Probably got a "well qualified" from the ABA!
Posted on 06/14/2003 3:01:28 PM PDT by Pokey78
I would hope that is the case.
But if the past is any indication of the future The Democrats will find just enough Republican traitors to make sure this does not happen.
My fear is that (barf alert), he's going to nominate Alberto (Mr. Moderate) Gonzales.
It will be Owen, Pryor or Brown. They are filibuster-proof. The Dems may try to argue that the "agreement" didn't apply to SCOTUS nominations, but (a) the public will view it differently and (b) the 7 GOP members of the "gang of 14" need only 2 defections to detonate the nuke. I'm sure Graham's and DeWine's constituents have let it be known that they'd better be thinking atomic.
Probably got a "well qualified" from the ABA!
DemocRATs and RINOs: BRING IT!
Bush doesn't want to nominate anyone before July 5. If he nominates today, it will be "discussed" on the weekend shows and Americans will come back from vacation with the nominee's "extremism" having been established.
bttt
How does she stand on amendments 1 thru 27 ... that matters to me
We sure don't need a gun grabber at this (or any) time
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200506%5CCOM20050624a.html
In a California case involving a gun show ban in Los Angeles County, Brown wrote a dissent upholding the right of the Great Western Shows to use an L.A. County facility. Brown pointed out that the County was making a law (banning gun shows) that was prohibited by the state's preemption law. Furthermore, the County could not hide behind the fairgrounds management as if the County had no authority over the facility. Brown used language from an amicus curiae brief submitted by Gun Owners of California, a sister organization of Gun Owners of America.
Brown's most extensive Second Amendment scholarship appears in the case involving the California ban on semi-automatic firearms (Kassler v. Lockyer).
In a decision upholding the California ban on certain semi-autos (the so-called "semi-autos") -- even while Brown (mistakenly) felt obliged to uphold the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Constitution -- it became quite clear that she at least understood the Constitution.
She criticized the Court's uneven and arbitrary standards regarding rights as being "highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid." And she faulted the Court for picking and choosing which rights they liked.
In the same decision she observes that: "Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms -- a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions.... [s]urely the right to preserve one's life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one's privacy."
Please see my post above. The article is by Larry Pratt.
In a decision upholding the California ban on certain semi-autos (the so-called "semi-autos") -- even while Brown (mistakenly) felt obliged to uphold the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Constitution -- it became quite clear that she at least understood the Constitution...... "Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms -- a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions.... [s]urely the right to preserve one's life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one's privacy."
Well, there is the rub. Her words make it clear that she sees the issue as a fundamental right, and yet she went along with the rights-deniers and their U.S. vs. Miller - Presser vs. Illinois sophistry.
She walked right up to the central issue, and then she blinked. What's she going to do in the glare of the limelight on the Supreme Court, when Larry Tribe's best students are clerking for her and feeding her precedents suggested in late-night, back-channel phone calls from Tribe's study, undermining the clear language of the Constitution and the Federalist?
It sounds like she's a practical person with originalist impulses, but unless she were insulated from the social pressure in DC to "go along" with the "forward-thinking" liberal crowd, and unless she were taken under Clarence Thomas's wing to mature her originalism and strengthen her backbone, I think she'd turn out to be another squishy, go-along disappointment like Kennedy and Souter, or a swinging gate like Sandra Day O'Connor.
--- In another gun case, Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal.4th 472 (2000), Brown, writing for the majority, upheld California's Assault Weapons Ban, but only over equal protection, separation of powers, and due process objections, not against a Second Amendment challenge.
However, she does emphasize that the California constitution contains no fundamental right to bear arms; indeed, she points out that the regulation of firearms has always been a proper police function of California.
Evident in Kasler, as in American Academy of Pediatrics, is Brown's strong principle of judicial deference to legislative findings.
______________________________________
Lentus:
She's a dud on RKBA, boys. I smell a gun-hater hiding behind an unconstitutional statute.
I doubt she's a gun hater.. I see her as a constitutional originalist that [once given lifetime tenure on the SCOTUS] would show far less "deference to legislative findings."
RKBA may not be protected by the California constitution, but the Second Amendment was incorporated to the States by the Fourteenth's "Privileges and Immunities" Clause: Amendment XIV. Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which speaks directly to California's gun bans and refusals to issue licenses as infringements on the Second Amendment, never mind whether California ever got around to writing gun rights into its constitution.
Not to mention the clear words of Article VI, which expressly require "all" officials in the USA to support the supreme "Law of the Land", notwithstanding anything to the contrary in State constitutions. --
Given the opportunity, I believe Brown would support the 2nd & 14th amendments, and Article VI.
I would hope so, but the point of my post is that, given a chance to do so in the California case cited loc. cit., she walked right up to the issue, looked it in the eye......and punted.
Notice, by the way, that in the current FR poll on a replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist, neither Scalia nor Thomas was on the list of potential nominees for CJ.
Hmmmmmm.
OK, Karl -- put their names back on the list!!!
Then let's vote.
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.