home

Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:44:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Can I give a huge Told You So? What's amazing is not that Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed to a seat on the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today, but that Democrats were so naive as to think she might be defeated in an up or down vote. Like any Republicans were going to vote against her? Once the compromise went in, she, Owen and Pryor were shoo-ins. Spare me the tears.....this is the fault of the 14 oligarchic centrist compromisers....Biggest mistake the Senate has made in years.

Why would Ben Nelson (D-NE) break ranks to vote for Rogers Brown?

< Is the Army Playing a Shell Game? | Guantanamo Won't Be Closed ... Unless It's Closed >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed | 46 comments (46 topical)
    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#1)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    She was born a sharecropper's daughter. What a great country.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#2)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Hmm..., where government moves in, community retreats [and] civil society disintegrates"; government leads to "families under siege, war in the streets…"; "when government advances, freedom is imperiled [and] civilization itself jeopardized ~~sounds like... I-R-A-Q

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Do not be lured int Jim's sharecropper comment. He's race baiting.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#4)
    by fafnir on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Yep, the seven Dems screwed the pooch on this so-called "deal". The only thing these clowns accomplished was to give man-or-monkey a filibuster-free pass to nominate more radical right-wing nut-jobs in the molds of Owen, Brown, and Pryor without triggering that ridiculous "extraordinary circumstances" clause. And, if the Dems try to filibuster another nominee, Frist will nuke 'em. When the Dems had the chance and the votes to beat the bullies Chaney and Frist, they shrugged. I weep for my republic.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Maybe the people of California, where she served as a judge and they know her best, should vote on whether or not to confirm her. Oh, right, 75% ... I almost forgot. Darn those extremist Californians. p.s. Darryl - Iraq wasn't exactly a libertarian paradise under Saddam's Baath Socialists, either. At least now the Iraqis can choose their own govts, as they see fit. If they want another socialist one ... unlikely, but for argument's sake ... they can do so ... or not; either way it's their choice now, a choice they never had under Saddam.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    ...no WMD's, ras. No WMD's. If our task is to give the Iraqi's a government, I want them to send us two senators and some representatives. ...as an aside, damn the Cubans must be pissed that the Iraqi's jumped to the front of the line like that!

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Touch Cuba and Venezuelan oil say "bye bye".

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Touch Cuba and Venezuelan oil say "bye bye".
    Yeah that's why Venezuala will be invaded first. When it comes to Latin America, history shows that the only democracy we will allow is one that puts in an IMF-friendly government.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Back on topic... ras said:
    blah blah blah 75% ... blah blah
    A couple things to note about that...

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#10)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    et al - And her ABA rating????? ;-) Che - As a sharecropper's son, I think I can cheer for someone from the fraternity.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Nothing to discredit a story more than have it appear on a hack site such as the KOS. What I find amazing is that there are people who can hate someone and try to keep them from a job because they don't like those kind of people. No I didn't mean that you don't like African-Americans just that you don't like African-Americans that don't know thier place, you know, thier place on the Leftist plantation. Racism can be a very subtle thing and right now the Left is proving itself rather subtle. The party of the Kleagle and affirmative action certainly falls into the catagory of those that judge people by thier race. By the way how's Dr Dean doing when he isn't stereotyping Blacks as service help at Hotels and claiming all Republicans are white, don't work and wear a "Dockers" uniform. Twenty years ago I would have thought that the Dems had gone beyond the Wallace/Maddox thingy but no they are just the same bunch of racially judgemental twits they were when they were fillibustering civil rights legislation in the '50's and '60's. PPJ is right, we should all be applauding a sharecropper's daughter who has been elevated to such a prestigious position but such is the moral vacuum that is the Left today. Pitiful.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    I honestly didn't know she was Black until I read jimcee's race-baiting post. Leftist plantation? Real nice.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Since when is it racist to judge people on their merits? I think she's a terrible judge. Is that racist? I'm honestly confused.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Joe Bob on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Don't you get it? If you're not down with the GOP minstrel show, then you're the racist. I don't know how they do it but the Republicans have turned projection into an art form. Personally, if one wants to figure out which party has the interests of African-Americans at heart it's informative to look at who they vote for. GWB got, what, 13% of their votes last year? And by the way, all of those Democrats who were filibustering civil rights legislation 40 and 50 years ago? They're all Republicans now. Strom Thurmund was the epitome of this. Go find an encylopedia and look up 'Nixon, Southern Strategy.' Resentful white southerners are a key GOP voting demographic. You can thank LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act and giving you Republicans all those electoral votes.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#15)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    ScarShapedStar, Since when is it racist to judge people on their merits? I think she's a terrible judge. Is that racist? I'm honestly confused. You sound s-o-o-o much like a conservative when you say that. Welcome! We've been waiting for you.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    You sound s-o-o-o much like a conservative when you say that. Welcome! We've been waiting for you.
    You seriously want to make this an affirmative action argument? Have you no shame?? PPJ, being socially liberal how do you feel about these nominations (Owen's and Brown's)? I mean, we all know you are for democracy to take it's course (up or down vote), but how does it affect your "idealogy"?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#17)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    If history repeats itself, changing only the names and the geography, then perhaps the Dems are the Mensheviks to the Repub's Bolsheviks. And anyone familiar with that part of the world knows what happened to the Mensheviks...

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Joe Bob - Can you say, "Senator Byrd?" BTW - All those Demos from the 60's you speak of, except Byrd, are gone. As for who drove the Civil Rights battle, it was Northern/Western Republicians with some Northern Democrats. But why talk about what happened 50 years or so ago? This isn't about race, but politics. The Left us afraid that they will lose control of the courts, and the Demos afraid they will lose more elections. Read my health care comments in the Wednesday Open Thread.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    All those Demos from the 60's you speak of, except Byrd, are gone. They switched parties when they realized the Dems were the party of equality.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Che - Don't be obtuse... Gone, as is.... "they aint around no more..." Except for Democratic Senator Byrd. He's still around, still using the N word.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#21)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    What a trainwreck of a thread this has become, thanks to Jim (of course). That Janny's a sharecroper's daughter makes for good tabloid print but means nothing whatever in terms of her merits as a judge. That's self-evident. That Janny's black is also good tabloid cover but equally irrelevant. What matters is she's a horrible judge and, if you value civil liberties at all, she's pretty much a blight of a human being as well. Perfect for a Bush nominee.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Oh, and Joe Bob: Don't waste your breath with facts. Yes, doddering Strom and drooling Jesse and the Senile Movie Actor all represent what the Democrats were before they switched to the Republicans, their values well intact. Good call on the Nixon strategy, too. And yes, today's GOP is a reflection of those same people. But people like Jim and Sean Hannity know that a soundbite is worth a million inconvenient facts. Thus the party most hostile to civil liberties becomes a bastion of freedom.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    jimcee, can you explain the significance of the Lochner v. New York case? Can you tell us where Ms. Brown stands on that decision? That has a lot more to do with her qualifications as a judge than Ms. Brown's parentage or Mr. Byrd's past associations.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#24)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    Or you, PPJ?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#26)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    glanton - The title of this thread is "Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed." It is not, "Negative Comments on Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed." Try thinking about that. DA - I think he has used it at least once since then, but I don't have any sources. Maybe someone does. Sir Patrick? And yes, he did apologize. But here is what NAACP Pres said:
    ""The fact that Byrd felt free enough to make that kind of statement about any group," NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume told the Associated Press, "suggests that any progress he has made on race is relative."
    Link And since you want to defend people for comments, check out what Demo Sen Chris Dodd had to say lauding Byrd They ran Lott out for doing the same.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    How can I help thinking about the fact that she was confirmed? But then everyone knew she would be. Hard to celebrate the confirmation, though. Unless you think America is too free and needs to be significantly reigned in. Which you clearly agree with. Wouldn't be happy about Zarquawi getting a seat on the bench either.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    DA - Read this interview between Byrd and Alan Colmes. glanton - I would guess you were against Clarence Thomas. Yet he was right on the medical mj issue, wasn't he?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    DA - Instead of spouting, why not read the interview between Byrd and Colmes. You can do so by using the link in my 12:25PM comment. It details Byrd's second use of the N word. I guess Mfume was correct in his comment 4 years ago. To me, this whole affair proves that the Left can't tolerate a minority leaving the reservation, and that the attacks are even harsher than they would be against a white.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#31)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    BYRD: There are white n***rs. I have seen a lot of white n***rs in my time, if you want to use that word. Well, no Sen. Byrd, actually, we don't use that word at all; that's just you. Qualifying it with white does nothing to change its pejorative nature, either. Watch - I'll substitute "fools" instead. It then reads: BYRD: There are white fools. I have seen a lot of white fools in my time, if you want to use that word. As you can see, the word itself, be it "n***er" or "fool," is still pejorative, its original meaning unchanged. This says much about Byrd that he uses such pejoratives in the first place. Oh, and as for pretending that the Dem racists of the day suddenly crossed over to become R's ... um, the big Southern switch en to the R's took place many years after the civil rights fight was largely over, and the racists and their supporters (or at least the political value of holding such views) had been diminished below critical mass. But back when it mattered (as, for example, Democrat George "segregation forever!" Wallace understood) it was the Dems who made a home for the racists, much as they had filibustered to prevent minority-friendly legislation for generations beforehand. This is not something modern Dems are happy about, because they do not intend to be racist today, nor do I think they wish to be, but one should acknowledge the past accurately in order to learn from it. Neither party has a pure past, really. On balance, and as objectively as this Canadian can judge, the R's overall have a less racist history than the Dems, tho both parties do their best not to be that way today. Kudos to LBJ, btw. And kudos to to the R's of the day, too - a larger percentage of R's supported the Civil Rights Act than did Dems. Dems who opposed JRB may have done so based on her record as a judge. But I think some of the opposition then was magnified because, being black, she becomes a symbol of Republicans attracting qualified and successful blacks to their party, which could lead to more of the same, shattering a critical Dem constituency. This is similar to the "because he is Latino" memo of recent note. Nonetheless, regardless of the motivation - racial or political or both - it means a candidate is being more vociferously opposed because of their race. The noun for that is well known, as is the adjective.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    PPJ, as a member of the minority in this country I really resent you, of all people, trying to act like a friend to us. You can keep your concern, we don't need it. You casually use the issue of race to obfuscate the fact that the ABA rating of Brown totals to f$&k all when you take into consideration the fact it is just a popularity contest and not a true gauge of performance. But who really cares, right? As long as you can throw it in people's faces you couldn't care less about the veracity of the ratings. Typical PPJ. As for her confirmation, it didn't surprise me at all. The Democratic party leadership is populated by a bunch of geldings. No wonder they are up in arms against Howard Dean, he is threatening to them purely because he appeals to the Democratic base, and not to all the same special interest groups the Republicans have in their corner. Expect no fight whatsoever from the Dem party over a SCOTUS nomination, they are afraid they will insult pseudo-fascists like PPJ, and we can't have that.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    yes-ignore the ABA rating(not a favorite organization of conservatives) and the California voting totals. the frothing and foaming over a minority member who doesn't tow the line from the left is astonishing. BTW, Republicans really love Howard Dean, despite their protestations. They see their vote totals go up every time he opens his mouth.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#35)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco?? Anyone? Or is the only topic for discussion how many times Sen. Byrd has said a naughty word?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#36)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    DA - Are you daft or just totally in denial? The first instance was in 2001, the second, that we have proof of, was on March 10, 2005 in an interview with Alan Colmes. Who, BTW, can't be called a right wing lackey by any stretch of the imagonation. ShermBuck - Whoever told you I was your friend? I pick my friends based on their character and beliefs and actions, not the color of their skin. And, based on what I have seen of your comments, you don't qualify. But I will tell you. As someone who was born dirt poor in the rural south I totally understood what was being done to the blacks, and I never accepted it. Now you can believe that, or you can print this comment out, roll it up and insert it in your ...... Your choice. Quaker - Works for me.. Details? Links?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#37)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Reread the third comment. I warned you all.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Quaker, Being a working smuck I couldn't quote good or bad case law even if you beat me senseless with a law book. Seems to me this lady is well regarded by her peers as well as the folks that voted for her so give her the job and quit your whining. It really is unbecoming. ShermBuck, that's quite a chip you have there on your shoulder. DA, Sen. Byrd used a word that should have never crossed his lips, twice and for the cameras. You think that's OK but have that goof Sen. Lott try to be nice to some drooling old rascist colleage and he gets back benched and castigated by the Left. The Left has got to get out of this frenzy over every little thing, it is really hurting thier credibility. So Judge Brown was appointed...so what.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#39)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Che - ShermBuck is the one claiming to be resentful. Resentful over what? That I am happy that someone has achieved a great honor? You call that race baiting? Dude, you are one sick puppy.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    " [. . .] in an interview with Alan Colmes. Who, BTW, can't be called a right wing lackey by any stretch of the imagonation." :-0 Now that's some good comic relief, just the thing for an otherwise depressing thread.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    One sick puppy who warned about exactly what happened. This thread COULD have been about Brown's bad decisions as a basis for the discussion. But you shot right out of the block with your sharecropper comment. Yes, I am aware that there were white sharecroppers, so don't bother with that lame argument. You could have used single mother, or middle class upbringing. But you picked one that happens to be your own little cross to bear that you know for a fact will initiate a racial discussion. Next thing you know, others are using a brown thread (justice) to defend Robert Byrd. "But, but...SHERMBUCK STARTED IT!" LMFAO! Nice hijack.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#42)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    The San Remo Hotel decision: Brown was the sole dissenter. The case: the city of San Fran levied a fee on hotels that shifted from residential hotels to tourist hotels. San Remo sued, saying the fee constituted an unfair "taking" prohibited under the Fifth and Fourteenth. Only JRB saw it the hotel's way and she had to jump through some enormous hoops to do so. So what? She held no reservation in ignoring precedent and legislative decision to...um, legislate from the bench and impose her own personal views. Wasn't that supposed to be a bad thing? Just one example of many that we could have discussed today if we weren't so busy talking about how many times Sen. Byrd said bad words.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    PPJ - granted there is a lot of dissemination from the leftists here, but aren't you twisting the facts somewhat in terms of Byrd using the "n" word? I watched the interview (both parts) and he doesn't use it except in a rerun clip from the incident in 2001. Ergo, he only made that mistake once (publicly). While I'm here, what the hell, I'll weigh in with my 2c (Cdn). Since when do we determine a judge's competence by whether we agree with their decisions? That's like determining a news editor's writing skill based on their opinion. Brown is clearly competent, even if you might disagree with her stance on many issues. To bar someone from a promotion because of her ideas is called, um, discrimination. Test Act? Anyone?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#46)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Grad student, Pls use nomenclature such as n***er. No, this is not for tight-ass reasons, or any such cliche. Rather, it's to avoid having talkleft.com tagged by google - or, for that matter, any one of various research projects that are occasionally undertaken - as a site where the N-word is commonly used. Filtering s/w is pretty primitive, and mistakes are common. It's a small thing, but appreciated. TL, whatever disagreements I have w/her, is not running a racist site and shld not bt labelled as such, not even by software. Thx. Others take note, too, pls.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#47)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Oops. My previous comment s/have been addressed to Dark Avenger, not Grad Student. Like I said ... oops.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#48)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Quaker - If government wants to provide housing assistance, then it should do so by using a general tax, not by collecting "fees" on specific properties. By doing so it impedes the use of the properties, and I can clearly see "taking." And if Brown was the only judge on the CA SC to see that, then it is obvious as to why she was re-elected with 75% of the votes. Grad Student - Haste does make waste. I didn't see the "Video Clip" and so committed a most grievous error. DA - I concede the point, but not the game. Speaking of ammo, I still note how Dodd's comments about Byrd were ignored, while Lott's, who I was happy to see go, were not. Can we say, hypocritical?? Che - I didn't say ShermBuck started anything, I justed noted he said he was resentful. You brought race into the discussion, not I, per your comment at 5:57PM. So having introduced it, you then condemn it? Hmmm. Tricky, very tricky. Kinda like PIL and TS in another thread discussing my position when I had made no prior comments. Ernesto - You gotta be the only person in the US who posts on a politicial blog that did know that she was black.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    PPJ: your interpretation of takings is radical and ignores precedent. Justice Brown, however, agrees with you. Therein lies the problem. BTW, did you ever figure out who Brown's opponent was in that election you keep bringing up?

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    In short, PPJ, Brown deciding what "should" be done is called "legislating from the bench" which was supposed to be a bad thing last time I heard.

    Re: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed (none / 0) (#52)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    Quaker - I never claimed to be a lawyer, so what you get is an opinion. The issue of "takings" has been very hot, both on the "wetlands" type issue as well as cities "takings" for re-devlopment by private business because they need the taxes. Was Brown making laws? I don't know. To me she wasn't. When the SC found a woman's right to have an abortion, were they making laws? To me they weren't. BTW - I noted I didn't care, even "none of the above" should have gotten more than 25% if she is so far out of the mainstream. DA - You got a concession on one point. Be happy. The sun don't shine on the same dog's butt every day.

    Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed | 46 comments (46 topical)