Our new federal appeals judge is a real critical thinker:
Janice Rogers Brown, the African-American daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who was confirmed Wednesday to the federal appeals court here, often invokes slavery in describing what she sees as the perils of liberalism. “In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery,” she has warned in speeches…
Comparing the New Deal and the War on Poverty to slavery is an amazing sentiment to display as the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers. It must be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. Isn’t this somewhat like comparing all-gentile golf courses to the Holocaust?
“We no longer find slavery abhorrent,” she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. “We embrace it.” She explained in another speech, “If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy – a license to steal, a warrant for oppression.”
Well, she got the last part right.
“leaving her to finish college and then law school, at the University of California,”
I would be interested to know if Equal Opportunity helped her get into law school. She is a fierce opponent of it now, just like Justice Clarence Thomas.
It’s times like these when I can kick up my feet and relax in the knowledge that my Democratic party, far along the way to Reform, is taking care of my political concerns.
Yes indeedy! I can sit back and relax because of our victories.
The filibuster, she is safe, and as evidence, we have a regressive judge that has been filibustered being confirmed. It’s great. America is great. After all, what could be better for the filibuster than not only getting to filibuster a judge but also to have the judge confirmed subsequent to that.
See… ? Surely you see! We can now filibuster EVERYTHING! After all, why not! The stuff is going to go through and the people confirmed anyway!
So we can filibuster without any fear of being called “obstructionist” because, well, we won’t obstruct anything!
Whoo hoo! Yes indeed.
The warm smell of victory.
The cost was the Democrats having to sell out.
Are they saving the crippled filibuster for Supreme Court nominees?
Long Live Rhenquist!
yes, I think they are saving it, and I’m certain they thought it was good political strategy.
This is the War Authorization and PATRIOT Act strategy group though too… thought that would be a good move and it lost an election, at least the former one did, imo (among other things, of course). I’m not super-impressed with their idea of political play.
But I do think they will pull it out… but how, how if it’s say, Brown!? She’s already “not extraordinary” isn’t she?
So I suspect it’ll be an even bigger disaster when they pull it out… but I hope they do.
The cost of the pyrrhic victory was having unqualified extremist judges confirmed, the prize was saving the filibuster.
from: SaveOurCourts.org, her resumé.
A substantial minority of the American Bar Association’s panel on federal judicial selection has rated Justice Brown “not qualified” to serve on the D.C. Circuit. Similarly, when nominated to the California Supreme Court in 1996, Justice Brown received a not qualified rating from the California Judicial Commission. Among other things, the Commission cited a “tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions” and complaints that she was insensitive to established legal precedent, lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views, and was slow to produce opinions.
another Clarence Thomas alright.
Thanks to the Times for publishing this AFTER she’s in.
The Liberal Media to the rescue once again!!!
Are there any here willing to think hard about the tactics of NARAL in backing Chaffee, who voted in favor of Brown?
NARAL is an advocacy group. They didn’t install Chaffee.
It’s in their best interest to have as much pro-choice caucus as they can in the Republicans.
Democrats don’t have to follow their recommendation.
We can reassess the decision all the way down the line… we can say what if they endorsed Langevin… what would that do to their reputation, what would be their standing if/when Langevin lost?
We don’t have to second guess because NARAL follows an issue, and their policy of supporting the incumbent makes plenty of sense for them.
The VOTER should look at a bigger picture, the advocacy group has to advocate, is formed on a “single issue” and it’s no different from the ACLU protecting the right of Nazis or Rush Limbaugh in some cases, for the interest of their issue(s). And this advocacy system has worked great for progressives, accomplishing a ton in the last number of decades.
I’m a big picture voter… that’s my job as a citizen, NARALs is to follow individuals stands and their issue in a non-partisan way. Seems obvious to me… just like the NRA should give Dean an “A” regardless of what they give all the other Democrats.
It’s so fundamental to the way politics works now and through history that I just really don’t get why it seems so confusing to people.
Message: Blame Langevin for wimping out. When he started to run he HAS TO KNOW he will be opposed by pro-choice groups because surprise he’s not pro-choice.
Big deal… so you run anyway, right?!
Blame Langevin for being “single issue”… not NARAL. He’s a person, they are an advocacy group.
Ok, that’s just how I see it.
NARAL is a single issue advocacy group. Check.
Their mission is to support and endorse politicians that will advance their agenda. Check.
Chaffee is “pro-choice” – he does have a pretty good record in terms of legislative votes….but he supported the nomination and confirmation of several egregiously anti-choice judges – which is where the rubber meets the road.
Langevin is “pro-life” – do you think he would have voted for or against Brown (or Prior)?
Finally, what about the other two potential candiates in the upcoming RI senate race? Why not support them?
Why throw support behind a nominally prochoice GOP moderate who’s actual record in terms of real contribution to the pro-choice cause is pretty fucking weak?
How tactically and strategically stupid is that?
until a successor to Chafee, if he’s not re-elected, takes office.
If NARAL’s endorsement is tied to commitments from Chafee on votes between now and then, it’s worth more than a promise of votes later. assuming my analysis is correct, Rogers Brown would not be among the votes NARAL tied to thewir endorsement.
That helps a bit.
However, I would say that it would benefit NARAL to think about the short term pain of dropping Chaffee for the long-term gain of replacing him with a pro-choice Democrat.
Also, it would, I think behoove NARAL to think a little bit about the difference between “against abortion” and “pro-choice” – there are many Dems who are personally against who will vote to preserve choice in terms of both legislation at judicial appointments.
Conversely, there are many GOP legislators who while they might be individually pro-choice, will vote for legislation and judges that are not due to party loyaly concerns.
It bears thinking about.
that NARAL is “thinking about” it. Women can, you know.
There are enough “pro-life” democrats now that without the “choice” Republicans there would soon be be no choice. Chaffee’s vote for Brown didn’t matter . . . a “no” wouldn’t have stopped her confirmation. She was confirmed by the Democrats who declined to filibuster.
NARAL does not appoint Senators, they court them. They prefer incumbents, because they court those in power to influence them. Those elected.
The Democratic Party is the one trying to get people elected.
Strategically it is death for them if they don’t grade fairly, objectively. It’s the Dem party’s problem to convince Langevin to run, not NARAL’s.
Why does nobody take me up on my challenge re Dean’s “A” from the NRA?
What about you RedDan, will you? Should the NRA have given Dean an “F” because of the company he keeps?
The out of context quote in the Times does not fairly portay her analogy. There’s plenty to dislike in Justice Rogers Brown’s record, but this ain’t it.
See Ginger Rutland’s editorial from the Sacramento Bee. Rutland’s regular beat includes the California Supreme Court.
The actual ruling, and Brown’s dissent, in People v McKay
the reporter said that Brown’s study of the history of slavery led her to make the analogy and that she quotes Hayek. I probably have not read the same books that she did, but I would agree with BooMan that our government does not rule with the kind of arbitrary cruelty that slavemasters in the South did. You might say that the more the government interests itself in economic activity, the more of your labor they control and the more you are actually working for them. But this is a metaphor.
While I’m sure there were many slaveholders whose cruelty was arbitrary, for many (likely most?) the cruelty flowed from a cold economic logic. Not so different from the corporate socialist model toward which we’re evolving.
Lord, I hate this b***h.
She twists every mother hubbard thing around. Another Pete Wilson pet.
BTW, there was a black group that put out several negative TV ads against her. See http://www.blacknews.com/pr/rogersbrown101.html
And the bad part of it is that I may have voted for her crazy ass the last time I was in California in 2000.
I just didn’t know who she was. The only thing I knew was that she was black. I remember going back and forth in my mind trying to figure out whether she was alright or not, and then voted for her.
Ugh. I could kick myself. But probably, so could several thousand other liberals/progressives who weren’t hip enough to find out who she really was, too.
Maybe something will happen to her. Maybe she will make a really stupid ruling. The Universe can be merciful, too.
So the difference between our parties, as exemplified by Ms. Brown’s attitude:
Seems like Brown Republicans feel there are those who deserve to keep their wealth, and the Government shouldn’t bother them. Hey, that sounds fair, they deserve to benefit from their fortune and ‘hard work’.
But somebody has to pay, and as a Democrat, I don’t believe in foisting the responsibility off on the middle class and working poor. So yes, that means having the wealthy pay their fair share, and preventing too much of the burden to shift back to the other classes who provide the raw labor for the companies the wealthy own, often without company supplied benefits.
And I think the wealthy, no matter how much money they have, do not own their property in perpetuity. They certainly don’t own the water table below the property, nor the air above it. So no, I don’t believe they have a right to pollute it as much as care to. I don’t believe they own the view of their property, so they have no right to erect eyesores against zoning laws, nor to violate noise ordinances surrounding them.
I don’t believe they own the birds and animals that migrate through their property. I don’t believe they have the right to endanger the lives of emergency workers like fire or police or EMTs that may be called to their properties, so they should be required to maintain a minimum level of safety on their property.
I don’t view any of that as “Slavery”. I view that as common sense.
I view that as stewardship.
Not to get too Biblical, but the concept of being a caretaker of a land that preceded you, and will survive eons after you’re gone isn’t exactly new.
And it certainly isn’t slavery.
Now, some might think that Government wouldn’t need to get involved in this. But then you’d probably also think that people wouldn’t raid pensions, steal from corporate coffers, betray the public trust, risk the lives of others for personal gain, or hundreds of other things that happen far too frequently.
Is that slavery too?
We protect children from abusive parents. Surely people “own” their children as much as they own their land. The child will outlive the parent, and the land will outlast the landowner.
Slavery?
Is putting limits on the wealthy really the same as stripping them of all their freedoms? Moreso than issuing stay-puts to soldiers who enlisted in what has been an undeclared and indeterminate war with no end in sight, and no plan to seek one?
Is that the crux of Conservatism, “Government is to control those without wealth, for the benefit of those with wealth” ?
that we are getting our ASSES KICKED on this ‘compromise’ bullshit? When it was first announced, BooMan and I and some others here postulated that there was an agreement among the fourteen to block at least one of the nominees on the floor, most likely Brown. I thought that would have made the deal worth it. But no. Nothing. They are all in now, most egregious Brown and Pryor.
I am sick.
I hate feeling powerless, and worse, I hate feeling that we got rolled. Again. Ugh.
I DARE you to read this without vomiting. Go on. I dare you. From this morning’s NYT (again, helpfully, AFTER he was confirmed).
To his detractors, Judge Pryor, the last of three judges whose confirmations were assured by a bipartisan agreement, is “an ideological warrior,” in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. In a court brief, Judge Pryor once asserted that a right to same-sex relations would also confer a right to bestiality and necrophilia, views that critics say are extreme and make him unfit for a lifetime appointment.
But to his supporters, who include black civil rights leaders in his home state, Judge Pryor is a welcome departure from so many nominees who do the classic Washington two-step, dancing around controversy. When Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked Judge Pryor during his confirmation hearing if he regretted the abomination remark, he did not take the bait.
“No,” the judge replied evenly, “I stand by that comment.”
It is truly depressing. That’s all I can say.