Why is Janice Brown even up for consideration?

Doesn't a judicial nominee have to get the OK from at least one of their home state Senators? Why aren't Boxer and Feinstein able to block her nomination without even needing to bother with a filibuster? What is going on here?

And that tradition was observed by both sides of the aisle.

But the Pub's have rejected it. More of the "New Senate."

Oddly, Janice Rogers Brown does not have a bad reputation in California. She's pro-capital punishment (which about 70% of the country is, even in Cali), and has the reputation of being a good judge on meat-and-potatoes issues, commercial issues. She's supposed to read her own papers and make up her own mind.

I'm a loyal Dem, and a member of the California Bar. I can't figure out the intense energy -- although she is quite conservative, generally.

about her 'strict constructionist' views, particularly the one that states that she does not believe in 'incorporation,' not even selective incorporation. She does not believe that fundamental right guarantees, such as the First Amendment's guarantees, flow down to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

If she eventually made her way up to the Supreme Court, and this issue came up, and her vote was pivotal, what kind of a crazy country would we have, since it is the representative of the state (e.g. a district attorney or a police officer) that I'm most concerned about in terms of observation of my fundamental rights.

I say that she is an extremist and would be a disaster!!

and you will understand the problem. If you just read her majority opinions, you don't get the real picture. It is only thanks to the saner members of the California Supreme Court that she is not more controversial here.