Leading With the Women

The New York Times ^ | April 28, 2005

[Irontank]

If war breaks out in the Senate over judicial nominations, the initial battle is likely to center on two women, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Republicans seem to think that those nominees will come off as so likeable that Democrats will be forced to back down from their threats of a filibuster. But when the American public looks beyond the photo-op, it will be clear why these women do not belong on the federal bench. Both have records of kowtowing to big business and showing contempt for ordinary people who are the victims of injustice.

Senate Democrats have confirmed almost all of President Bush's judicial nominations, more than 200 of them. But they have balked at a few of the least qualified, most ideologically driven nominees. The Republicans have, shamefully, countered with accusations of ethnic and religious bias. When Democrats blocked one far-right Hispanic, Republicans claimed that he was a victim of anti-Hispanic discrimination - even though Hispanic groups opposed him. An address by Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, was heard last weekend as part of a convention that attacked Senate Democrats as being "against people of faith" for blocking judicial nominees. Now the Republicans appear to be trying to make the opposition look sexist.

Justice Owen was elected to the Texas Supreme Court with Karl Rove as a campaign consultant, and with donations from Enron and other large corporations. On the court, she has a record of reflexively ruling in favor of corporations, including Enron. She bent the law in an attempt to protect an insurance company that wrongly refused to cover a woman's heart surgery bills, and a carmaker against a lawsuit by a teenager paralyzed in an accident.

There are serious questions about Justice Owen's willingness to enforce the law when it does not match her ideology. In a dissent in a much-discussed abortion case, she wanted to rewrite Texas law to make it harder for minors seeking abortions to bypass the requirement that they notify their parents. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, suggested that Justice Owen's narrow reading of the law was "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Justice Brown, currently a member of the California Supreme Court, is an extreme right-wing ideologue. She is an outspoken supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to before 1937, when the federal government had little power to prevent discrimination, protect workers from unsafe conditions or prohibit child labor. She has attacked the New Deal, which created Social Security, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution."

On the bench, Justice Brown - a black woman raised in segregated Alabama - is a consistent enemy of minorities and old people, and of people injured by big business. In an age discrimination case, she wrote a lone dissent against a fired 60-year-old employee, warning about the harm the case could do to the "stability of the business community." She contended - contrary to established law - that age discrimination "is the unavoidable consequence of that universal leveler: time."

The Republicans are trying to make the fight about process, about whether the Democrats have a right to filibuster judicial nominees. It is a dishonest discussion: Senator Frist does not like to admit that he participated in a filibuster of an appeals court nomination made by President Clinton. But even more important, the discussion of process is crowding out the debate we should be hearing over whether the nominees being fought over would make good federal judges. Justice Owen and Justice Brown have extensive records that point to the inescapable conclusion that they would not.

[Irontank]

More simple-minded drivel from America's leading liberal college newspaper

She is an outspoken supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to before 1937

Yes...she wants to take constitutional law back to a time when it squared with the actual written Constitution...how radical...how "far right"...how hateful

The Republicans have, shamefully, countered with accusations of ethnic and religious bias.

Well...when leftists start publishing political cartoons like the one below...we do start to wonder if these "racially-sensitive" liberals may have just a little bit of racism in them

Brought to You Courtesy of the Multicultural Left

[Skooz]

You forgot the mega-barf alert.

But, I guess putting one on anything by the NYT would be redundant.

[goldstategop]

White liberals are racists and misogynists. But you'll never witness the New York Times admit this inescapable fact about the Left's state of mind in regards to minorities.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Anybody or anything the New York Slimes opposes, I am for.

[bray]

Translation: She's a Black Christian Conservative, even worse than a White Christian Conservative.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Piquaboy]

Does anyone in flyover country read this rag?

[ken5050]

A small suggestion...next time, please identify if this is a news story or an editorial from the NY Times..it's very hard to tell which it is otherwise...(G)

[kevkrom]

Senate Democrats have confirmed almost all of President Bush's judicial nominations, more than 200 of them.

Yeah, but have stalled nearly all of the appeals court nominations, which is where judicial activism really matters.

[Enterprise]

"Both have records of kowtowing to big business and showing contempt for ordinary people who are the victims of injustice."

The NYT is also "big business" but I guess they forgot about that. They are a "correct" business which stands in judgment and condemnation of businesses they haughtily deem as "not correct."

"There are serious questions about Justice Owen's willingness to enforce the law when it does not match her ideology."

Dear Lord take me now. Democrat judges who flatly ignore the law when it does not match their ideology are praised by liberals. How STUPID can the people at the NYT be to publish such a statement??? ! ! !

[poobear]

"Does anyone in flyover country read this rag?"

I doubt it. The Times called my home several months ago to ask if I would like to receive free delivery for a month. I told them no thanks, to biased for me. It's been delivered everyday now for over 6 months. No bill, just the paper 7 days a week. I just put in the recycle pile. Sometimes the sports section get picked through, that's about it. ;D!

[ILS21R]

More racist tripe from the right parenthesis.

[JCEccles]

What shameful and appalling race-baiting! The left has over the years cast the federal bench so much in its own image that any nominee who does not embrace a liberal agenda can be and often is portrayed as being an extreme right wing ideologue.

Justice Rogers-Brown hews to Scalia-type strict constructionism, which strives to keep the judiciary out of the legislature's business and vice versa. It does not prevent or restrict the socialist agenda from being implemented. Rather, it resists allowing the federal bench to be made into a quasi-legislative arm and insists that the left fight and win its battles in the legislative arena where bad results have a chance of being undone and lawmakers can be held accountable by the citizens whose lives they screw up with left-wing legislation and social experimentation.

The left is so accustomed to getting its odious legislation implemented via life-tenured liberals on the federal bench it cannot conceive of having another justice on the Supreme Court who opposes this abuse of power.

[Feckless]

Both have records of kowtowing to big business

As opposed to being Big Labor butt boys?

[docbnj]

The New York Times editorial page is utter trash.

Their arguments are so unsubstantiated and vile, that it is amazing that amyone takes them seriously.

I have fun with my coworkers over this. I tell them that it is OK to read the NY times, but to believe it is a sign of unforgivable ignorance.

[Piquaboy]

That thing would not even be a good replacement for a catalog in the outhouse.

[KenmcG414]

Reads like a ringing endorsement to me!

[KenmcG414]

Reads like a ringing endorsement to me!

[tahiti]

"Justice Brown, currently a member of the California Supreme Court, is an extreme right-wing ideologue. She is an outspoken supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to before 1937, when the federal government had little power to prevent discrimination, protect workers from unsafe conditions or prohibit child labor. She has attacked the New Deal, which created Social Security, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution."

I deduce from Justice Brown's remarks is that she knows how to read the U.S. Constitution.

Democrats are quick to defend individual rights but scamper like scared "Rats" when the judicial system, rightly, defends property rights.

[KC_Conspirator]

This is supposed to be the "paper of record"? This is a sophomore level smear job through and through.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only the pretentious.