Who is Janice Rogers Brown?
 

I'm checking out Fox News and they are talking about Bush's nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to a seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals.....Anyone know her story?

All I know is that Orin Hatch (Toby - I mean Clarence - Thomas' buddy) is on Fox talking about how unfair she is being treated.

From what I heard this morning from Tavis Smiley on the Tom Joyner Show, she is like a Catch-22 for "us." She is an African-American woman that has been nominated by Dubya for the Appellate(sp?) Court, which happens to be a "feeder" for the Supreme Court. The catch? Even though she is a sista, she is said to be the female version of Clarence Thomas. :rolleyes: You do the math....

If I can find more info, I'll post it. Hope that helps.

Here's an article about her to give you some insight.

LA Times: Appeals Court Nominee in for a Fight

10.18.2003 — Civil rights groups deplore choice of conservative justice for federal bench
Maura Dolan

Janice Rogers Brown, one of the most conservative members of the California Supreme Court, is expected to face a tough fight in the U.S. Senate over her nomination to a federal appeals court.

President Bush nominated Brown in July for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a prestigious court that regularly decides challenges to administration policy and is considered a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"What makes Janice Brown a certain for a confirmation fight is in part ideology, and in part concerns about her judicial temperament," said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who opposes the nomination.

Yet three other law professors who closely follow the California court -- a moderate Republican, a moderate Democrat and a liberal Democrat -- all believe Brown should be confirmed.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Brown to the state high court even though a State Bar committee found her unqualified, a rating the three analysts said was mistaken.

If she is confirmed, Arnold Schwarzenegger, after taking over the governor's office, will fill the vacancy on the seven-member state Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on her nomination for Wednesday.

Civil rights groups already have combed Brown's record and called for her rejection. Brown, who is African American, also is opposed by the state and national black lawyers' associations and the Congressional Black Caucus.

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.

Few dispute that Brown has a strong intellect, a talent for writing and a penchant for hard work. She laces her highly readable opinions with historical and literary references, and is one of the biggest producers of opinions on the state high court. What worries civil rights groups is her conservative political philosophy and her tendency, they believe, to ignore precedent if it does not conform to her personal views.

In contrast, Anthony T. Caso, senior vice president and general counsel of the Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative, nonprofit public interest law firm, praised Brown as a jurist who looks to the intent of the framers of the Constitution when she interprets it.

"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.

During her tenure on the California Supreme Court, Brown has voted in favor of a state law requiring minors to obtain parental consent for abortions, opposed affirmative action and appeared critical of government regulations that deprive private property owners of full use of their property without compensation.

In criminal cases, she has been less predictably conservative, ruling at times for defendants she believes have been improperly searched by police.

Beyond her legal views, Brown can be caustic and even personal in her dissents, taking on colleagues on the court in a way that court analysts have said belittles their intelligence. "She is not the appointment I would make, but I don't think she should be resisted or opposed on the ground she is a right-wing ideologue," said University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen, a liberal. "The margin that separates her from the center on the court is relatively narrow."

When a legal journal last year compared Brown with five conservative federal judges considered potential Bush nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown was the least consistently conservative of the group, Uelmen noted. "I don't see her as rigid," he said. "I think there is enough give there, especially in criminal cases."

UC Berkeley emeritus law professor Stephen Barnett said Brown is conservative "but not monolithically so," and is "increasingly controlling" a tendency to insert her political views into rulings.

"She will make waves on the D.C. circuit, but I think she is well above the line that might justify a filibuster," said Barnett, a moderate Democrat.

Like Uelmen and Barnett, McGeorge School of Law professor Clark Kelso has at times criticized Brown's dissents as too biting and personal. But he said that should not keep her off the D.C. circuit. Compared with the rulings of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Brown's dissents are mild, said Kelso, a Republican.

One of Brown's most controversial opinions came three years ago in a case that upheld Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action law. "With the approval of Proposition 209," she wrote, "the electorate chose to reassert the principle of equality of individual opportunity as a constitutional imperative."

All the justices agreed with the result, but Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar refused to sign Brown's opinion. George, whose separate opinion was signed by Werdegar, complained that Brown had been "less than evenhanded" in disparaging all affirmative action programs.

Caso, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, noted that one of Brown's rulings had come in a case about whether an environmental assessment had to be made before an animal could be taken off the state's endangered species list. She ruled for the environmentalists. "I don't see an anti-government bias in all her rulings," he said.

On gun control, Brown wrote a decision upholding the state's 1989 ban on assault weapons. "For good or ill," she wrote, "the Legislature stood up and was counted on this issue, one of the most contentious in modern society."

But Brown was the sole dissenter in two other gun rulings that permitted counties to ban guns or gun sales on fairgrounds and other public property.

In one of the cases, she noted that the ban conflicted with laws that permit some people to carry firearms without restriction. "The small and superficially benign acts of democratic government can erode personal freedom just as surely, and to the same end, as the large and malignant acts of a tyrant or dictator," she wrote.

Brown dissented in a decision that upheld local laws requiring property owners to provide replacement housing or money when they convert residential hotels to tourist hotels. She described such laws as government "thievery."

She was the only member of the state high court to vote against a ruling that restricted the use of stun belts, which discharge electrical shocks, on criminal defendants in the courtroom. And Brown wrote a majority opinion in a ruling that allowed cities to prohibit suspected gang members from engaging in legal activities, such as congregating on a street corner.

In another case, she was the only justice who opposed granting employees who are victims of age discrimination the same legal rights as victims of race and gender bias.

But Brown took a more liberal stand when she dissented in a ruling that allowed police to search cars if the driver failed to produce a license or registration, and opposed another decision that gave police the right to arrest and search bicyclists who ride on the wrong side of the street and don't have identification. In the case of the bicyclist, she said, "No one would get arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood. That is the problem. And it matters."

Among the groups opposing Brown are the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, the NAACP and the Alliance for Justice. Conservative groups are expected to endorse her. Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, an association of public interest and civil rights organizations, predicted a "firestorm of opposition" to Brown. "I do not think she will be confirmed," Aron said flatly.

Among Brown's supporters is Encino lawyer Ellis J. Horvitz, whose firm regularly appears before the state high court.

He urged the Judiciary Committee to confirm Brown in a letter that described her as "possessing great common sense and integrity."

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ne...press&inform=2

As the former President of Spelman College and now President of Bennett College, member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Dr. Johnetta B. Cole has stated:

"All our skin-folks ain't our kinfolks."

And that's all I have to say about that!! :D

Why does this more times than naught apply to all facets of our culture ? :o but yet :(

I think she is a classic example of "our Kind of People" who have "made it" and figure its just as easy for anyone else who REALLY wants it. I've read her aopinins and followed her as i have other promonent AA women Judges and Attys she has a legal philophy (that is VERY common) and sticks to it and just happens to be a sista. *shrugs* Nothing surprises me anymore with our folk HA!


>>>"What makes Janice Brown a certain for a confirmation fight is in part ideology, and in part concerns about her judicial temperament," said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who opposes the nomination.


On a side note! I LOVE this man and he s so brillant, he taught us Con Law for bar review this summer and knew the ENTIRE 70 page lecture handout by heart!!!!!!!! Amazing reminds me of Bill Gates on Legal prozac...lol

Great article HK!

LawyerGal,

I've read you post 3 times and still can't figure out whether you're pro or con on ole girl?... excuse me, Judge ole girl?

This is why I love GreekChat
 

Thanks for keeping a sista informed:D

Just because an African American doesn't share the popularly held social, political, or philosophical beliefs of the "majority", doesn't mean they are not for the advancement of important Black issues. To look at a person of color with divergent views from the majority with suspicion just pegs "us" as a narrow minded, uncritical, passive, blind group of followers, who share one group philosophy and are unwilling to think outside our philosophical comfort zones. "Our kind of people"... please. That's what's wrong with "us". You assume only one particular school of thought is appropriate for "your people"... the same people you probably shun on any given day you are not doing community service, and only lump yourself in the same group with when attacking one of "us" to make yourself (and those Blacks that operate from your philosophical vantage point) look like the honorary representatives of Black America :rolleyes: Not!

How you managed to assume all of that from one statement, I don't know, especially since I never posted my opinion about her.

Thanks for your opinion on though, but you are wrong in your "assestment" :rolleyes: . I was refering to how we as blacks do not support one another in general. How some of US are quick to criticze and browbeat their brotha or sista when they are bigger fish to fry.

That is why I stated that the statement " all our skinfolk ain't our kinfolk" applies to MANY FACETS OF OUR CULTURE. Because unfortunately, every black is not my friend nor do they have the best interest of our culture in mind. This applies to everything frok BGLOs, music, companies, etc. to just plain being neighbors with one another.

Maybe I should have elaborated for some, but I didn't feel the need to. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately I once assumed that everyone of the same "skin" should be my friend given our history in this country. But, then I realised that even in Africa there is rivalry and strife amongst people of the same skin, and has been for some time. Take for example the Hutus and Tutsies who basically massacred each other over differences of belief. Thinking about it from that perspective (i.e., that even in Africa strife is a natural part of social development), I really can't say that I realistically expect those of my "skin" to be for me. If I did, I would be deeply disappointed on a daily basis. So realistically, its a great utopian dream that those of the same "skin" should be for each other, but probably not likely to become a reality. We all have basic needs that sometimes override philosophical reasoning. When you are only concerned about you getting ahead in life, sometimes you will pit yourself against those that you (philosophically) should be for. I realize that people should be for whoever shares their ideals, period. If I feel someone that is Black is on the wrong track when it comes to community advancement, I'm not going to support them just because their Black. That would be very ignorant of me. Perhaps I did misinterpret your statement.

Commentary from the NAACP
 

NAACP opposes PRESIDENT BUSH’S NOMINEE, EXTREME
RIGHT-WING JUDGE JANICE ROGERS BROWN TO US COURT
OF APPEALS FOR D.C. CIRCUIT

The Issue:
President Bush has nominated Janice Rogers Brown, who currently serves on the California Supreme Court, to serve a lifetime appointment on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The NAACP strongly opposes this nomination, as Judge Brown has, throughout her career, been extremely antagonistic towards laws that protect Americans’ civil rights and civil liberties. Furthermore, she has consistently shown a real inability to separate her personal beliefs from her judicial activism.

The DC Circuit is the second most powerful court in the country, as it oversees the actions of federal agencies as well as often being the last hope for DC residents (60% of whom are African American). The Supreme Court’s limited case load means that the DC Circuit often provides the final say on federal agency actions involving voting rights, affirmative action, labor relations, clean air standards and health & safety regulations. Furthermore, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is often seen as the holding area to the US Supreme Court; it has historically produced more Supreme Court justices than any other court. Janice Rogers Brown has no connection whatsoever to the District of Columbia, she is not a member of the DC bar and she has little, if any, experience with federal litigation.

Furthermore, when nominated to the California Court of Appeals, Janice Rogers Brown was rated “not qualified” by the California State Bar Judicial Nominees Evaluation Committee. This rating was based in part on her tendency to inject her “personal and philosophical” views into her judicial opinions and her “insensitivity to established precedent.” So far in her career, Judge Brown has issued many opinions hostile to civil rights. For example, she wrote:

Ü the principle opinion enforcing California’s Proposition 209, which outlawed Affirmative Action in education, and she even went so far as to expand it so that it also covered outreach efforts for minority and female-owned municipal subcontractors;

Ü in opposition to a ruling that an injunction against racial epithets did not violate the First Amendment

Ü in opposition to a ruling that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission had the authority to award emotional distress damages to victims of discrimination

The Message:
Ø Janice Rogers Brown has, though her numerous rulings from the California State Supreme Court bench, shown herself to be extremely hostile to laws intended to protect Americans’ civil rights and civil liberties. She has shown a genuine hostility towards such civil rights staples as affirmative action, basic civil rights protections, and public education.

Ø Janice Rogers Brown’s own peers within the California State Bar Association found her to be unqualified to serve on the California State Court of Appeals due to her tendency to interject her personal and philosophical views into her judicial opinions.

Ø Janice Rogers Brown is not qualified to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit; she has little, if any, experience with federal legislation, she is not a member of the District of Columbia bar and she has never lived in the DC area.

Ø Her extreme right-wing views, and her willingness to interject them in her decisions and her decision-making process, regardless of judicial precedent, would clearly interfere with the pursuit of justice.

N.Y. Times article
 

Here is a NY Times article about her...

The New York Times
Out of the Mainstream, Again
October 25, 2003

Of the many unworthy judicial nominees President Bush has put forward, Janice Rogers Brown is among the very worst. As an archconservative justice on the California Supreme Court, she has declared war on the mainstream legal values
that most Americans hold dear. And she has let ideology be her guide in deciding cases. At her confirmation hearing this week, Justice Brown only ratified her critics' worst fears. Both Republican and Democratic senators should oppose her confirmation.

Justice Brown, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has made it clear in her public pronouncements how extreme her views are. She has attacked the New Deal, which gave us Social Security and other programs now central to American life, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution." And she has praised the infamous Lochner line of cases, in which the Supreme Court, from 1905 to 1937, struck down worker health and safety laws as infringing on the rights of business.

Justice Brown's record as a judge is also cause for alarm. She
regularly stakes out extreme positions, often dissenting alone. In one case, her court ordered a rental car company to stop its supervisor from calling Hispanic employees
by racial epithets. Justice Brown dissented, arguing that doing so
violated the company's free speech rights.

Last year, her court upheld a $10,000 award for emotional distress to a black woman who had been refused an apartment because of her race. Justice Brown, the sole dissenter, argued that the agency involved had no power to award the damages.

In an important civil rights case, the chief justice of her court
criticized Justice Brown for "presenting an unfair and inaccurate caricature" of affirmative action. The American Bar Association, all but a rubber stamp for the administration's nominees, has given Justice Brown a mediocre rating of qualified/not qualified, which means a majority of the evaluation committee found her
qualified, a minority found her not qualified, and no one found her
well qualified.

The Bush administration has packaged Justice Brown, an African American born in segregated Alabama, as an American success story. The 39-member Congressional Black Caucus, however, has come out against her confirmation.

President Bush, who promised as a candidate to be a "uniter, not a divider," has selected the most divisive judicial nominees in modern times. The Senate should help the president keep his campaign promise by insisting on a more unifying alternative than Justice Brown.

I fear the same thing is going to happen to her as happened to the Hispanic gentleman, Judge Estrada, that was left hanging by the Senate Judiciary committee for almost two years. Liberals will never allow this society to be colorblind. The only time they don't see color is when people agree with them.

Glad to see you back Jody....We've missed ya around here. You should post more often.

While I typically vote Democratic (I think I voted Republican in a general election 2 times in close to 20 years!) I am increasingly calling myself convervative, but this woman, no matter her color, takes the cake! Just reading some of the statements in the articles above send me over the edge!

Racial epithets are free speech?!?!

Worker health and safety laws infringe on the rights of business??

These statements really concern me.