She’d get my vote
If I had one. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is a judge the Democrats are filibustering. Here’s a look at some her positions:
Denounced as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution” the 1937 Supreme Court decisions upholding the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act, other key New Deal programs, and state minimum-wage laws, while likening those decisions to the bloody Russian Revolution of 1917.
Called for the Supreme Court to return to its pre-1937 pattern of sweeping away many federal and state economic regulations by imposing severe limits on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and by reviving long-dead precedents such as Lochner v. New York, a now-infamous 1905 decision that conservative legal hero Robert Bork (among many others) has denounced as an “abomination.”
Portrayed the federal government as a “leviathan” that is “crushing everything in its path” and fostering “a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.”
I oppose the effort to end the filibuster but may have to make an exception.
May 5th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Yes, because an instance of the supreme court doing its job and legislation enacted by democratically elected representatives is just the same as a bolshevik revolution.
And she needs to hit the history books, because neither of the 1917 russian revolutions were bloody. (The civil war a year later was.)
Even taking it as a given that we’re a “debased, debauched culture” (how is that, exactly?), how is this the government’s fault?
This sounds like a bunch of bunk rhetoric to me — even if I agreed with anything she’s said, which I don’t, I could never imagine voting for someone so disingenuous.
May 5th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
In other words, you like her because she’s a libertarian-leaning judicial activist. Judicial activism is only bad when it’s the liberal variety. 🙂
Actually, Brown’s one of the ones who might get through if Frist accepts Reid’s proposed compromise.
May 5th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Tgirsch, making the US government abide by the Constitution and framer’s intent is “judicial activism?”
But yeah, Chris…the last one is a little heavy on the rhetoric.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
From the LA Times after “Justice Sunday”:
May 5th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Chris, if a court doing a 180 in the face of political pressure is “doing its job,” that’s an odd job description.
And you need to hit the reading comprehension books, because it was the author of the article, not Brown herself, who described the Bolshevik revolution as bloody.
May 6th, 2005 at 1:05 am
Blake:
It is when it patently ignores precedent. And it is when your interpretation of the framers’ intent is different from my interpretation of the framers’ intent. One need look no further than writings concerning the establishment clause of the first amendment to see that it’s difficult to discern what the framers’ intent was. Here’s a clue, though: Not all of them had the same intent.