GWB should nominate Janice Rogers Brown

[Rich in Ohio]

I sent GWB and friends an e-mail late yesterday about who I think he should nominate for the recently vacated supreme court seat.

 

There is no question that the libs are going to freak out no matter who he nominates, but I say lets really drive them crazy by nominating this fine black woman who they just comfirmed a few weeks ago. I can just hear the arguments now from the nuts like kennedy, and schumer.....

 

Kennedy "well, um.....she um...hick-up um...... was uh, good enough to be uhhh confirmed one uhhh month uhhhh ago, but ummmm, she has become uhhh, way tooo uhhh radical uhhhhh beteweeen uhhh hickup then and uhhh now."

 

Then of course it would be a real treat to hear robert KKK byrd's take on the fact that a black woman was nominated. After all that would mean that there might be two black people on the bench.

 

 

seriously, how can they make the case against her, after they just confirmed her? Can they claim "extreme circumstances"? Give me a break, this is going to be so much fun, I cannot contain myself. The leaders of the left (who happen to be on the extreme left) are pulling thier hair out with the way that things have developed.

 

With O'Conner retiring first, this allows GWB to not only replace her with a conservative who will interperate the constitution and not legislate, but it then allows him to replace Renquist with Gonzales not just as a justice but possibly as Cheif Justice. At his young age that will truely help correct the higest bench in the land for some time to come.

[KRC]

seriously, how can they make the case against her, after they just confirmed her? Can they claim "extreme circumstances"? Give me a break, this is going to be so much fun, I cannot contain myself. The leaders of the left (who happen to be on the extreme left) are pulling thier hair out with the way that things have developed.

375427[/snapback]

 

Federal court does not have the same impact as SCOTUS. That is the argument they will use.

[Rich in Ohio]

Federal court does not have the same impact as SCOTUS. That is the argument they will use.

375434[/snapback]

 

 

last time I looked it was just one tiny little step away. Seems like the type of stupid arguement that will be expected of them.

 

they held her up for almost two years....smeared her good name, and told lie after lie about her. It would only be fitting if the President nominated her and let the dems squirm again.

 

Could you imagine, Thomas and her on the bench at the same time......the left would never recover.

[KRC]

last time I looked it was just one tiny little step away.

375438[/snapback]

 

You have to remember the crowd they are playing to. The MoveOn.org loonies will make it out to be the coming of the apocolypse if [insert any name here, it doesn't matter the name] were to make it to the SC bench. The Hot Pockets® gang will get their panties in a bunch and express their faux outrage. Remember the rhetoric over the Bush federal court nominations, and take it up several notches. That is what you can expect.

 

This is going to take a long time to resolve. The 2006 elections are just around the corner. The Senators will need to choose their words and their battles carefully if they expect to be re-elected.

[Bill from NYC]

You have to remember the crowd they are playing to. The MoveOn.org loonies will make it out to be the coming of the apocolypse if [insert any name here, it doesn't matter the name] were to make it to the SC bench. The Hot Pockets® gang will get their panties in a bunch and express their faux outrage. Remember the rhetoric over the Bush federal court nominations, and take it up several notches. That is what you can expect.

 

This is going to take a long time to resolve. The 2006 elections are just around the corner. The Senators will need to choose their words and their battles carefully if they expect to be re-elected.

375453[/snapback]

 

Yes KRC, but Rich raises a good point.

Thomas WAS confirmed. In fact, Al Gore voted for his confirmation.

Without knowing much about Judge Brown, it would seem to me that at least a few phoney liberal senators would be afraid to oppose her so as to not appear racist nor even sexist.

Who do you think would have voted "left" more times, Thomas or Bork?

 

Btw, am I one of your "minnions?"

[KRC]

Yes KRC, but Rich raises a good point.

Thomas WAS confirmed. In fact, Al Gore voted for his confirmation.

Without knowing much about Judge Brown, it would seem to me that at least a few phoney liberal senators would be afraid to oppose her so as to not appear racist nor even sexist.

Who do you think would have voted "left" more times, Thomas or Bork?

 

Btw, am I one of your "minnions?" 

375472[/snapback]

 

That is how the Republicans will counter the filibuster. Playing the sex and race card.

 

You have to ask T-Bag, NJSue or BF to see if you are one of my "minnions."

[Bill from NYC]

That is how the Republicans will counter the filibuster. Playing the sex and race card.

 

You have to ask T-Bag, NJSue or BF to see if you are one of my "minnions." 

375476[/snapback]

 

Do you think it will work? Also, don't you keep a minnions list?

[KRC]

Do you think it will work? Also, don't you keep a minnions list? 

375478[/snapback]

 

It will work with the Hot Pockets® on the right. That is about it. Same with the Dem strategy. It will work with the Hot Pockets® on the left, but that is it.

 

I don't keep a "minnions" list. I keep a minions list.

[Alaska Darin]

It will work with the Hot Pockets® on the right. That is about it. Same with the Dem strategy. It will work with the Hot Pockets® on the left, but that is it.

 

I don't keep a "minnions" list. I keep a minions list. 

375507[/snapback]

I think I liked it better when you were one of MY minions.

[KRC]

I think I liked it better when you were one of MY minions. 

375522[/snapback]

 

It depends on the day of the week, whether you are my minion or I am your minion. It is tough to keep up with the 'tards and their lists.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think I liked it better when you were one of MY minions. 

375522[/snapback]

 

You were a lot more organized about it, with your list and all...

[boomerjamhead]

I think I liked it better when you were one of MY minions. 

375522[/snapback]

 

Fret not, you still have JSP.

[OGTEleven]

I think I liked it better when you were one of MY minions. 

375522[/snapback]

Can you chop up some pickled minions and serve them over fried noodles and eggs?

[Ghost of BiB]

You were a lot more organized about it, with your list and all...

375572[/snapback]

 

In Powerpoint, no less.

[Cripes]

With O'Conner retiring first, this allows GWB to not only replace her with a conservative who will interperate the constitution and not legislate, but it then allows him to replace Renquist with Gonzales not just as a justice but possibly as Cheif Justice. At his young age that will truely help correct the higest bench in the land for some time to come.

375427[/snapback]

 

Brown gets an unfair rap because she's made political statements that get mixed in with her actual legal record. But she also has a squad of overzealous cheerleaders who don't seem to know she's written opinions that mirror those of Clinton judicial nominees that were blue slipped out of town. Y'all know, for instance, she dissented from California Supreme Court decisions that upheld racial profiling, warrantless searches, and death sentences? I pulled the following quotes from a pro-Brown story by Nat Hentoff (a Pickering champion) in the Village Voice:

 

In People vs. McKay, Brown wrote: "There is an undeniable correlation between law enforcement stop-and-search practices and the racial characteristics of the driver. . . . The practice is so prevalent, it has a name: 'Driving While Black.' " While racial profiling is "more subtle, more diffuse, and less visible" than racial segregation, "it is only a difference in degree. If harm is still being done to people because they are black, or brown, or poor, the oppression is not lessened by the absence of television cameras."

 

in People v. Woods (1999), Justice Brown sharply disagreed when her colleagues approved a police search of a suspected drug dealer's home because, as the cops said, his roommate had consented to warrantless searches as a condition of probation. Said Janice Rogers Brown—The New York Times' extreme, right-wing poster woman—"By their decision today, a majority of the court set the history of personal liberties back more than 200 years."

 

She's also voted to overturn two death penalty cases due to prosecutorial misconduct or incompetent defense counsel.

 

I wonder what John Ashcroft thinks of her? "An activist with a slant toward criminals," a judge with "a serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty," as he described rejected Clinton judicial nominee Ronnie White?

 

Forget the left here. They aren't going to impact anything, not with the nuclear option still on the backburner and Dems lacking the votes to stop Frist from using it. What I want to know is, what does the Rapture crowd think of Brown? Don't forget, she's had only one major decision regarding abortion, and that was a parental notification law. In reading her opinion, I gathered her opinion was concerned more with parental rights...not on the right to choose.

 

Is that decision enough to get hardcore Christian right support, when they would most certainly prefer Roy Moore or Michael Luttig to get going on ending RoeVWade? They have to know a Brown nomination today almost certainly means that Bush is saving Gonzales for the Rehnquist seat, and they've already voiced their anger over that possibility. O'Connor's vacancy may be their last opportunity. John Paul Stevens retiring? He seems to be in great health, traveling and giving a speech to the Chicago Bar Association. If Ralph W. can keep playing tennis, Stevens can keep putting on a robe for three more years.

 

As a Senator, Brown would be a little too Ayn Rand-y for me (just try reading this, without operating heavy machinery, mind you), but she strikes me as an unequivocal supporter of individual rights (property owners AND criminals) who I'm not sure would be the all-out rightward tilt factor that rightwingers and the NYT are making her out to be.