Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

[Boris Godunov]

Ned, you obviously don't know what "support" means. All you've done is given us claims as to what was said and meant based on you listening to the debate. I want quotes and contacts. Your consistent failure to provide sources is telling. Your explanation is simply spin. I wan't to see the full contexts. Can you handle that?

YOU started out making the claims, it's up to YOU to provide the support for them. Go ahead--show us what Kennedy said and the context in which he said them.

Kennedy is calling people names, unquestionably--but whether or not its bigotry remains to be seen. People can call names without being bigots.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, you know the reason the Dems are resisting these nominations is the abortion issue.

While it is an issue, it is not the sole issue. Both Pryor and Owens have made outrageous statements/rulings. Pryor is practially a neo-Confederate, while Owens is just out on Pluto. I urge you to study her rulings and see if there's a place for her anywhere in the judical system other than presiding over a kangaroo court.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Prissy Ownes did was send a law suit back to be retried, finding that it had been initiated in the wrong district. She did this on the basis of a law that hadn't been in existence at the time of the law suit.

What is wrong with this one? If a law is passed that changes things from the time of suit and the time of appeal, you use that new law.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, it was legal for plaintiffs to chose the venue of the trial. By the time it was appealed to the Texas Surpeme Court, the law had changed. The plaintiffs won in the lower court, the court of appeals, and the Owens sent the case back for retrial in a new district based on this new law. I believe that's what they call an ex post facto law, which is prohibbited by the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought rewriting laws was part of the job description for judges nowadays.

NOWADAYS?! Go back and read Marbury v. Madison

At the time the lawsuit was filed, it was legal for plaintiffs to chose the venue of the trial. By the time it was appealed to the Texas Surpeme Court, the law had changed. The plaintiffs won in the lower court, the court of appeals, and the Owens sent the case back for retrial in a new district based on this new law. I believe that's what they call an ex post facto law, which is prohibbited by the Constitution.

No, you are wrong. Changing jurisdiction is NOT ex post facto. It is done all the time. Ex post facto is making something illegal and then prosecuting people who did the act before the it was made illegal. Changing jurisdiction mid-trial is a power that the legislatures of the states (and Congress) have the power to do.

There have been plenty of cases dismissed because Congress has changed jurisdiction of a case before the appeal is heard, leading the court (SCOTUS or Circuit Court) to say that since jurisdiction is changed, the plaintiff has to refile in state court.

[Ned]

Janice Rogers Brown voted in favor of a "parental consent" statute. This is a huge no-no for the Kennedy wing of the Democrat party.

"Justice Brown’s confirmation in the Senate Judiciary Committee did not started off with the most friendly start.

"Justice Brown, your record is that of a conservative judicial activist - plain and simple," Senator **** Durbin said at the hearing.

Liberal democrats say Justice Brown will bring her so-called controversial views to the bench. They say those views include being pro-life, anti-affirmative action and pro-death penalty. Though Justice Brown is being considered for a seat on the DC Court of Appeals, it is the US Supreme Court that really has liberals worried. There's talk here inside the Beltway that she would be at the top of the list to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor if and when she retires. And if that ever happens, the court would be much more conservative on social issues.

Political experts say this becomes the liberals’ worst nightmare: a conservative African American woman with a shot at being on the US Supreme Court. For that reason, Republicans are convinced many liberal Democrats have already made up their mind on her and are determined to stop her nomination. Senator Arlen Spector said it seems Justice Brown has been convicted without a hearing."

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/031023b.asp

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT JUSTICE JANICE ROGERS BROWN
(BUT WON’T HEAR FROM HER CRITICS)

October 21, 2003

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, made the following statement Tuesday in advance of Wednesday’s nomination hearing for California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

“The attacks by partisan special interest groups against Justice Janice Rogers Brown may succeed as fundraising tools and sound bites, but their rhetoric withers in the light of the facts.

“At the Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, you are likely to hear arguments—written by special interest groups and parroted by partisans on the committee—that Justice Brown is ‘anti-civil rights,’ ‘anti-woman’ and ‘out of the mainstream of judicial thought.’ But their claims serve only to make clear that they have not read the cases they cite as arguments against this fine justice, nor have they heard from the people of California, whom she has served so ably for many years.”

The following information on two oft-cited cases—discussing racial preferences and parental consent—is provided to help you decipher the attacks, and to debunk what critics have alleged and will continue to allege at the hearing for this well-qualified nominee:

California Law on Racial Preferences

California Supreme Court: Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose {Cal. 2000} (Prop. 209 case)


Justice Brown authored the majority opinion for a unanimous California Supreme Court to enforce the clear terms of Proposition 209.
Every single judge involved in that case – at the trial, appellate, and state Supreme Court – agreed with her that the challenged San Jose program violated the will of the voters as expressed in Proposition 209.
Then-Justice Stanley Mosk – the court’s “leading liberal” according to the SF Chronicle – joined Justice Brown and wrote a concurring opinion stating that “I agree with the court in the substance of its analysis” and, if anything, “I would go farther than it does.”
Justice Brown: “discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society.” The U.S. Constitution “does not preclude race-conscious programs” to remedy past discrimination.
Proposition 209 and the California State Constitution (Article I, Section 31)

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

U.S. Supreme Court

“[I]n California, . . . racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law.”

Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 2346 (2003) (Justices O’Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer)

California Law on Parental Consent

California Supreme Court: American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (Cal. 1997)


The California Legislature enacted a common-sense law requiring parental consent before a minor can obtain an abortion.
California Supreme Court issued a divided 4-3 opinion invalidating that law.
Justice Brown would have upheld the law. She was not alone – then-Justice Stanley Mosk – the court’s “leading liberal” according to the SF Chronicle – also voted to uphold the law.
The American people

82% of Americans support parental consent laws.

Los Angeles Times poll (6/18/2000)

San Francisco Chronicle: After the 1997 decision on parental consent

“It takes judges with a deep respect for the law, and a willingness to set aside their personal views when making decisions. It takes judges with fearlessness, with a sense of confidence that the ‘right’ outcome will not always be the most popular. Californians have a chance to cast a vote for an independent judiciary on November 3 by retaining . . . Supreme Court justices who . . . have all demonstrated a commitment to sound decision making. . . . If you don't like a law -- or if it conflicts with the state constitution -- change it. The judiciary's job is to make sure that laws are applied fairly. . . . Brown [has] approached this duty with diligence and integrity. [She] should be retained.”

San Francisco Chronicle editorial, Vote for Independent Court (9/27/1998)

California voters during the 1998 elections: After the 1997 decision on parental consent

Justice Janice Brown - 76%
Chief Justice Ronald George - 75%
Justice Stanley Mosk - 70%
Justice Ming Chin - 69%

San Francisco Chronicle (11/5/1998) (100% of precincts reporting)

Sen. Cornyn chairs the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, and is the only former judge on the committee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge. He will introduce Justice Brown at Wednesday’s hearing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014684/posts

[Ned]

From the black commentator:

[Ned]

More from the Black Commentator

[Ned]

Views from California Black Lawyers:

The California Association of Black Lawyers said it made a mistake when it supported Brown during her controversial appointment to the state Supreme Court seven years ago. At the time, said Gillian Small, the current president, CABL "wasn't aware how extreme her opinions would go."

The vote against Brown this time in the 300-lawyer organization was overwhelming, Small said. She said the few dissenters held out hopes that her appointment would turn out to be a good thing for African Americans.

Small cited opinions by Brown, who is African American, on affirmative action and racial harassment in the workplace as illustrating "she is just diametrically opposed to the goals of CABL." The organization is affiliated with the National Bar Association, which Small said will be communicating its views to the Senate.

CABL's Latino counterpart, La Raza Lawyers Association, also spoke out against Brown.

Her opinions in areas such as affirmative action reflect a view that society ought to be colorblind, said Enrique Ramirez, the group's president-elect.

"I join that sentiment," he said, "but we're simply not there. It's simply not the time to have judges who don't see reality out there."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005570/posts?page=3

[Ned]

Here is the best summary of the left's opposition to Janice Brown.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/brown_prof_letter.pdf

In this, it is said that she believes Lochner v. New York remains good law, opposes ordinances designed to transfer wealth, opposes affirmative action and opposes California's more extreme abortion laws. Here is a partial quote from the letter on the latter issue:
"Justice Brown wrote a dissent that would have jettisoned California precedent on reproductive freedom. She wrote that the majority’s decision “dispos[ed] of two decades of highly pertinent United States Supreme Court precedent,” id. at 827 (Brown, J., dissenting), and accused the majority of following a legal philosophy that let judges “topple every cultural icon, to dismiss all societal values, and to become final arbiters of traditional morality.” Id. at 887."

Clearly, Janice Brown is a conservative, and a very articulate one at that. She has Supreme Court written all over her as her critics contend. A truly brilliant woman.

[Ned]

The Republicans shot themselves in the foot in 1995 by opposing a change in the rules regarding filibuster that would have eventually allowed a simple majority vote. http://fairvote.org/reports/1995/chp6/richardson.html

What the above letter notes is that legislation, all legislation, essentially requires 60 votes to pass.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I thought rewriting laws was part of the job description for judges nowadays.

NOWADAYS?! Go back and read Marbury v. Madison

That was making things up out of thin air. Slight difference.

[Ned]

Here is an excerpt from Holmes dissent in Lochner. I must admit, I agree with it. Do you?

"Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law."

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Lochner/HOLMES.html