Hearing on Janice Brown is on NOW!!!

She is a Black Female Republican who serves on the California Supreme Court. She is very Conservative. She grew up in Alabama during the times of racism and has been reccommended for the US Court of Appeals D.C. Court, probably the 2nd highest court in the nation. It usually deals with issues of regulation and business. It is the one that handled the Microsoft case.

It is a very Conservative Court.

Traditionally, most Supreme Court Justices come from that court.

:think: :think: :think:

What difference does it make if she is an "ugly, evil RW ideologue" or if she is a wonderful, pure, innocent moderate or a sweet, self-sacrificing liberal?

I'm confused why any prospective judge's political ideology is always such a big deal. A judge's role is to apply the law; if a judge has the requsite training to understand the law and the strength of character to set aside his personal leanings and judge impartially what difference does his politics make? If a judge is unable or unwilling to put aside his political leanings while judging a case the I don't want him on any court no matter what side of the political spectrum his is on.

Am I so far out of it that I'm missing some obvious point? Do people at DU really want the judiciary to be a political branch of government? If not, then why complain about a nominee's politics?

since time immemorial judges and courts have been uberpolitcal...but if your ox is not the one being gored...then they are just fine..

A little reminder about a little noticed election in 2000...the guy who recieved the most votes lost.

... that judges and courts are "uberpolitical"; should we seek to make them more or less so? In other words do we stand for the principal of apolitical courts or not?

"Ugly", evil and RW?

Get real. That article, at very best, illustrated she is, indeed, RW.

And that's it.

...the majority of Bush's appointments have been confirmed. These are "trial balloon" nominations in which extreme right wing ideaologues are attempted to sneak in with a win-win marketing effort, in which if denied those that oppose are labelled as racists, and if they are confirmed, they have another right wing ideaologue in place. We need to oppose these efforts, and point out the truth of the matter.

Spector held up?

It's from the Black Commentator

http://www.blackcommentator.com/54/54_female_clarence.html

how interesting. Thanks Arlen I never would have seen this cartoon if you hadn't shown on national tv! Now I know how the People of the American Way and the NAACP feel about Judge Brown.

"She embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing actism. Giving her a powerful seat on the DC Ciruit Court would be a disaster." Ralph Neas

"Janice Rogers Brown has a record of hostility to fundamental civil and constitutional rights principles, and she is committed to using her power as a judge to twist the law in ways that undermine those principles, said Hilary Shelton, director , NAACP Wahington Bureau. "For the administration to bring forward a nominee with this record and hope to get some kind of credit becuase she is the first African American woman nominated to the DC Circuit is one more sign of the administration's political cynicism."

She just made her opening statement where she revealed that she didn't know about the cartoon until recently. That's a pretty shameful way to try and discredit someone imho.

about everything, just like Clarence Thomas. Not racist.

PeriRies: I've looked over your posts on this forum so far and based upon them you are right of center. Fine. What I don't understand is why people who clearly don't understand issues of race are so quick to jump on it when they think they can use it to advance their position.

When people attacked Clarence Thomas it was a "race" issue. No. It wasn't. It was because he is a right-wing reactionary who is totally out of step with the majority of the people in this nation.

When Rodney King was savagely beaten by a group of white cops in LA and those cops were exonerated, that WAS a race issue.

People who are race conscious raise the issue when the issue is at hand, they don't use it as an excuse to further an agenda, no matter how much the right-wing wishes that to be true and no matter how hard they try to portray things that way.

I believe she was a nominee of Pete Wilson, who put up other justices who were even known as liberals--who overturned, for instance, our state's "parental consent law" for abortion. Maybe I always falesly assumed this point...

... every time that unctious POS Orrin "Uriah Heep" Hatch spews his myopic, bigoted, anti-democratic venom. He's one of the most detestible (in my view) members of the Senate. :puke:

Bar None.

They did not draw the cartoon, it is not their doing.
Democrats are being smeared by the use of this cartoon as a tool.
Why don't they show ALL cartoons during ALL sessions?

She would rule in favor of corporations over the citizen. What the hell does she think, that Corporations have free speech? No way Jose. She is pretty much anti-regulation.

and there aren't any specifics. I think Kennedy and Durbin took her on the hardest.

California Senator speaking out.

she says that was just a speech...when talking against regulation by government of corporation activity.

:kick: