So Tell Me Whats Wrong With Them?

[Avatar4321]

most all of them have been accused of right wing judicial activism, most of them by their own peers on the benches they currently serve. Many, if not all of them, have had rulings overturned because they were in direct opposition of the precedents for those states that they currently reside in.

Remember that "Right wing judicial activism" is simply a code word for following the law and not giving judges free reign to legislate from the bench.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

As Gem asked and so will I..What specifically in their duties in making decisions have rendered them activist????
Someone else including Gonzalez telling us they are is not sufficient evidence??????????????????????????????

Boyle has repeatedly ignored established law to dismiss discrimination claims. He dismissed an employment discrimination suit on the grounds that the defendant – the state of North Carolina – could not be sued, despite quarter-century old Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. Ellis v. North Carolina, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 23717 (4th Cir. 2002). In another case, Judge Boyle again misconstrued Supreme Court precedent on sovereign immunity to dismiss a claim that a state agency discriminated against African Americans by siting a landfill in their community. Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2002). In a third case, Judge Boyle disregarded the plain language of the Civil Rights Act and, on his own, overruled Supreme Court precedent to reject an agreed-upon settlement and throw out a Justice Department lawsuit alleging that North Carolina state prisons discriminated against women seeking employment. United States v. North Carolina, 914 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D.N.C. 1996). Although later changing his mind, Judge Boyle did not publish the new decision, kept the old, radical opinion on the books, and allowed North Carolina to withdraw from the settlement agreement. As in the other cases, the Fourth Circuit reversed. United States v. North Carolina, 180 F.3d 574 (4th Cir. 1999).

STRUCK DOWN DISTRICTS THAT ENHANCED MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS:
• Judge Boyle twice tried to strike down a 47% African American North Carolina Congressional district. Cromartie v. Hunt, 34 F.Supp.2d 1029 (E.D.N.C. 1998); Cromartie v. Hunt, 133 F.Supp.2d 407, 420 (E.D.N.C. 2000). After the first decision, issued without bothering to hold a trial, Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court told Judge Boyle he improperly ignored evidence favorable to state legislators (the district drawers) and had to have a trial. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999). After the ordered trial, Judge Boyle recycled an almost exact copy of his earlier opinion and again invalidated the district. The Supreme Court again reversed, declaring that it had the “firm and definite conviction” that he was wrong. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001). Judge Boyle took another voting rights case away from the assigned trial judge, who was temporarily on leave, and, without holding an evidentiary hearing, issued a temporary restraining order invalidating a school board voting plan that created several districts with substantial African American populations. Cannon v. N.C. School Bd. Of Educ., 917 F.Supp. 387 (E.D.N.C. 1996). The assigned judge came back, forcefully rejected Judge Boyle’s analysis, dissolved the restraining order and later dismissed the case as being based on an utter lack of evidence. Cannon v. Durham Co. Bd. of Elections, 959 F.Supp. 289 (E.D.N.C. 1996). The Fourth Circuit upheld the assigned judge’s decision. Cannon v. Durham Co. Bd. of Elections, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 31794 (4th Cir. 1997).


Boyle has repeatedly attempted to limit the reach of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite Congress’ clear objectives, he first held that it could not be used to challenge state prison practices, later found that it could never be used to challenge the actions of any state official, and finally, as applied to private businesses, ruled that courts should rubber-stamp a business’ decisions regarding whether to accommodate an employee’s disability. Pierce v. King, 918 F.Supp. 932 (E.D.N.C. 1996); Brown v. N.C. Bd. of Motor Vehicles, 987 F.Supp.2d 451 (E.D.N.C. 1997); Williams v. Avnet, Inc., 910 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D.N.C. 1995). The Supreme Court disagreed with the result Judge Boyle reached in the first two cases, and the Fourth Circuit strongly criticized him in the third, calling his approach “misguided.” Pierce v. King, 552 U.S. 802 (1998); Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S.Ct. 1978 (2004); Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., 101 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 1996).

Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999).
Ellis v. North Carolina, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23717 (4th Cir. Oct. 28, 2002).
Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 199 (4th Cir. 2002).
Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., 101 F. 3d 346, 350 (4th Cir. 1996).


Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado. Justice Owen authored a dissent joined by Justices Phillips, Hecht, and Enoch that would have reversed an appellate court ruling granting damages to the family of a teenager who was paralyzed when he was ejected through the car’s sun roof in
an accident. The court’s majority found that, contrary to Hyundai’s argument, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 did not preempt the Alvarados’ common law claim that Hyundai’s negligence in constructing the Excel’s passenger restraint system without lap belts caused their son’s injury. Justice Owen’s argument would turn the federal law, which
was designed to minimize injuries and deaths from car accidents, into a protective measure for negligent manufacturers. The majority asserted: “It is indisputable that Congress's overriding purpose in passing the Safety Act was to reduce traffic deaths and injuries caused by traffic accidents…. In the face of this clear declaration of congressional purpose, we are unwilling to
accept an overly broad notion of preemption based on uniformity that could have the effect of undercutting Congress's concern for safety.”

State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau. The Nicolaus purchased homeowners’ insurance from State Farm under a contract that insured the house against damage caused by plumbing or similar leaks, but not damage caused by inherent flaws. After major damage to the foundation of the house, plaintiffs brought in engineering experts who found that leaks in pipes had caused the
damage. State Farm denied the Nicolaus’ claim based on a competing report from its own expert that the leaks had not caused the damage. The jury awarded both actual and bad faith damages; the trial and appeals courts reduced those in part; and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that
State Farm had not acted with malice. Justice Owen joined a dissent by Justice Hecht that would have reversed both awards. The dissent harshly criticized the entire basis for Texas’ bad faith tort precedent, quoting Judge Alex Kozinski in calling it “‘so nebulous… and so unpredictable… that it more resembles a brick thrown from a third story window than a rule of law.’

 

[Bonnie]

Disorder In The Court:
Activist Judges Threaten Justice

On October 5, 1999, the U.S. Senate voted 45-54 to reject the nomination of Ronnie White to the U.S. District Court in Missouri; this was the first time the Senate had defeated a Clinton -judicial nominee after 320 straight -confirmations.


Democrats accused Republicans of racism for rejecting a black nominee, while Republicans (including many who had not even known the nominee’s race) said his record on issues, including criminal justice, did not justify a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. For instance, as a justice on the Missouri Supreme Court, Ronnie White voted against the death penalty three times more often than his colleagues in the Show Me State.

When The Weak Becomes Strong

Judicial selection was not intended to be such a high-stakes game. One of Alexander Hamilton’s arguments for the new Consti-tution in the 1700s was that the judiciary would be the “weakest” branch of government. By 1996, however, presidential -candidate Bob Dole said in a speech that -federal judges are a president’s “most profound legacy.”

In two centuries, the weakest branch has become a most profound legacy because judges have taken from the people control of the most significant issues that affect our -culture, communities and families.

Most Americans, however, are not alarmed by this loss of liberty because they do not understand the Constitution or the American system of government. The National Consti-tution Center recently found that 41 percent of Americans do not know the number of branches in the federal government, and one-quarter cannot identify a single right guaranteed by the First Amendment. While only 35 percent of teenagers know the first three words of the Constitution, 59 percent can name the Three Stooges.

This ignorance shields liberal activist judges from scrutiny and criticism even as their decisions have devastating consequences. One such appointee, U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro ruled that Philadel-phia’s jails were too full and started releasing more than 600 convicts per week back onto the streets. Dozens of them killed, and hundreds raped and assaulted all over again.

And federal judges appointed by President Clinton have blocked teen curfews and prohibited judges from requiring drunks to attend Alcoholics Anonymous. And Rosemary Barkett, one of Clinton’s appointees for appeals court, has compared American police officers to Stalin’s thugs and has written that youth crime is caused by failure of the social welfare system.

Clinton judges have taken away the people’s right to decide other important cultural and political issues too, striking down state bans on partial birth abortion, and voiding requirements that parents be notified before their young children obtain abortions. Clinton judges have struck down term limits even for state legislators and eliminated a federal law prohibiting pornography sales on military bases. Clinton judges have ruled that city or county seals cannot contain crosses in their artwork, that school boards cannot open meetings with prayer, and that students may not offer a graduation invocation even when their classmates vote to do so.
Opinions vary on these and other issues, but the people themselves should have the power to decide on them (with laws enacted by elected representatives) without judicial interference or imposition.

Advocates of judicial activism do not directly defend such a judicial power-grab because they cannot do so. It is indefensible. So instead they try to change the subject with false arguments. First, President Clinton warned the American Bar Association in 1999 of a “mounting vacancy crisis” in the federal courts. This must be one of his now-famous definitional tricks because the facts contradict him. At the time of this statement, 65 of the 830 positions on the federal district and appeals courts were vacant. Mr. Clinton’s own Justice Department says that 63 vacancies constitute “virtual full employment” for the federal courts. Two vacancies cannot make the difference between full employment and a “vacancy crisis.”

Advocates of judicial activism also talk of the need for “diversity” among federal judges. Sometimes, as in the case of nominee Ronnie White, this becomes plain old-fashioned race-baiting. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said White’s defeat showed there was a “color test” for nominees, a perverse accusation that’s simply a ploy to lower the standards for approving controversial minority nominees. One Republican senator told this author that he did not know the nominee’s race until Sen. Leahy made his comments after the vote was over. In addition, the suggestion that courts should be “representative” institutions undermines the rule of law, a key foundation of freedom.

Columnist Thomas Sowell cut through all the distractions and misleading rhetoric when he wrote: “The real issue is not the number of judges but what kind of judges.” There exist two basic choices, a restrained judge who is a servant of the law, or an activist judge who is the master of the law. Understanding this issue does not require a legal education; in fact, most law schools no longer teach these basic principles and many educated lawyers and judges ignore them entirely.

Interpreting The Law, Not Writing It

A judge’s most important task is inter-preting the law. Since the law (whether a statute, a regulation, or the Constitution) already exists, interpreting it is simply determining what it means. What does the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition on -“unreasonable” searches and seizures by police mean? What does the federal statute prohibiting discrimination based on -“disability” intend? The meaning of -indi-vidual words like these determines the outcome of cases and, therefore, determines how the government conducts itself, the rights of individuals, and the freedom of all Americans.

A restrained judge believes that the meaning of these words already exists, that the meaning came from the legislatures or the people who enacted those words into law in the first place, and the judge’s job is to find it. Activist judges, in contrast, pursue their own agendas and believe they can give those words any meaning they choose. And, remember, that many of these appointments are lifelong terms.

A restrained judge takes the law as he finds it, while the activist judge believes he can make it up as he goes along, usually as a way of reaching the results he wants.

Consider a case where a convicted murderer claims the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual -punishment” prohibits the death penalty. A restrained judge, no matter what his personal opinion about the death penalty, determines whether those who put that phrase in the Constitution meant it to prohibit the death penalty (they did not). An activist judge, on the other hand, makes that phrase conform to his personal opinion about the death penalty.

Why is this important to anyone other than lawyers? America’s founders described a restrained judge as one who uses “judgment” and an activist judge as one who uses “will.”

In explaining why the judiciary should be the weakest branch of government, Alexander Hamilton explained that “if [judges] should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequences would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” That is another way of saying that restrained judges allow the people to run the country while activist judges take over that job for -themselves.
Restrained judges allow the people to make the law and the people’s values to define the culture. The people are meant to decide issues such as public safety, educational standards, or whether or not religion plays a significant role in public life. Activist judges (who make the law mean whatever they wish) take that freedom away from the people and dictate these and other issues, typically with liberal and secular values.

Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) has said the real test is whether “citizens control that which matters most.” Because the answer depends on the kind of judge who sits on the federal bench, judicial selection is the most important single issue in national politics today.

Closing The Floodgates

Democrats and Republicans claim to take different sides on this issue. Since much of the liberal political agenda fails in the legislative process, it must be forced upon the -people through court decisions. In order to weed out nominees who would become activist judges, Senate Republicans passed a resolution in 1997 condemning judicial activism and adopted the recommendations of a task force for improving the confirmation process.

Yet it appears that Republicans are not walking their talk. The Senate has defeated only a single Clinton nominee, either in the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate. Mr. Clinton has appointed more judges than President Reagan at the same point in his two-term presidency and may well break Mr. Reagan’s all-time appointment record.

Though Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has repeatedly stated that judicial activists are not qualified to sit on the federal bench, he has only voted against three Clinton nominees.

In January 1997, Sen. Hatch announced that “we are going to do what it takes to weed out those nominees who pay lip service to judicial restraint, but then think they can do anything they want once they don their robes.” Weeding them out, however, requires first identifying them. Unfortunately, none of the 1997 reforms approved by Senate Republicans have been implemented. The nominee questionnaire, for example, still asks only one question about judicial philosophy. Despite Sen. Hatch’s vow, he announced in May 1998 that “the purpose of these [nominee] hearings is not to ask tough questions” but simply to get a verbal commitment that nominees will not be activist judges.

Hearings in 1998 included an average of six nominees on a panel with fewer than four of the committee’s 18 Senate members attended. Hearings in 1999 have averaged seven nominees on a panel and still took less than two hours; the few minutes this allows for each nominee is usually taken up with introductions and pleasantries.

It’s interesting to see the varying approaches Republicans and Democrats have on the judicial nominee process. In the 1980s, Democrats filibustered Republican nominees to every level of the federal judiciary and defeated Republican nominees both in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. Republicans have yet to filibuster a single recent Democratic nominee and have defeated only one on the Senate floor. Even with so much at stake, and though they profess the right principles, Republicans have failed to promote a judiciary that will allow the people the freedom to govern themselves and define their culture.

With so much power in their hands, senators can defend their principles by taking some basic steps. First, they can refuse to confirm nominees to positions where additional judges are simply not needed. For example, the chief judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—which includes the Carolinas, the Virginias, and Maryland—has told the Senate that there is no need to fill two of the vacancies on his court.

Second, the Senate can refuse to confirm nominees whose records clearly show they would be activist judges, such as pending appointments to the appeals court like Marsha Berzon in California.

These goals can be accomplished best by the Senate Judiciary Chairman refusing to allow such nominees to progress through his committee, or by the Senate Majority Leader refusing to allow a vote on the most egregious nominees, or as a last resort by the Senate voting to defeat them on the floor.

The rejection of Ronnie White showed that a solid focus on the nominee’s record, and the will to resist race-baiting and other public relations gimmicks, can yield principled results.

America’s founders intended the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government, allowing the people to govern themselves and to determine the values that define the culture. Instead, the judiciary has become the most powerful branch, a profound legacy that can erode our freedom and radically change the culture.

Many “conservative” senators profess the right principles, but these senators must be urged to make those principles a reality and stop the confirmations of activist jurists with their own agendas. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America has long been a vital member of the growing Coalition for Judicial Restraint and will continue to be a key player in helping to educate Americans about the requirements of freedom.

# # #

About the Author

Thomas L. Jipping, J.D., is Director of the Free Congress Foundation’s Judicial Selection Monitoring Project in Washington, D.C. For more information about this issue, visit their website at www.freecongress.org










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The National Constitution Center recently found that 41 percent of Americans do not know the number of branches in the federal government, and one-quarter cannot identify a single right guaranteed by the First Amendment. While only 35 percent of teenagers know the first three words of the Constitution, 59 percent can name the Three Stooges.”

more
http://www.leaa.org/Shield 2000/activistjudge.html

 

[SmarterThanYou]

justice owens continued:

Universe Life Insurance Co. v. Giles. Justice Owen joined a concurring and dissenting opinion that would have reversed a jury award of $75,000 in actual damages for a woman whose insurance company had denied her claim for coverage of heart surgery bills. Plaintiff Ida Mae Giles underwent heart surgery soon after beginning to receive medical insurance. In spite of undisputed evidence that her claim was valid and her condition not pre-existing, the insurance company refused to pay the bill in full. The majority, which found no evidence to support the award of punitive damages but affirmed the jury’s award of actual damages, said that the concurrence “would take the resolution of bad-faith disputes away from the juries that have been deciding bad faith cases for more than a decade.”

Read v. Scott Fetzer Co. The Kirby Company, a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners, required that its distributors sell its product door-to-door, in person, in order to distinguish Kirby from other brands. However, Kirby did not require its distributors to conduct background checks on their door-to-door salespeople, and a Kirby distributor hired Mickey Carter without checking
his background. Carter had a history of inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace and had been fired from his previous job after he was arrested on a charge of indecency with a child. After Carter raped Dena Kristi Read in her home on a purported visit to sell her a vacuum cleaner, Read and her family sued Kirby for negligence. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the award of $160,000 dollars by a vote of 6-3. Justice Owen joined both dissents, arguing that Kirby should not be held accountable.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simmons. A jury awarded the Simmons family actual and punitive damages against State Farm, which refused to pay when the family’s house was destroyed by fire. Justice Owen went beyond the majority’s reversal of the jury’s punitive damage award, joining a dissent by Justice Hecht that would have vacated the entire award, leaving the family with nothing.

H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto. Justice Owen joined dissents against the Texas Supreme Court’s affirmation of a jury award of damages to a man who fell and seriously injured his back in a grocery store. The dissenters argued both that the award should be rescinded and that the jury should not be informed of the influence its decision would have on the outcome. Criticizing the dissenters, Justice Gonzales stated in his concurrence that he “would join the growing number of states that allow the jury to know the legal effect of its answers.… The jury would have to be extremely dullwitted not to be able to guess which answers favor which parties..”

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Remember that "Right wing judicial activism" is simply a code word for following the law and not giving judges free reign to legislate from the bench.

 

[Bonnie]

justice owens continued:

Universe Life Insurance Co. v. Giles. Justice Owen joined a concurring and dissenting opinion that would have reversed a jury award of $75,000 in actual damages for a woman whose insurance company had denied her claim for coverage of heart surgery bills. Plaintiff Ida Mae Giles underwent heart surgery soon after beginning to receive medical insurance. In spite of undisputed evidence that her claim was valid and her condition not pre-existing, the insurance company refused to pay the bill in full. The majority, which found no evidence to support the award of punitive damages but affirmed the jury’s award of actual damages, said that the concurrence “would take the resolution of bad-faith disputes away from the juries that have been deciding bad faith cases for more than a decade.”

Read v. Scott Fetzer Co. The Kirby Company, a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners, required that its distributors sell its product door-to-door, in person, in order to distinguish Kirby from other brands. However, Kirby did not require its distributors to conduct background checks on their door-to-door salespeople, and a Kirby distributor hired Mickey Carter without checking
his background. Carter had a history of inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace and had been fired from his previous job after he was arrested on a charge of indecency with a child. After Carter raped Dena Kristi Read in her home on a purported visit to sell her a vacuum cleaner, Read and her family sued Kirby for negligence. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the award of $160,000 dollars by a vote of 6-3. Justice Owen joined both dissents, arguing that Kirby should not be held accountable.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simmons. A jury awarded the Simmons family actual and punitive damages against State Farm, which refused to pay when the family’s house was destroyed by fire. Justice Owen went beyond the majority’s reversal of the jury’s punitive damage award, joining a dissent by Justice Hecht that would have vacated the entire award, leaving the family with nothing.

H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto. Justice Owen joined dissents against the Texas Supreme Court’s affirmation of a jury award of damages to a man who fell and seriously injured his back in a grocery store. The dissenters argued both that the award should be rescinded and that the jury should not be informed of the influence its decision would have on the outcome. Criticizing the dissenters, Justice Gonzales stated in his concurrence that he “would join the growing number of states that allow the jury to know the legal effect of its answers.… The jury would have to be extremely dullwitted not to be able to guess which answers favor which parties..”

LINK please?? Thanks

 

[SmarterThanYou]

LINK please?? Thanks

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/

 

[Bonnie]

The Wall Street Journal
July 22, 2002

Having sharpened their knives on Charles Pickering and D. Brooks Smith, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee turn tomorrow to Priscilla Owen, President Bush's nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The accomplished judge had better wear her battle armor.

Borking Svengali Ralph Neas is playing the gentleman this time and letting the ladies do the mugging. This is dirty work, but the gals at the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Abortion Federation and the National Organization for Women are more than up to the job. And when it comes to borking, Chairman Pat Leahy is an equal-opportunity interest-group mouthpiece.

The feminists have put their wiles to work and come up with a new excuse to disqualify Judge Owens: abortion on demand for teenagers. Judge Owen must be defeated, they charge, because her rulings on the Supreme Court of Texas prove she believes a parent usually ought to be informed if his or her daughter wants an abortion.

Judge Owen "is an opponent of abortion rights for minors without their parents' permission," explains NARAL president Kate Michelman, by which she means that the judge is "someone who exemplifies the most extreme hostility to reproductive rights of any of the nominees that President Bush has named."

By this definition, two-thirds of all Americans are dangerous, right-wing extremists. Every poll on abortion shows that most Americans -- pro-life and pro-choice -- think it's reasonable to let mothers and fathers have a role in such a momentous decision for a minor child. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that parental consent does not violate Roe v. Wade.

Judge Owen's rulings on teen abortion have nothing to do with her personal opinion but are consistent with Texas law, which is very precise about the conditions under which a court may let a girl have an abortion without notifying a parent. She voted with the majority in nine of the 12 teen-abortion decisions to come before her court. And a teen-abortion case doesn't even get to the Texas Supreme Court unless two lower-court judges -- a trial judge and an appeals judge -- have rejected a girl's request not to notify her parents.

The pro-abortion groups are working hand in glove with Senator Leahy to defeat Judge Owen. When the Chairman rescheduled her hearing last week, that news was up on Planned Parenthood's Web site before it was even communicated to the Republicans on the committee or the Justice Department. Talk about teamwork.

In the 14 months Judge Owen has been waiting for a hearing, the opposition has had ample time to script other Senatorial attack lines: She's anti-consumer, pro-business and wants to make it easier for anti-abortion radicals to harass women at abortion clinics. Judges are elected in Texas (something Judge Owen has opposed) and it'll be worth the price of admission Thursday to see if any Democrat dares to mention the $8,800 she legally accepted from Enron during her 1994 campaign. That sum, less than 1% of her total contributions, pales in comparison with what Enron gave such Members of Congress as Judiciary Democrat Charles Schumer.

http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news072202.shtml

 

[Bonnie]

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/

This site doesn't seem to like any of the nominees and specifically makes a connection of Rove to Owens as if it's a dirty word.

And here is what the site says about Judge Brown

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Status of nomination: Nominated 7/25/03; Hearing 10/22/03
Failed cloture vote 11/14/2003; Renominated 2/14/05; Voted out of Committee on 4/21/05; Pending Senate floor


Short Biography


Born 1949, Luverne, Alabama.

B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 1974.

J.D., UCLA, 1977.

Deputy Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel, California, 1977-1979.

Deputy Attorney General, Criminal and Civil Divisions, California Attorney General’s Office, 1979-1987.

California, Business, Transportation, and Housing Authority, 1987-1989.
--Deputy Secretary
--General Counsel

Associate, Neilsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueler & Naylor, January 1990-1991.

Legal Affairs Secretary, Governor Pete Wilson, January 1991-November 1994.

Justice, California Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, November 1994-May 1996.

Justice, California Supreme Court, May 1996-present.

Rogers Brown In the News:

Going Nuclear on Judge Janice Rogers Brown -- Outside The Beltway -- Feb 05, 2005
Fight Over Judicial Nominations Heats Up -- The Recorder -- Sep 14, 2004
A Bad Fit for a Key Court -- LA Times -- Nov 05, 2003
Out of the Mainstream, Again -- New York Times -- Oct 25, 2003
Appeals Court Nominee in for a Fight -- LA Times -- Oct 18, 2003
U.S. Senate showdown looms over judge's nomination -- San Jose Mercury News -- Oct 18, 2003
The Battle for Janice Rogers Brown -- The Recorder -- Oct 14, 2003
Related Rogers Brown Resources:

Alliance For Justice Summary: Her Speeches Become Her Judicial Opinions
Alliance For Justice Summary: Flip-Flopping on Legal Principles
Alliance For Justice Summary: Twisting The Law to Advance Her Own Agenda
Law Professors’ Letter in Opposition to Brown Nomination
Alliance For Justice Full Report on Janice Rogers Brown
Related Press Release:

Alliance for Justice Strongly Opposes Nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to DC Circuit --

The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

Organization Position
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes
Advocates for the West Opposes
AFL-CIO Opposes
Alabama Environmental Council Opposes
Alliance for Justice Opposes
Alliance for Retired Americans Opposes
American Association of University Women Opposes
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Opposes
American Lands Alliance Opposes
American Planning Association Opposes
American Rivers Opposes
Americans for Democratic Action Opposes
Americans United for Separation of Church and State Opposes
Amigos Bravos Opposes
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Opposes
Black Women Lawyers of Los Angeles Opposes
Buckeye Forest Council Opposes
California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Opposes
California Association of Black Lawyers Opposes
California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Opposes
California League of Conservation Voters Opposes
California National Organization for Women Opposes
California Women's Law Center Opposes
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics Opposes
Center for Medicare Advocacy Corporation Opposes
Chinese for Affirmative Action Opposes
Citizens Coal Council Opposes
Clean Air Council Opposes
Clean Water Action Opposes
Clean Water Action Council Opposes
Coalition of Labor Union Women Opposes
Coast Alliance Opposes
Committee for Judicial Independence Opposes
Committee for the Preservation of the Lake Purdy Area, AL Opposes
Community Rights Counsel Opposes
Congressional Black Caucus Opposes
Defenders of Wildlife

and so on..........http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50

In other words they don't like her because she is conservative not because she is anti constitution.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

This site doesn't seem to like any of the nominees and specifically makes a connection of Rove to Owens as if it's a dirty word.

it should make one wonder why these 10(7 now?) nominees are the ones that get the most attention.

As for the rove/owens connection.......I've read that summary many times and still am unable to make the connection myself....so I disregard that part.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

In other words they don't like her because she is conservative not because she is anti constitution.

yes, unfortunately its all the abortion supporters that are listed, thats not why I have issue with her though. I'm extremely wary of her over the top pro-business decisions.

 

[Bonnie]

yes, unfortunately its all the abortion supporters that are listed, thats not why I have issue with her though. I'm extremely wary of her over the top pro-business decisions.

Ill bet if we really dug around we could find loads of info either way on all these nominees. I guess the only way to decipher what is good and what is bad is to look at the sum of their whole careers on the bench and decide that way. Im sure there are laws that Scalia made that i disagree with as well but all in all I think he's a fair and level headed judge....JMO

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ill bet if we really dug around we could find loads of info either way on all these nominees. I guess the only way to decipher what is good and what is bad is to look at the sum of their whole careers on the bench and decide that way. Im sure there are laws that Scalia made that i disagree with as well but all in all I think he's a fair and level headed judge....JMO

so far, i've only heard one thing about scalia that I vehemently disagree with. He said somewhere that, as it stands, we have more rights than what is allowed under the constitution. I have a difficult time agreeing with that.

 

[Gem]

When discussing Scalia, it is also interesting to note that he was confirmed unanimously, even though he was a known conservative at the time. How times have changed.

 

[Bonnie]

When discussing Scalia, it is also interesting to note that he was confirmed unanimously, even though he was a known conservative at the time. How times have changed.

And is also leading the charge on judicial activism...many speeches regarding Justice Kennedy's recent vote to overturn the death penalty for those under 17 based on European law.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Lets not be confused. I am not saying that there are no judicial activists. I am saying that there are judicial activists from both sides and its total BS for people to say that there aren't, that right wing judicial activism is 'strict constitutionalism'.

 

[musicman]

Lets not be confused. I am not saying that there are no judicial activists. I am saying that there are judicial activists from both sides and its total BS for people to say that there aren't, that right wing judicial activism is 'strict constitutionalism'.

Which party do you honestly believe is more interested in advancing the cause of constitutionalist judges - really? Feel free to take into account the behavior of the federal judiciary in the last thirty years.

 

[musicman]

Lets not be confused. I am not saying that there are no judicial activists. I am saying that there are judicial activists from both sides and its total BS for people to say that there aren't, that right wing judicial activism is 'strict constitutionalism'.

We seem to differ, then, on just what constitutes judicial activism. It is - according to my understanding - a phenomenon relatively peculiar to the last thirty or so years. Using dramatically (and, in my opinion, deliberately) flawed interpretations of the Constitution (particularly, the XIVth Amendment), the Federal Judiciary has managed to insinuate itself into matters of behavior that are clearly none of its business. The practical effect has been that we now have a class of unelected, unaccountable feudal lords acting as social and cultural engineers, and the results have been - by any sane person's reckoning - disastrous. Moreover, no state of affairs could be less in line with the intent of our founding fathers. This madness must be stopped.

You seem to want to call "ruling contrary to precedents established by federal courts" some sort of judicial activism - as if being a precedent imparts infallibility. But, what if that precedent is itself the result of the true, elitist, anti-constitution arrogance we've all come to know as judicial activism? What if ruling against an established - yet flawed - precedent is the only way to restore constitutionality to the process?

And - I ask again - which side do you honestly believe is more interested in preserving - rather than re-inventing - the Constitution: the right or the left?

 

[007]

The fact of the matter is, liberal judges have ruled the courts for over forty years. Now that the conservatives have the majority, AND the White House, the liberals are fighting tooth and nail with every low down stinking trick they can think of to HOLD ON to what power they have ENJOYED in the courts.

Conservatives better start acting like they're the majority here. Quit this pussy footin' around with the sons a bitchin liberals and show them who's in charge. The damn liberals are the minority, but they were the majority for so long that the "polite" conservatives don't know how to act now that THEY are the majority. This has to change. The conservatives have the power, and they damn well better learn what to do with it, and not take any more shit from the liberals.

And if I hear the word "activism" attached to one more conservative judge, I'm going to PUKE! The liberals INVENTED "activism" from the bench, so shut the fuck up on that one. You're sounding ultra foolish.

 

[007]

And one more thing, it's all about "who is religous", and don't try and tell me it isn't. The godless liberals know that people of religon are in stark contrast with their heathen ways of killing the unborn, queers wanting to marry, and driving Christianity from America.

You may as well call this fight about appointees a "holy war".