Sharpton breaks ranks on Brown

The Rev. Al Sharpton implored Senate Democrats yesterday not to filibuster President Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the nation's second-highest federal court.
Justice Brown, who is black, has come under intense criticism by liberal black groups, such as the NAACP, and by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel plans to vote this morning on her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
"I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background," said Mr. Sharpton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. "But she should get an up-or-down vote."


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031105-112830-3749r.htm

The following is an excerpt from Janice "the Madwoman of Sacramento" Brown's speech to a Federalist Society gathering in April of 2000.

"Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom." He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

. . .

The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper. At this moment, it seems likely the leviathan will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

But what if anything does this have to do with law? Quite a lot, I think. In America, the national conversation will probably always include rhetoric about the rule of law. I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country's founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document. In his famous, all too famous, dissent in Lochner, Justice Holmes wrote that the "constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire." Yes, one of the greatest (certainly one of the most quotable) jurists this nation has ever produced; but in this case, he was simply wrong. That Lochner dissent has troubled me — has annoyed me — for a long time and finally I understand why. It's because the framers did draft the Constitution with a surrounding sense of a particular polity in mind, one based on a definite conception of humanity. In fact as Professor Richard Epstein has said, Holmes's contention is "not true of our < > , which was organized upon very explicit principles of political theory." It could be characterized as a plan for humanity "after the fall."

"Lochner," for the non-lawyers here, was a Supreme Court case from early in the last century in which the Court held that the government could not pass laws for minimum wages or maximum work weeks because it interfered with an individual's "right to contract" for longer hours or less money. The "Lochner" viewpoint was repudiated in the 30's, but not until it was used to strike down numerous early pieces of New Deal legislation.

In my opinion, any jurist who argues that "Lochner" was good law is manifestly unqualified to sit on the federal bench. Furthermore, anyone who suggests that Brown should get an up or down vote (effectively guaranteeing Senate approval) just because she's African-American has no business being a candidate for President.

That is one good thing about a longer period of
running for President.

One more reason to dislike this shyster.

What an ENORMOUS political mistake that was!

what a dope. I suppose he thinks Clarence Thomas deserved a vote too.

Not being acquainted with your reporter's name, I checked google and found this representative example of his work, which was linked by Free Republic:

Biden wants rich to pay for Iraq
By Charles Hurt

Published September 18, 2003

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/984668/posts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since "Martin Luther N#####" was murdered, the target for malicious racists became Al Sharpton, and anyone can spot that restless hatred, looking for outlets a mile away. Resorting to trying to attack Al Sharpton simply identifies anyone who goes after him as a racist to ME. That's a totally personal view, one deeply felt. I take it as an insult.

The Washington Times is no better than NewsMax. Period.

You got that right JudiLyn!

"We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us," Mr. Sharpton said in a television interview conducted by Sinclair Broadcasting yesterday. "I don't think she should be opposed because she doesn't come from some assumed club."

Are you saying Sharpton didn't say this? Are you claiming a misquote or a misprint? Do you have the tanscript of the original interview? What is the context that would negate these statements meaning what they sound to mean?

Or is it that people aren't allowed to discuss your candidate for fear of reapeating something he already said. How convienent that you have decided any discourse on Sharpton is automatically racist. I guess that cuts down on your time spent apologizing and explaining. I noticed you added nothing to the discussion other than YOUR opinion that to even discuss this is racist.

If you are that easily insulted, try Yahoo checkers and turn off the text.

If not agreeing with "politics" (IDEOLOGY) isn't a reason to filibuster then Mr "let's give the cross burners a lighter sentence" would be on the appeals bench right now. GREAT logic, AL.

just lost any respect I had for him. I thought he was a straightshooter. If she deserves a vote, Thomas should be Cheif Justice!

Somebody emailed me yesterday with a cryptic message about Janice Rogers Brown...couldn't tell WTH their point was.

Well, Al is keeping his name in the headlines, that's for sure. Personally, if it were up to me, I would filibuster ALL of Bush's court appointees, as he has never yet picked one who wasn't a disaster of some kind.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

Right on, sister! That pillock shouldn't even get a single court appointment through. He's not the legitimate holder of that office.

The dem strategy of fillibustering judges is causing adverse results at the ballot box, particularly in the south. In 2002, Cornyn, Chambliss and Coleman all used this issue to some success. It surely hurt Musgrove in Miss. this past Tuesday. Fillibustering judges will hurt our chances in the Senate seats in NC, SC, Florida and Georgia. Is it worth having a 55-58 seat repub majority in the senate to keep the Estrada's, Brown's, Owen's, et al off the federal bench. When the repubs only have a 1-2 seat margin, we have a some affect on legislation due to the liberal bent of repubs like Chafee, Snowe and Collins. If the repubs elect 4-5 more southern senators, the senate will turn very conservative and we will have very little impact.

If the judges are qualified, we should give them an up or down vote and take this issue off the table. Otherwise, as the 2002 elections and the Miss gov. election showed, we are going to get creamed in the south.

That's more or less the point: they're not qualified, since the prime requirement for a judge is that s/he be impartial.

A temporary shortfall in the Senate, or a generation of conservative bias coming from the federal court system?

And ideological court packed with right wingers will lead to swifter and more frequent judicial coups a la 2000.

This Dem strategy is one of the only ones that exibits long term planning.

It's not the same thing as saying that she should be appointed.

Since an up/down "full vote" will automatically mean ratification.

to prevent the packing of the court with right wing ideologues. As the minority, allowing a "full vote" guarantees a loss.

Either Sharpton doesn't understand the confirmation process or he favors her confirmation.

He couldn't look at her record and conclude that she would have any sense of judicial independence.

In their opposition, the CBC:
...zeroed in on two of her opinions, including the California Supreme Court’s ruling three years ago effectively ending state affirmative action programs. The letter quotes California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George’s view that Brown’s opinion was “a serious distortion of history” that “does a grave disservice to the sincerely held views of a significant segment of our populace.”

In another case, the caucus said, Brown “argued that racially discriminatory speech in the workplace—even when it rises to the level of illegal race discrimination—is protected by the First Amendment.”

According to the caucus, Brown is the second sitting judge nominated by Bush to an appellate court who has received a partial “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.

The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary does not reveal a precise breakdown of its members’ votes. But it did disclose, pursuant to its guidelines, that Brown was rated “qualified” by less than two-thirds of the 15 members, meaning that at least six declared her “not qualified” and none said she was “well qualified.”

In a separate statement, Rep. Diane Watson, D-Los Angeles, said 26 national organizations are opposing Brown’s confirmation. Among these are the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Woman, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Bar Association.

“This Bush nominee has such an atrocious civil rights record she makes Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall,” Watson said.

Judicial nominees typically refrain from any comment outside their confirmation hearing. A call to Brown’s office in San Francisco was not immediately returned.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/brow102003.htm

She gives speeches calling The New Deal the "triumph of our socialist revolution"

Justice Janice Rogers Brown is against the idea that the First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even the most right-wing Supreme Court Justices believe the First Amendment now applies to the states.

If you have a Democratic Senator, please phone or email him or her and that the filibuster against Janice Rogers Brown and the other exteme nominees continue.

(both are press releases)

Reverend Al Sharpton Clarifies His Position On Justice Janice Rogers Brown

(08 November 2003 08:58) Written by Herb Boyd

NEW YORK, NY—Democratic Presidential Candidate, the Reverend Al Sharpton, issued the following statement to clarify his position on the potential filibuster of President Bush’s nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“I am strongly opposed to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.” “She is so far removed from the judicial mainstream that she poses a serious threat to the progress we have made in civil rights.” “This morning, I made phone calls to Senator Lahey, through his Chief-of-Staff, Luke Albee, and Senators John Edwards, and Charles Schumer, to convey my opposition to the nomination of Justice Brown.” “I asked the Senators to do everything within their means to prevent her from gaining a lifetime appointment to this important Court, and call upon the full Senate to take the same steps to ensure that she is not confirmed.”

http://www.tbwt.org/home/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=1

---

Black Group Critical of Sharpton's Civil Rights Flip-Flop

11/7/03 2:20:00 PM


To: National Desk

Contact: David Almasi, 202-371-1400, ext. 106, for Project 21

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Reverend Al Sharpton's dramatic 24-hour reversal on federal judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown is strongly criticized by members of the African-American leadership network Project 21.

Forty-eight hours ago, Sharpton agreed with Project 21 that Brown deserves fair treatment, including a vote. Yesterday, apparently under political pressure, Sharpton changed his mind.

Members of Project 21 question Sharpton's commitment civil rights in now seeking to deny the black judge a fair and timely confirmation process, especially as Sharpton's new position violates not only the U.S. Constitution but Sharpton's own views.

In a Nov. 5 interview with Sinclair Broadcasting, Sharpton opposed plans by liberal senators to keep the Brown nomination from coming to a full vote in the U.S. Senate through a filibuster. He said: "I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background. But she should get an up-or-down vote." The next day, however, Sharpton's office released a statement urging senators "to do everything within their means to prevent" Brown from being confirmed. Speaking on liberal pressure experienced by Sharpton to change his opinion, talk radio host Armstrong Williams, who was in contact with Sharpton, told The Washington Times: "He said they were putting a lot of pressure on him."

-snip-

Project 21 has been a leading voice in the African-American community since 1992. For more information and to schedule an interview, contact David Almasi at 202-371-1400, ext. 106 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's Web site at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=120-11072003


(NOTE: I know NOTHING about Project 21 and am not supporting their views. I just provided the two pieces to back up the fact that Sharpton changed his opinion on the matter twice within the same week.)


EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

They can't slip one past you.

It's a shame about Sharpton.

Glad to have helped!

of confirmation.

and his previous racist statements and involvement in escallating racially tense situations. I didn't want to post, b/c it was old news...

But, this should be known.

Peace