June 9, 2005
ORDINARY EXTREMIST:
Latest Confirmed Nominee Sees Slavery in Liberalism (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 6/09/05, NY Times)
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. Society and the courts have turned away from the founders' emphasis on personal responsibility, she has argued, toward a culture of government regulation and dependency that threatens fundamental freedoms.
"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."
To her critics, such remarks are evidence of extremism. This week, some Senate Democrats have even singled her out as the most objectionable of President Bush's more than 200 judicial nominees, citing her criticism of affirmative action and abortion rights but most of all her sweeping denunciations of New Deal legal precedents that enabled many federal regulations and social programs - developments she has called "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
But the Senate determined yesterday that the President's most extreme and objectionable nominee does bnot rise to the level of "extraordinary" that would make a filibuster legitimate.
MORE:
Senate Approves Brown: The California justice is confirmed to the D.C. appeals court after nearly two years. Schwarzenegger will pick her replacement. (Maura Reynolds, June 9, 2005, LA Times)
The Senate voted Wednesday to confirm California jurist Janice Rogers Brown to a seat on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a position that could place her on President Bush's short list of potential Supreme Court nominees. [...]The confirmation process for Brown, a justice on the California Supreme Court, stretched over nearly two years and came to symbolize two fiercely opposing forces in Washington: the president's determination to curb what conservatives see as the federal judiciary's intrusion into social issues and the Democrats' determination to resist him.
Bush praised the Senate vote in a brief statement, describing Brown as "a brilliant and fair-minded jurist who is committed to the rule of law." Brown, the first African American woman to sit on the state Supreme Court, will become the second to sit on the D.C. circuit court.
California's two senators — Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats — opposed Brown's elevation to the federal bench. Before Bush came to office, the Senate traditionally considered opposition by home-state senators sufficient to block a nominee.
"This may be the first such Senate confirmation over the opposition of both home-state senators in the history of the United States Senate," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
When two "fiercely opposing forces" meet and one wins utterly you have to be a bitter-ender to see it as a loss. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 9, 2005 9:38 AM
OJ:
"Before Bush came to office, the Senate traditionally considered opposition by home-state senators sufficient to block a nominee"
I have seen this said by the media before, but it is wrong. There has never been a blue slip procedure for the DC Circuit, nor is there one for District Court judges who sit in DC. Had Bush nominated Brown to the 9th Circuit, the Times and Leahy would have been right. In fact, when Hatch was chairman in 2001, after Boxer and Feinstein made it clear that they would oppose Chris Cox'x being appointed to the 9th Circuit, he withdrew from consideration and his paperwork was never submitted. "Home State" Senators have never been able to block nominations to courts that don't sit in their home states!!
Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2005 10:01 AMRFK and Javits had an agreement where for every two nominees RFK got to pick, Javits would get one (a Democrat being president). Javits picked our grandfather for the Eastern District but when RFK got whacked LBJ tried bailing on him. So Javits went to Ted Kennedy and told him what was going down. Thus was Orrin Judd indebted to Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: oj at June 9, 2005 10:40 AM"But the Senate determined yesterday that the President's most extreme and objectionable nominee does bnot rise to the level of 'extraordinary' that would make a filibuster legitimate."
Sez who? The agreement says that JRB, Owens, & Pryor get votes. And that non-named judges may be filibustered under 'extraordinary' circumstances. You think this implies that JRB, Owens, & Pryor are not 'extraordinary', but I bet none of the Dem 7 agree with you. The question, then, is whether the Repub 7 agree with you, and I bet the answer is no...
Posted by: b at June 9, 2005 10:49 AMExactly. The agreement makes clear that these three are not extraordinary.
Posted by: oj at June 9, 2005 10:54 AMoj: No, it does no such thing. You may think it implies that, but it certainly does not state so definitively.
Posted by: b at June 9, 2005 11:07 AMdefinitively? You're kidding right? If it said anything definitive only one senator would have signed it.
Posted by: oj at June 9, 2005 11:12 AMMakes clear? You were kidding, right? If it made anything clear no senator would have signed it...
Posted by: oj at June 9, 2005 11:24 AMIt only needs to be clear to 2 of 7 Republicans.
Posted by: Timothy at June 9, 2005 1:04 PM