Replies

I have heard that JRB is pro-choice (only recently). Do you know if that's true?

As I've asserted on numerous occasions, a person's PERSONAL attitude toward an issue is not a good indicator of how that person would rule, if in the position of being a judge of the facts and the law.

In this particular decision, Brown came down on the pro-life side of the issue. Her side lost.

In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997), the majority struck down on state constitutional grounds a statute requiring pregnant minors to secure parental consent or judicial authorization before obtaining an abortion.
In a lengthy dissent, Brown castigates the court for acting as a super-legislature. She states early in her dissent, "The fundamental flaw running throughout [the majority's] analysis is the utter lack of deference to the ordinary constraints of judicial decisionmaking--deference to state precedent, to federal precedent, to the collective judgment of our Legislature, and, ultimately, to the people we serve."
She is particularly dismayed by the court's lack of deference when, as here, the standards dictated by state, federal, and legislative precedent are clearly derived from history, context, and text. With regard to the statute itself, it is notable that Brown (1) finds the statute's age limitation not unreasonable, and (2) acknowledges a liberty interest in parents' controlling their children that is "historically more sacrosanct than a minor's right to privacy."
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2003_03_23_SCOTUSblog.cfm

Lots more good stuff at that link, not all of it about Brown, but much of it including cites to other cases where Brown rendered an opinion.

Here is the ACLU take on the case ...
http://www.aclunc.org/reproductive-rights/ca-court.html

Keep in mind, the ACLU is talking about the majority in the case, and Brown dissented against the majority opinion.

Sorry to field the post to Cbolt, but you might want to read this:

"...As I noted in an earlier piece, pro-life minority nominees represent the perfect storm for Left-leaning opposition groups: non-conformist role models from the Left's most reliable voting blocs who may one day be in a position to reconsider Roe v. Wade. In that regard, Janice Rogers Brown could well be the Storm of the Century: A black female who has been nominated to the court viewed as a springboard to the Supreme Court and who may not view Roe as the zenith of constitutional jurisprudence.
Thomas Sowell adds the kicker: "What really scares the left about Janice Rogers Brown is that she has guts as well as brains. They haven't been able to get her to weaken or to waver. Character assassination is all that the left has left."

Source: NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200505170812.asp

Or, how about this:

"Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School maintains that the Democrats’ unprecedented filibuster of federal appellate-court nominees is driven by the party’s imperative to retain its political advantage with minorities and women...[and] notes that nominees such as “Miguel Estrada, who is Hispanic, Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, Bill Pryor, a brilliant young Catholic, and two white women, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl.” are victims of Democrats’ determination “not to allow any more conservative African-Americans, Hispanics, women or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200505030805.asp

If you've "heard" that she's pro-abortion, it would seem to me that she might be the target of an early whispering campaign designed to reignite conservative backlash against JRB as a questionable candidate. Just my $0.02.