Skip to comments.Janice Rogers Brown...for the Record
Posted on 09/17/2005 1:02:25 AM PDT by Embraer2004
Janice Rogers Brown's Record
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was first nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2003. (Confirmed in June 2005) The D.C. Circuit is thought of as "second only to the Supreme Court in influence over law and policy in this country," according to the Alliance for Justice. "Unlike other regional courts of appeals, Congress has conferred on the court concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation of many federal statutes and over the validity of regulations issued by executive agencies. As a result, D.C. Circuit not only hears appeals of cases involving federal rights of D.C. residents, but establishes precedent in areas such as labor and workers' safety laws and environmental protections that affect all Americans in very significant ways."
There is no debating that the latest round of confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee have brought the partisan battle over judges to a new level with the very real possibility of the end of the filibuster tactic of blocking nominees movement forward. Recently President Bush went around the the Senate approval process and appointed controversial nominee William H. Pryor to an interim place on the bench. But this time the administration and some GOP senators appear prepared to use the "nuclear option" to clear the path for Brown and Priscilla Owen. (A compromised reached by GOP and Dem Senators to give her an up-and-down vote, Rogers Brown Prevailed 57-43)
Called by THE WASHINGTON POST "one of the most unapologetically ideological nominees of either party in many years," Brown has gained the clear support of many conservatives, while some Democrats have pointed to her "aggressive judicial activism" as proof that she is "unfit to serve on the appeals court."
You be the judge.
JANICE ROGERS BROWN Janice Rogers Brown's biography on the California Courts Web site provides background on Brown's professional career. The ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION reports on Brown's recollection of her childhood and the "lessons she learned as a sharecropper's daughter in the segregated South." Although her critics fear that her convictions will compromise her ability to judge fairly, Brown explained in her hearing that her personal philosophy would not and had not affected her rulings: "I do recognize the difference in the role between speaking and being a judge." Go directly to the case files and find out what Justice Brown has to say with the following links.
FAMILY RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
In Brown's only opinion dealing with abortion, she argued that the court majority's decision ruling unconstitutional a parental consent law for minors seeking abortions would "dismiss societal values" and would allow courts to "become final arbiters of traditional morality."
In another family values case, she dissented from a ruling upholding the validity of second-parent adoptions in the case of a same-sex couple. Read about the cases below.
American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren Sharon S. v. Superior Court
CORPORATE LIABILITY AND WORKERS' RIGHTS
According to the People for the American Way, Brown "has dissented from several rulings protecting the rights of investors and other consumers, arguing that previous precedents should be abandoned."
Loder v. City of Glendale Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.
CIVIL RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION
People for the American Way complain that Justice Brown's opinions on civil rights law "reveal significant skepticism about the existence and impact of discrimination." Read some of Justice Brown's opinions from these cases.
Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission Peatros v. Bank of America Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc.
In the case Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose, Justice Brown wrote the majority opinion upholding California's Proposition 209, an initiative prohibiting government entities from any use of gender or racial preferences.
Read the Majority Opinion and Disposition from the California Supreme Court Ruling made November 30, 2000.
SUPPORTERS OF BROWN'S NOMINATION
Senator Orrin Hatch "How anyone would not think you are a superior nominee is beyond me. I'm going to do all that I can to see that you are confirmed."
NewsMax.com "Why attack Brown? It's rather simple and rather sad: Janice Rogers Brown is a black woman who happens to think for herself and has rejected knee-jerk obeisance to left-wing orthodoxy."
Project 21 "Members of the African-American leadership network Project 21... demand that the Brown confirmation process be handled in a quick and timely manner, devoid of scare tactics and procedural skullduggery."
Bi-Partisan Group of 15 California Law Professors (as cited by Idaho GOP) "We know Justice Brown to be a person of high intelligence, unquestioned integrity, and even-handedness. Since we are of differing political beliefs and perspectives, Democratic, Republican and Independent, we wish especially to emphasize what we believe is Justice Brown's strongest credential for appointment to this important seat on the D.C. Circuit: her open-minded and thorough appraisal of legal argumentation even when her personal views may conflict with those arguments."
Bi-Partisan Group of 12 of Justice Brown's Current and Former Judicial Colleagues (as cited by Idaho GOP) "Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the federal bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily basis know her to be extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a jurist who applies the law without favor and without bias, and with an even hand."
Family Research Council "This is the new McCarthyism. Democrats have turned the Judiciary Committee into the Senate Un-American Activities Committee, slamming Bush's judicial picks with the slander-filled talking points of the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual lobby. Critiquing a nominee's record is one thing; bringing them to tears with inflammatory cartoons and questions laced with lies is a whole different story."
OPPONENTS OF BROWN'S NOMINATION
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) "As long as the administration continues to do this [nominate "conservative ideologues"], we will continue to block judges who are outside the mainstream." and "I am disappointed to be here on this nomination. It's almost like this administration is looking for someone who will most antagonize us."
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) "Unfortunately, the White House's recent nominees to the D.C. Circuit appear to continue a disturbing pattern of nominating judges who are extreme. Hopefully today the president will get the message that his current approach to nominations is not working."
Save Our Courts "Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State Reverend Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director: "It is unfathomable to me that in 2003 anyone would seriously argue that Alabama, for example, could declare an official state religion. Yet that is the practical effect of Brown's views. That alone should disqualify her from the federal bench."
Congressional Black Caucus "Justice Brown's disdain for legal precedent could not be clearer. In many of her decisions, Justice Brown appears to be a jurist on a right-wing mission.... Justice Brown's record proves that she is unable or unwilling to divorce her personal views from her responsibility to fairly interpret the law and the Constitution. She should not be elevated to a federal court where she could further undermine the rule of law and the attendant legal protections."
NARAL Pro-Choice America "Janice Rogers Brown demonstrated her opposition to a woman's right to privacy when she wrote a caustic dissent to a California Supreme Court's ruling that a California parental consent law with respect to abortion violated the state constitution's right to privacy."
Well if she IS skeptical, she's probably in a position to know. And if she's NOT skeptical, she probably knows a thing or two MORE about it than People for the "American Way".
Either way its a win.
She is being rumored as the next Supreme Court nominee...will the DemocRATS have the guts of attacking her in front of all the cameras/television especially in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster? If Bush has the cojones, he will nominate her and let the country witness the real Democratic Party in action.
Yes, of course they will. Did you forget Justice Thomas?
The Democrats will pull out all the stops. No holds barred. they will find her old boyfriends, prove she's Hitler's mother, and blame the Civil war on her.
Yes, they will damage themselves in the process, but only fleetingly so. Do you think Bush or any Republican will stand up and point out to the American people just how democrats really treat Blacks? No, of course they wont. The Republicans don't know how to take the gloves off.
Of course the Democrats will put up a major fight to keep Janice Rogers Brown off the court. They even rallied against David Souter in 1990 because the abortion rights groups presumed he was pro-life and put out the message on fliers saying "Stop Souter, he'll let women die".
No surprise that Kennedy will be part of the major opposition since he was one of the 9 who voted against Souter!
The Senate voted 90 to 9 to confirm David Souter in 1990, all 9 opponents were democrats: Adams (D-WA), Akaka (D-HI), Bradley (D-NJ), Burdick (D-ND), Cranston (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD)
Curious about how they're going to attack her? Here's a taste of what they're lining up for this accomplished and outstanding woman.
'Far Right Dream Judge' Janice Rogers Brown Joins Lineup of Extremist Appeals Court Nominees
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of President Bush's most recent nominees to the federal appeals court, has a record of ideological extremism and aggressive judicial activism that makes her unfit to serve on the appeals court, according to a an in-depth analysis of her record released by People For the American Way and the NAACP. Brown, nominated to the DC Circuit Court, is one of many Bush judicial nominees that could come before the Judiciary Committee and full Senate this fall.
"Janice Rogers Brown is the far right's dream judge," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. "She embodies Clarence Thomas's ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia's abrasiveness and right-wing activism. Giving her a powerful seat on the DC Circuit Court would be a disaster."
"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 Washington Bureau. "For the administration to bring forward a nominee with this record and hope to get some kind of credit because she is the first African American woman nominated to the DC Circuit is one more sign of the administration's political cynicism."
The report, "Loose Cannon," notes that when Brown was nominated to the state supreme court in 1996, she was found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee, based not only on her relative inexperience but also because she was "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions" and based on complaints that she was "insensitive to established precedent."
I hope Bush follows through and names her to the court. The unbearable behavior of these leftists is despicable on their best day. I will get out into the streets myself to protest in her favor. At the very least in her favor, all the right groups hate her and that makes her tops in my book. ; )
Here is her entry in the Wikipedia
Keep in mind that her ruling on the California Assault Gun Ban was in favor of a State's right to enforce the ban, and not an endorsement of policy.
Sounds better than the other one.
What's her stand on the Second Amendment??
She may be a female Clarence Thomas.
We NEED the Administration getting into a knock-down drag out fight with the libs like Kennedy and Leahy, spitting in their face, and putting a solid strcit constructionist on the Court.
Thats why we campaigned for and elected Bush twice.
I hope she gets nominated and then lets see the Dems try to destroy her without looking intolerant.
Wonder what Kanye would think? /extreme sarcasm
It's beyond me why anyone cares what Dems think about this or that nominee, considering their 44 seat MINORITY status.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but besides her obvious intelligence and grasp of the law, I think Janice Rogers Brown is an extremely attractive woman!
What do you call a judge who refuses to use judicial power to gut or annul conservative legislation, or to advance the liberal agenda in the guise of a judicial opinion?
If you're liberal, you call them an out-of-the-mainstream "judicial activist."
"It's almost like this administration is looking for someone who will most antagonize us." Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
What "most antagonizes" the Left is someone who holds and demonstrates a deep reverence for God, Country, the Constitution and the Rule of Law. People, like Janice Rogers Brown, who have honor and integrity,and who actually have core principles and strong beliefs about right and wrong,scare the Chuckie Schumer's of the world to death.
The people on the Left have painted themselves quite the lovely facade of superior intellect, knowledge,wisdom, caring,compassion, and concern for their fellow man. They are a sight to behold as long as the lighting is favorable. But, when they are contrasted with the genuine article (like a Janice Rogers Brown, or John Roberts) in the bright light of truth, they are like carnival hawkers on the morning after the night before when the neon lights, painted signs, and loud music are revealed as garish and cheap in the bright sunshine.
PBS needs to be defunded. If all they can do is bring out the usual left-wing suspects who oppose her nomination, then they're not fit to even exist, much less receive taxpayer funding.
How close minded you are. Dick Durbin told us we weren't bothered by such things - weren't you listening when he was lambasting the new PBS director for his efforts to bring a balance of shows to the network?
Judge Janice Rogers Brown does not give a damn what the DemocRATS think of her. She is an even handed, extremely brilliant Judge. She will an excellent addition to the Supreme Court because I think that Chief Justice Roberts will move the Court to the left of Renquist. We need Thomas, Scalia, and Brown to gravitate the Court to the left. Roberts will be a reliable Conservative vote but he has too much respect to Roe v. Wade as "precedent". Rogers Brown will not! And besides, she is attractive and not an old goat like Bader Ginsburg.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown does not give a damn what the DemocRATS think of her. She is an even handed, extremely brilliant Judge. She will AN excellent addition to the Supreme Court because I think that Chief Justice Roberts will move the Court to the left of Renquist. We need Thomas, Scalia, and Brown to gravitate the Court to the RIGHT. Roberts will be a reliable Conservative vote but he has too much respect to Roe v. Wade as "precedent". Rogers Brown will not! And besides, she is attractive and not an old goat like Bader Ginsburg.
SORRY, I MISSPOKE.
Justice Brown recently got a high vote approval for her current position. So the Senate must know that they cannot in good conscience turn right around and call her extreme.
Rumored by whom? Do you have a link to a source that confirms this? I would welcome her nomination, but I doubt Bush will do it, especially not now. Maybe he will go for broke with JPS's seat if it becomes vacant.
From what I am hearing it is going to be Owens (for O'Connor's seat).
I personally would like to see Roberts filibustered, the senate would then enact the nuke option, then and only then could Brown be the nominee.
Then if W has another opportunity to select another nominee for the SC (you know the dembos are crossing their crook fingers that this doesn't take place) we'd have the SC set up to turn the country extremely back to the right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.