rights like lollipops in the dentist office."

She has also said, "Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free stuff as the political system will permit them to extract."

In a case involving a San Francisco housing law that helped the low income and elderly, she wrote, "Theft is theft, even when the Government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the Government."

In an employment discrimination case, she dissented from the court’s upholding of an injunction prohibiting an employee from using racial epithets. However, in other cases, she argued against employees’ free speech rights when it proved objectionable to the employer or property owners.

In an important affirmative action case, Justice Brown went far beyond the limited issue of the case - whether the outreach program violated California’s Constitution - and argued that affirmative action programs are illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Even the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, an arch-conservative, criticized her for disregarding precedent, distorting history and doing "a grave disservice to the sincerely held views of a significant segment of our populace."

This woman should NOT be a federal judge!

[liberalcapitalist]

17. she is foxy, though

n/t

[hansberrym]

4. A smart move might be to let Judge Brown have a pass and focus on the othe

In trying to show that she is out of the mainstream, Schumer and Kennedy just might shoot themselves in the foot. For instance the
INCORPORATION issue is not as settled as one might think, it is only
sleeping. And bringing up the issue might put Schumer on the defensive in having to explain the logic behind PARTIAL incorporation
as it currently stands.


(quote)
"...has publicly questioned incorporation, a well-settled legal doctrine holding that IMPORTANT PARTS of the Bill of Rights apply to the states..." (my emphasis)
(unquote)

One might consider that Hugo Black opposed PARTIAL incorporation with his dissent in Adamson v. People of Califiornia. Black thought ALL of the first eight amendments were incorporated into the 14th, and rejected picking and choosing about which were IMPORTANT. He relied on historical evidence centering around the debates in the House and Senate on ratifiaction of the Fourteenth Amendment and published writings of that time period. Two other justices joined his dissent, they added that the Ninth Amendment would also apply, and that the list of rights to be protected under the Fourteenth would not be limited to the rights explicitly stated in the first eight amendments.


I would very much like to see an extended disussion of Incorporation on CSPAN (or on network TV) during prime time, but I don't think it would help in this case.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi hansberrym!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. hansberrym WRONG! that would not be a smart move..imho

she needs to be blocked/filibustered...she is a rabid rightwingnut!

[mbali]

8. You DO realize

that giving Janice Rogers Brown "a pass" would mean that she would serve on one of the most important federal circuits FOR LIFE?

[joanski01]

5. The 30-hour debate

starts Wednesday, Nov. 12, at 6:00 p.m. on C-Span2. Repukes will try to sneak some up or down votes in while they think the Dems are snoozing. Hope it doesn't happen. This will go on all day Thursday, as well.

[mbali]

10. John Edwards is on the forefront of the Janice Rogers Brown Fight

Remarks By
Sen. John Edwards
On The Nomination Of Janice Rogers Brown
To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The D.C. Circuit
Thursday, November 6, 2003


Mr. Chairman, I must voice my opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

As you know, I have voted to confirm more than 150 of President Bush’s judicial nominees. I have done so even though I have disagreed with their views and positions. Many of these judges have held conservative ideologies with which I strongly disagree. However, I voted for these nominees because I believed they would ultimately enforce the Constitution and the law.

Janice Rogers Brown is not such a nominee. Unfortunately, she holds views that threaten basic elements of our constitutional framework, as well as progress in our society over the last 70 years.

There are many examples of Justice Rogers’ extraordinary views. I will name just two.

First, she has actually said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal “inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality,” and that the year 1937 “marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution.” This is simply extraordinary. Nineteen-thirty-seven was the year that the Supreme Court reversed course and stopped striking down New Deal legislation designed to employ the unemployed and ensure survival for the hungry and sick. And for those who forget—the New Deal was not socialism; the New Deal was measures like Social Security that helped forestall more radical economic changes. Justice Brown apparently not only disagrees with the New Deal, which would be one thing. What is truly troubling is that she suggests the Supreme Court would have been right to continue striking down New Deal protections instead of upholding them. This is not even the view of Justice Scalia. It is far outside the mainstream of judicial thought today, liberal or conservative.

Next, at her confirmation hearing, Justice Brown was asked whether the United States Constitution would trump a state referendum, California’s proposition 209. As we all know, the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution is the basis of our form government. It was only because the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down racial discrimination in schooling. Yet Justice Brown, for whatever reason, was unable or unwilling to state unequivocally that the U.S. Constitution would override a state referendum. I find this extraordinary.

These statements are unfortunately consistent with Justice Brown’s record as a judge. For example, she has said that a rent-control statute, which you can reasonably agree or disagree with, amounts to “turning a democracy into a kleptocracy.” This kind of rhetoric is amazing. And her record of dissents in California is consistent with this rhetoric. She has undermined civil rights remedies and shown hostility for workers’ rights in ways inconsistent with settled law and precedent.

Now, I have heard the unfortunate attacks by some of those who are pushing for her confirmation. In fact, I’ve even been singled out personally. I take a backseat to no one in my commitment to civil rights and equal justice. It is because of those commitments that I oppose Justice Brown’s nomination.

Much has been made of Justice Brown’s personal history. I commend and admire her for how far she has come in life. But this isn’t about her personal history. This is about her record and the views she would espouse as a judge on a critical federal court.

This nomination is very important to me because it has an enormous impact on the constituents of my home state and neighboring states. The D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the second most powerful court in the country. With special jurisdiction conferred by Congress, the D.C. Circuit oversees the actions of federal agencies. The Supreme Court’s limited caseload means that the D.C. Circuit often provides the determinative legal review of federal agency action involving labor relations, affirmative action, clean air standards, health and safety regulations, consumer privacy and campaign finance. The D.C. Circuit has another especially critical role in protecting the voting rights of African Americans and other minority citizens, particularly in Southern jurisdictions, including my home state of North Carolina. Even you, Mr. Chairman, have called it “the most important circuit in the country.”

So, this nomination is very important to me and my constituents. This was another missed opportunity by the President, who, instead of selecting a consensus nominee who would uphold the notions of civil rights and equal justice, sent one more divisive nominee who will move us backward.

For these reasons, I have no choice but to oppose Justice Brown’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[hansberrym]

11. I agree with you on FDR.

Pointing out her disdain for one of the most popular presidents ever is a big winner, but I disagree on the "Kleptocracy" statement.


" she has said that a rent-control statute, which you can reasonably agree or disagree with, amounts to “turning a democracy into a kleptocracy.” This kind of rhetoric is amazing."

I do not think it would be wise to attack Judge Brown on this issue. It is too easy for her to turn the tables and to make the claim that she is protecting the property rights of ordinary citizens. In today's economy, where a higher percentage of persons than ever own thier own home, have 401K plans, plus other investments, the Property Rights vs. Civil Rights argument from 60 years ago will not play well. Civil rights AND Property rights seems to be the winning position to hold these days.

I come at this issue from a libertarian viewpoint. So maybe we will just disagree on this point. But in my opinion, if Schumer and Kennedy start shouting "extremist" on issues like property rights, they just might convince people that judge Brown is the right kind of extremist, and they are the wrong kind.

[spooky3]

14. go Edwards! This is a spectacularly unqualified nominee.

[AP]

12. The gaps in this woman's knowledge of federal law were shocking.

She had the Republicans correcting some of her misimpressions of the law during her hearing.

It was amazing.

[funkyflathead]

13. So she is stupid?

Figures if the Repukes are nominating her.

[mbali]

15. Kick

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. Is Reid still talking?

:evilgrin: http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2003/11/11/56432.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News&sp5=RGJ.com&sp6=news&sp7=local_news

[Isome]

19. He personified Courage by doing that...

“Don’t think we (Democrats) can be pushed around … because we have a say on what goes on around here.”

Way to go Senator!!

[Neecy]

18. let them have their little gab-fest

The far-right zealots of the Republican party are always their own worst enemies. Let them make whiny little asses out of themselves for 30 hours, since the facts are clear - the vast majority of Bush's nominees have been confirmed (a far greater percentage than Clinton's) and to demand like children that the Senate turn into a rubber-stamp Reichstag and give Bush 100% of his nominees will just make them look like the silly little fascists that they are.

This is still a democracy, and the Senate still has the right to consent to presidential nominees. People know this, and the antics of these nutcakes will backfire on them.