home

Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 10:33:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your Senate Compromise at work. The Dems caved today and agreed to allow an up or down vote on California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Score one for the oligarchy, led by John McCain with an assist from Colorado freshman Senator Ken Salazar, among others.

Brown is headed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. As to why she's opposed by Democrats:

Democrats have been blocking Brown because they see her as a conservative judicial activist who ignores the law in favor of her own political views. They are critical of her record as a jurist who supported limits on abortion rights and corporate liability and opposed affirmative action.

"Her record leaves no doubt that she would attempt to impose her own extreme views on people's everyday lives, instead of following the law," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

...."Janice Rogers Brown is one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme judicial nominees," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's no. 2 Democrat. Added Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "Judge Brown was the least worthy pick this president has made for the appellate court, and that's based on her record."

Another top reason to oppose Janice Rogers Brown:

"Janice Rogers Brown has a dangerous and extreme legal philosophy that is completely at odds with working families' interests and values," said Jon Hiatt, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO. "Her appointment to the D.C. Circuit would put workers' rights and fundamental protections at risk."

Again, if you are looking for someone to thank, it's John McCain and his merry band of centrists.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Bush Approval Rating Plummets Among Independents >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown | 20 comments (20 topical)
    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    don't you actually have to show somehow that she is dangerous to make the claim or is simply saying so enough? when I hear that this black woman wants to take us back to the Jim Crow south, you'll pardon me if I start to doubt the credibility of her detractors.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    It's not a big clue that she isn't considered extreme if she can pass a Democratic vote? Do you really want to impose a 60 vote minimum for all judicial nominees - including the next time a Democrat holds the Presidency?

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#3)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    it's John McCain and his merry band of centrists.
    What? First of all it was the opportunism of the Democrats. But in some sense you are correct: the Democrats have become almose indistinguishable from the Republicans.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ambiorix on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    Do you really want to impose a 60 vote minimum for all judicial nominees - including the next time a Democrat holds the Presidency?
    What is wrong with that, isn't a judge supposed to be impartial rather than an extention of a politic party. If a judge can't get at least 60 votes then he or she is cleary not impartial.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#5)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    "Do you really want to impose a 60 vote minimum for all judicial nominees - including the next time a Democrat holds the Presidency?"
    Uh, JR? That "60 vote minimum" has been in place for a long, long time. It's not a question of whether it should be imposed. The question is whether it should be kept. The Republican "majority" in the Senate actually represents 45 percent of the U.S. population. Should those Senators alone have the ability to dictate which judges receive lifetime appointments? Or should we expect appointees to be moderate enough to gain suport from more than a slim majority of Senators? At any rate, the "60 vote minimum" has worked well enough to approve the overwhelming majority of Bush judicial nominees. Only a handful of the most extreme nominees are having trouble clearing that hurdle.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    The argument is not at all about 50 or 60 votes; that's the cape, not the matador, and angry bulls should bear the difference in mind. The real argument is that the Dems are trying to avoid holding any votes that they might lose, cuz they're down to their final chip. SCOTUS is the last chance they have to implement their agenda. The recent filibusters are a good indication that they don't think they can recapture the Senate or House anytime soon, and so must seek an avenue of unelected power. [They might be able to get the presidency, tho, since it's just one candidate away, but even that wouldn't really change much in the long haul since the leading em candidate - HRC - would govern as did her husband, moving further to the right as dictated by the polls] One can dress up the argument in fine clothes - we're simply saving the electorate from its own reactionary self! - but it's really about the Dems seeing their last grip on power slipping way. Continuing a related topic from another thread, we're getting a lot closer to seeing a 3rd party in the US. Or will the Left continue to vote for a party that supports JRB? I would, but will they?

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    "don't you actually have to show somehow that she is dangerous to make the claim or is simply saying so enough?" Ed, for crying out loud--get some context. The regulars on this site have been discussing this nomination for months. We don't have to recapitulate the topic from the beginning every time we return to it. Judge Brown has said that the US underwent a socialist revolution in 1937, and that the New Deal and practically everything since is unconstitutional. Those are, to put it mildly, extreme views, and she has shown a propensity to rule in accordance with them.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    Oh, Ed. She may not want to take you and yours back in time. But this is woman who thinks families like mine (with two gay dads) "trivialize family bonds." She's said as much. I don't think any gay family who stands before this woman's bench can expect anything remotely resembling justice. So, go ahead and tell me how great the compromise is. Go on.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    The compromise was great because it handed Frist his arse, and that isn't an inconsiderable accomplishment. As for Rogers Brown, she is reprehensible, but what about a COUP don't you understand? The R-traitors have packed the Congress through five years of stolen elections, and an illegal redistricting in Texas. They have stolen two presidential elections, and at least one governor's special election (unconstittutional as well). To pretend that it is then possible to overcome that unfair, illegal advantage, when it isn't, is just to engage in Democrat bashing. Guffaws from the REAL hate America first crowd, like Ed, and RAS, and their team of trolls. What a flipping surprise. Andreas is a Communist, so he thinks Dems and Rs are the same, since Lenin never ran for office in the first place. As for 3rd party, that's nonsense. We are marginally more likely to have a 3rd party develop, and RAS knows it. Hey, RAS, how does it feel to have 1,675 dead soldiers on your conscience? What? No conscience? I see.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    let's see-fear that a judge might not impose views favoring gay marriage on society that time after time has shown it opposes it/fear that a judge may somehow overturn all New Deal legislation(how it gets in front of the Court I am not sure). typical rant re stolen elections. average day here.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    I have no problem with her personal opinions as long as they are just that, her personal opinions. I find it refreshing to see someone in public office not be afraid of the PC police. As long as she renders her judicial descisions according to the Law as it exsists. And yes personal beliefs can shade the way that a judge rules in any number of cases as has been proven ad infinitum by "progressive" judges over the years. To think that personal opinions need to match a particular ideology in order to be a judge is not much different than when the Soviets ran thier show that way. By the bye, what was her ABA rating? Was she elected by a goodly margin back home? Re-elected by chance? What do her colleages say about her and do they hold her in respect? Just asking....

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#12)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Paul in LA, So the vote on whether or not to filibuster a judicial nominee is directly responsible for 1,675 deaths? And those who, on principle, think the Senate should vote on the nominees are, by virtue of that belief, wanton killers? You win, I see no way to counter logic like that!

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Jimcee - Okay Mr. Straightman.... She was re-elected with about 75% of the vote in that conservative state of California... No doubt about it. Her views are way out of the mainstream.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Jim, Who was her opponent? Those dumb ass dems are going to give Monkey Boy another banana. My thanks to my own Sen. Boxer for her impassioned moment of reason ("lone dissenter over 30 times", even with six other repugs on the bench) Thanks Harry. Why do you people think McCain is centrist? He's a complete fraud as a moderate. And all these idiots do is diss THIER OWN DNC CHAIR!! Un F***ing believable.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    PPJ, your welcome. I really don't care if the nominated person believes in UFO's as long as they can rule on the Law and not make it up as they go along. Seems to me that the courts could use a bit of a correction to the Right but like a lumbering ship nothing changes overnight, by the time the ship changes course one way its time for another course correction in the other direction. So goes the slow ship of state/justice. Although mostly, quick decisions, whether interpreting laws or creating laws is a bad thing. Everyone wants thier stuff now! None of that "ship of state" stuff for the extreme Right or Left. Sheesh we've all become a bunch of impatient wankers haven't we? PPJ and what about that ABA rating...wink, wink,...nod, nod...

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#16)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Che - Don't know, don't care. Even none of the above should give such a radical person a real race in liberal CA.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#17)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    @Paul in LA: What have my views to do with the joint attacks on democratic rights by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? BTW: The Trotskyite movement has taken part in quite a few elections in the US. Last year Bill Van Auken was the Presidential Candidate of the Socialist Equality Party. And do not forget: Big Bill Haywood, Eugene Debs and James Cannon also belong to the history of the Marxist movement in America.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Don't know, don't care. Even tho she ran unopposed? Don't know, don't care. So if three people out of four voted for her unopposed, then technically she got 75% of the vote. Don't know, don't care. That says it all. If you don't know, it doesn't matter. So FOS.

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Che - 75% is 75%. As I said, there is no way she could be out of the mainstream if she got that type of approval in CA. BTW - How about her ABA rating? ;-)

    Re: Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Jim, LYING as usual: "She was re-elected with about 75% of the vote in that conservative state of California..." Nonsense. OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HER SEAT, she got 75%. That's not 75% of the electorate, AND YOU KNOW IT. Voters have next to no clue about the credentials and record of judges. It is the most absurdly non-democratic vote there is. They don't enter the public arena and debate or discuss their views. The campaigning is yard signs at best. The place where we get a public arena is the US Senate, which you unamerican traitors think you own. And in that venue, her real views were EXPOSED. But Jim has to lie to get his cookie. He's a moral diabetic.

    Dems End Filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown | 20 comments (20 topical)