[Mulderator]

Janice Rogers Brown, the black daughter of a sharecropper who has reached the pinnacle of the legal profession was confirmed today to the Federal Bench and will be this country's next Supreme Court Justice! She was confirmed despite the lies and obfuscation of Democrats. Democrats fear her because she is a fierce protector the Constitiution and Capitalism (which was ordained first by the Constitution) and abhorrs the socialist values that have all but destroyed the inner cities of this country (not to mention chipped away at the core freedoms the Constitution guaranteed us all to determine our own destinies).

For anyone who doubts this woman's intellect and ability, read this speech--absolutely amazing--only Scalia write with more eloquent prose:

http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/...jrb_fedsoc.htm

I especially liked this:

Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism's virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental and profound flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice — including our freedom. Revel notes that Marxism has been "shamed and ridiculed everywhere except American universities" but only after totalitarian systems "reached the limits of their wickedness."

"Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty."

Revel warns: "The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form. [¶]... [i]t ... will [probably] put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and 'exclusion.'"

Of course, given the vision of the American Revolution just outlined, you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.

At this moment, it seems likely leviathan will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

How about that last paragraph? The Democrats claim this woman doesn't represent America's values, which really shows how out of touch they are with American values. Give me this woman's values any day!

[linskyjack]

Mulder, once again you use the rather absurd tactic of claiming that someone's ability is based on what they overcame. If that were the criteria, then Hitler would be a winner! Heck I dont care where she came from---it's what she has done as a judge that is important. I'm telling you, this woman was held up because of her right wing positions on social issues and her great benevolence for anything that a corporation does.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

How about that last paragraph? The Democrats claim this woman doesn't represent America's values, which really shows how out of touch they are with American values. Give me this woman's values any day!

i dunno about all the distinct rhetoric re: totalitarianism and socialism...she actually seemed, i hope, to be letting the politicos know that "leaner is meaner", as well (it was a determined speech, btw....especially in its manifestos re: freedom and the opprotunities of captialism)

if she's for trimming the fat of the feds and individual freedoms without moral imperatives....she's ok in my book....african american woman are tough!!!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Mulder, once again you use the rather absurd tactic of claiming that someone's ability is based on what they overcame. If that were the criteria, then Hitler would be a winner! Heck I dont care where she came from---it's what she has done as a judge that is important. I'm telling you, this woman was held up because of her right wing positions on social issues and her great benevolence for anything that a corporation does.

Well, like it or not Linsky, she's your next Supreme Court Judge. The Dems already agreed they wouldn't filibuster a SC nominee. We'll see if they keep their word!

[linskyjack]

No, they didn't guarantee that they would fillibuster an SC nominee. They said that if the SC nominee is a radical, they would fillibuster him or her. In their advisory role, they also asked the right wing-owned president to consult with the judiciary committee before sending nominees up. That might mitigate against a messy confirmation process. Of course, this president, doesn't do anything in a bi-partisian fashion.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

No, they didn't guarantee that they would fillibuster an SC nominee. They said that if the SC nominee is a radical, they would fillibuster him or her. In their advisory role, they also asked the right wing-owned president to consult with the judiciary committee before sending nominees up. That might mitigate against a messy confirmation process. Of course, this president, doesn't do anything in a bi-partisian fashion.

No--my understanding is that applied only to further Federal Court nominees--I could be wrong on that--but that's my recollection. Find the deal and post it here.

[linskyjack]

I think the same holds true on both Fed nominations and SC nominations--They would only use the fillibuster on those they considered to be way out of the mainstream- Of course, there is no definition of way out of the mainstream but one could easily guess what that means for different senators.

[angelize56]

What do you make of this Mulder?

The Republicans had to do something to make Janice Rogers Brown appear a sympathetic figure. The California state judge “has such an atrocious civil rights record she makes Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall," said Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) at a Congressional Black Caucus press conference, last week. "She's cut from the same cloth as Clarence Thomas," declared Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting representative in the House, and one of the caucus’s leading legal lights. George Bush “hasn’t fooled us” with his nomination of Brown to become the second Black woman on the DC Court of Appeals.

Indeed, Janice Brown is “to the Right of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia,” according to a study by People for the American Way. “Her many disturbing dissents, often not joined by a single other justice, make it clear that she would use the power of an appeals court seat to try to erect significant barriers for victims of discrimination to seek justice in the courts, and to push an agenda that would undermine privacy, equal protection under the law, environmental protection, and much more.”

http://www.blackcommentator.com/61/61_cover_rogers.html

[angelize56]

^ I'm not knocking Brown...just wondered how you thought about how others see her...

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by angelize56

^ I'm not knocking Brown...just wondered how you thought about how others see her...

I could care less.

[Mulderator]

Linksy, this article seems to say the issue of SC nominees was left unanswered in the deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052900812.html

My guess is that Brown will not be filibustered, althoug will be heavily oppossed.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Linksy, this article seems to say the issue of SC nominees was left unanswered in the deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052900812.html

My guess is that Brown will not be filibustered, althoug will be heavily oppossed.

Oh it does, but from listening to several senators from both parties speak, my understanding is that the agreement is in play for SC candidates too. By the way, the 'arrangement' is essentially meaningless---it was merely a way for righty to save face--look at the polls vis a vis the fillibuster--I have a feeling that the first vacancy in the SC, Bush goes to the moderate republicans and asks for their advice, before he kites the nominee. In that sense, the so-called deal is a good thing!

[teengeekgrrl]

Ordinarily, I would step in and say something... but I have no clue who this woman is so I won't judge. But I do have one comment-I don't care about her background or her ability to write speeches.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

Ordinarily, I would step in and say something... but I have no clue who this woman is so I won't judge. But I do have one comment-I don't care about her background or her ability to write speeches.

Well, the words reveal a lot--the intellect for one. If you read opinions by Scalia, as a lawyer, you are amazed at the clarity of thinking and eloquence of writing. All the SC judges do that, but he's a cut above the rest. So the way someone speaks and writes when it comes to a judge does lend insight into the person's ability.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Oh it does, but from listening to several senators from both parties speak, my understanding is that the agreement is in play for SC candidates too.

The first paragraph of the article:

The fragile compromise that averted a Senate showdown over judicial filibusters last week deliberately left unanswered the crucial issue likely to be at the heart of a debate over a future Supreme Court vacancy: Can Democrats filibuster a nominee on the grounds that he or she is too conservative without triggering the "nuclear option"?

To me that seems clear--as to the SC judges, we do not know if they will be filibustered--it has NEVER happened in the history of the Senate (and don't bring up Fortas--he was already on the court and the issue was making him the Chief Justice). I have to believe that the 7 Republicans knew that Bush would want Brown nominated. He's not going to listen to them--he'll do what he thinks is right. He may not nomnate her but only if he thinks there is a better candidate.

Frankly, I am not oppossed at all to moderate judges, but the problem is both sides don't do that. If a Dem is elected President, he will put out leftist judges so this is the only way to keep balance.