Janice Brown being considered for DC Circuit or Supreme Court

[Toto]

Bush May Tap Calif. Justice for Federal Seat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2937-2003Jul16.html?nav=hptoc_p)

Brown was in town to deliver a commencement address at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. The speech was an extended critique of what Brown saw as the moral relativism of modern society.

"Scientists and philosophers have spent the last hundred years trying to organize society as if God did not exist and the last two centuries seeking to reshape society through industrial development, social engineering and various forms of wealth creation and distribution," she told the graduates. "This process was supposed to bring forth a new man, a new, improved humanity. The project was a miserable failure."



Just what we need, someone who longs for the middle ages.

Mentioned to replace Sanda Day O'Connor (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6082362.htm)

In many ways, her line of thinking mirrors both the Bush administration and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A Christian black woman from the segregated South, Brown supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.

. . .

Close friend Douglas Kmiec, departing dean of the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law, where Brown gave a commencement address last month, said she became a lawyer after her grandmother espoused the virtues of civil rights attorney Fred Gray, who defended Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.

"That was held out to her at an early age," Kmiec said.

Brown also finds inspiration in her religion, Kmiec said. While introducing Brown to the graduating law students on May 24, he said she formulates opinions "in prayer and quiet study of the Bible." And in her commencement address, she criticized philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society "as if God did not exist."

[Javaman]

Eeek...
This process was supposed to bring forth a new man, a new, improved humanity. The project was a miserable failure.
People that believe this (and those that think the End of Times is near) bother me. Would anyone really want to live a full lifetime in the past? Sure, some folks had it good... but most did not. Even those in the upper tier of society had some pretty awful crap to deal with all the way up to the advent of modern plumbing and antibiotics.

The recent past is slightly different but I'd only want to live in, say, the 1950's if I could pick my race, profession, and country.

Are things really worse now than in the past? In most respects, and in the USA, things on the whole are not worse.

[PopeInTheWoods]

"Miserable failure", indeed. Doesn't she realize that without the last few centuries of work by those accursed "scientists and philosophers", she would either have been a slave, or basically been treated as one by first her father, then her husband? That she wouldn't have been able to attend law school, much less become a judge? That she would probably have died from consumption or complications from childbirth?

Damn those "scientists and philosophers" for their antibiotics, abolitionism, agricultural advancements, universal suffrage, and vaccines. Who needs low infant mortality, personal freedoms, and long life expectancies anyway?

Andy

[Vylo]

Ah 1950's nostalgia, it's pretty common, but even then the social environment in relation to the family was not quite as good as it is today. The massive economic advantage of that decade would definetly be nice though :)

[Stephen Maturin]

Brown is now officially (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030725-14.html) a nominee for one of the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit.

[ohwilleke]

Originally posted by Vylo
Ah 1950's nostalgia, it's pretty common, but even then the social environment in relation to the family was not quite as good as it is today. The massive economic advantage of that decade would definetly be nice though :)

1950s nostalgia is one thing. 1803 nostaligia is another.

[Toto]

Janice Brown is noted in California for, how to put it, unjudicious speech.

As Sharp As They Come (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236058)

When the California Supreme Court limited the use of stun belts on criminal defendants in courtrooms, it wasn't the decision that raised eyebrows: It was the lone dissent by Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

The 53-year-old Republican appointee lashed out at her fellow jurists, accusing them of "rushing to judgment after conducting an embarrassing Google.com search for information outside the record," and criticizing them for citing a student law review article and a story from a left-wing magazine.
. . . .

She once alluded to the majority justices as "philosopher kings" when they voided a law requiring minors to obtain parental consent for abortions. In another case she accused them of being "wimps" for letting the legislative and executive branches appoint some of the judges to the state's lawyer-discipline court.

. . .

Brown joined the high court in 1996 after once again being rated not qualified. At that time the state nominations commission said she lacked sufficient legal and judicial experience for the high court and that she improperly injected her political philosophy into her judicial opinions.

[lpetrich]

Thus making her the sort of judicial activist that right-wingers adore.

She seems like a female Clarence Thomas -- and a rather belligerent one at that.

[fried beef sandwich]

Thank goodness the state nominations committee did their job last time. Now I only hope they don't drop the ball again...

It must be frustrating to be a fundy judge - you're out to change the world into god's image, but your job description doesn't allow it. The law is the law is the law. Maybe that's why she's got so much rage.

[Toto]

Don't you remember? When President Bush took office, he discontinued asking the ABA for their approval on his judicial nominees.

Given the range of his nominees, I'm not even sure Janice Brown is extreme enough to filibuster.

[Toto]

I'm bumping this up because Brown's nomination is in the news, and liberal groups like NARAL (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/takeaction/index.cfm) have started to campaign against her.

Latest LA Times article on Janice Rogers Brown (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-janice18oct18,1,1592332.story)

. . .

The American Bar Assn. has rated her "qualified" for the federal post, rather than either the superior "well-qualified" endorsement or the thumbs-down, "unqualified" rating. Even the "qualified" rating was lukewarm: Fewer than 10 of the 14 members on the committee considered her fit for the appeals court.

. . .

"In terms of her written opinions, I probably would put her pretty close to Justice Clarence Thomas" on the U.S. Supreme Court, Caso said.

In a speech three years ago, Brown described herself as a "true conservative."

"Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible," she said.

[Toto]

Hearings on Janice Brown (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/politics/23JUDG.html)

In April 2000, she said at a meeting of the Federalist Society at the University of Chicago Law School that "where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and ability to control our own destiny atrophies." A result, she said, "is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, asked, "You really believe that?"

Justice Brown, as Clarence Thomas did in 1991, dismissed the significance of her words, saying they were "just speeches." She said she was "simply stirring the pot a little bit, getting people to think, to challenge them."

Brown defends record as Democrats question speeches, judicial decisions (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/22/national1218EDT0602.DTL)

"You have described the year 1937 -- the year in which President Roosevelt's New Deal legislation started taking effect -- as 'the triumph of our socialist revolution,"' Durbin said. "Given that the federal government and its role in our lives is your major responsibility if you're appointed to the D.C. circuit court, I hope you can understand why some people have taken great issue with statements you have made and the philosophy which you bring before this committee."

Brown said she was speaking to an audience of young law students and was trying to make them think. But she stood by the statements. "The speech speaks for itself," she said

[Toto]

Finally a journalist reports the real issue.

Brown under fire (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brown23oct23,1,1690468.story?coll=la-headlines-nation-manual)

In a 1999 speech at Pepperdine University titled "Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square," Brown disputed the doctrine of separation of church and state and questioned whether the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, applied to the states.

This view harkens back to a lively dispute among constitutional scholars in the first half of the 20th century. The 1st Amendment begins with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press"

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment said that states may not "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or deny them "life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The amendment set off a century of debate in the Supreme Court on whether states were truly barred from infringing the basic guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

"The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy," Brown said in her Pepperdine speech. "The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming'' that the 14th Amendment failed to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Brown said Wednesday there was historical evidence pointing in both directions. But she also said she accepted the Supreme Court's view that the Bill of Rights protects all Americans today.

"What the Supreme Court said is what counts. Speeches are an opportunity to think out loud," she said

Still, Brown's critics have called her view radical, out of step with decades of law.

"It is unfathomable to me that in 2003 anyone would seriously argue that Alabama, for example, could declare an official religion," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

[lpetrich]

In April 2000, she said at a meeting of the Federalist Society at the University of Chicago Law School that "where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and ability to control our own destiny atrophies." A result, she said, "is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."Government is to blame? I suppose that inhabitants of places with wimpy or impotent governments would be very saintly. Ms. Brown ought to consider Albania or Somalia in recent years, or post-conquest Afghanistan or Iraq, and see what saintly societies they have been.

Justice Brown, as Clarence Thomas did in 1991, dismissed the significance of her words, saying they were "just speeches." She said she was "simply stirring the pot a little bit, getting people to think, to challenge them."Maybe someone ought to give her a taste of her own medicine.

Like defend the Ku Klux Klan as an organization of noble patriots who enforce the proper hierarchy of the races, and who punish black men who lust after white women.

And defend the days of slavery as days in which Ms. Brown would be much more productive picking cotton.

And defend the days in which people believed in the inverted deep-sea-anglerfish theory of gender relations, in which Ms. Brown would essentially be an appendange of her husband.

[ohwilleke]

I heard some of her testimony on NPR.

Q: Does the Federal Constitution trump State Constitutions?
A: I don't know. I've never considered the issue.

Q: Can states protect privacy more than the federal government does?
A: No.

She was rated unqualified before her appointment to the California Supreme Court, where she was frequently the lone dissenter on an overwhelmingly Republican appointed court.

She doubts that the 1st Amendment applies to the states in any way shape or form.

This reactionary dim bulb needs to get out of law and write a conservative opinion column instead.

[hezekiah jones]

Q: Does the Federal Constitution trump State Constitutions?
A: I don't know. I've never considered the issue.

:confused:

[Toto]

I heard that exchange. I couldn't figure out if she was playing dumb, or was actually that clueless, but I figured it was the former, and some political consultant had instructed her to say that she had not thought about issues that she might want to rule on later. (Didn't Clarence Thomas do something similar with a question on abortion - claim that he had never thought about it?)

[hezekiah jones]

Thomas said he had never thought about abortion, even though he was attending Yale law school when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. Yeah right Clarence. He also claimed not to have read articles he had discussed during speeches given to his fruitcake conservative admirers.

[pug846]

Originally posted by Toto
I heard that exchange. I couldn't figure out if she was playing dumb, or was actually that clueless, but I figured it was the former, and some political consultant had instructed her to say that she had not thought about issues that she might want to rule on later. (Didn't Clarence Thomas do something similar with a question on abortion - claim that he had never thought about it?)

Has she never read the Supremacy Clause? I don’t get it.

[hezekiah jones]

Originally posted by ohwilleke
I heard some of her testimony on NPR.

Q: Does the Federal Constitution trump State Constitutions?
A: I don't know. I've never considered the issue.

I don't see this in the transcript. I'm assuming that this is what you're referring to:

SEN. SPECTER: Justice Brown, in the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, you dissented from the decision of the court, a four to three decision, where the Supreme Court of California held that the California court imposed a higher standard on privacy. This involved a case where -- the issuance of a parental consent or judicial bypass for the abortion of a minor. We have -- I have made an inquiry as to whether other decisions of yours involve the abortion issue. Is this the only decision? That's the only one I've been able to locate with my staff and committee staffs.

MS. BROWN: This is the only time that particular issue has come before our court.

SEN. SPECTER: The only time? Well, isn't it true that the California Constitution can impose a more rigid standard on privacy? You cite in your opinion decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and you enumerate justices who have upheld the constitutionality of parental consent or judicial bypass. But isn't it true that the California Constitution can impose a more rigorous standard on privacy which would render that statute unconstitutional?

MS. BROWN: Well, obviously I did not think so, Senator. I guess I should start by saying that this particular case had become before our court before, and shortly before I was appointed to that court, the court had looked at this same issue, had looked at this exact same law and by a four-three decision had said that the law did not violate privacy rights under the California Constitution.

SEN. SPECTER: Justice Brown, my question is a narrow one as to whether the California Constitution cannot impose a more rigid standard on privacy.

MS. BROWN: Well, after that specific question, I think the answer is no. California --

SEN. SPECTER: The California Constitution cannot impose a more rigid standard on privacy than the U.S. Constitution?

MS. BROWN: Well, let me explain, Senator. The California Constitution does actually include the word "privacy," which is not expressed in the U.S. Constitution, so perhaps an argument could be made that something different was intended. But when you go back and look at the legislative history, the discussion about that provision, what they cite to is actually Griswold. So the argument is that it appears that all they were trying to do was make -- express what the U.S. Supreme Court had decided in terms of privacy.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I believe a state may have a constitution which has a more rigid standard. You can justify your opinion on the ground and you go into it in some detail but you didn't think the California Constitution meant that? Let me move on to the case of Hi- Voltage v. San Jose, where you invalidated affirmative action which was taken under a statute on the ground that California Proposition 209 provides that the state shall not grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

But isn't the California Constitution on Proposition 209 subordinate to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so long as there is a compelling state interest, and the issue is narrowly tailored to address and identify remedial need?

MS. BROWN: Well, if you're asking whether a state would be precluded from having a higher standard, I don't think so. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that in fact in California that prohibition obtains.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, doesn't the supremacy clause of the Constitution mean that the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment trumps California Proposition 209?

MS. BROWN: Doesn't the supremacy clause mean that?

SEN. SPECTER: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Well, the U.S. Supreme Court has not said that.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I'm not sure whether they've said it or not. Maybe they haven't had it presented but the state cannot have a constitutional provision which conflicts with a U.S. constitutional provision, can it?

MS. BROWN: I think that -- and I have to admit that this is not the issue that was before us in that case and so this is not an issue that I have looked at in detail.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, you may say that the program was not -- did not meet the equal protection clause of the compelling state interest or was narrowly tailored to address and identify the remedial need, but I do not think that you can just base the conclusion on Proposition 209 when it conflicts with the equal protection clause.

MS. BROWN: Well, since that was not the question that was presented to us, and the question was only whether the program of the city of San Jose violated the California Constitution, I just have to say it's not an issue that I have looked at.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, was the San Jose provision addressing a compelling state interest? I'm going back to the Fourteenth Amendment. The question is whether it was addressing a compelling state interest and was sufficiently narrowly tailored, because if it satisfies the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, wouldn't that prevail over Proposition 209?

MS. BROWN: I don't know if it would or not, senator, because the only case that we have that I can think of that focuses on this and is the recent case of the U.S. Supreme Court and its focusing on universities, and its analysis is fairly specific to diversity in that context.

[emphasis added]

I'm not so sure this exchange can be reduced to stating flatly that Brown has never considered the supremacy clause.

[Toto]

Hmm. It sounds like NPR snipped something out, or the transcript was edited for clarity.

[ohwilleke]

The bolded portion is what I heard and that language certainly leaves you with the impression that this woman is not a very impressive judge.