Bench Press

New at Reason: Clint Bollick explains why Justice Janice Brown belongs on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Comments

[Jim Walsh]

Anyone for getting up a petition to get this lady on the COA bench?

[arjay]

I can understand why the Shumer-Boxer crew don’t want her, what I can’t quite fathom is why Bushcroft does.

[Patriot]

My question precisely arjay. The only thing I could think of is they know she’ll get shot down and they want to garner the libertarian or small government vote.

[Patriot]

And get a few minority votes as well I suppose.

[Daniel Imfeld]

So, this mean that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is against the advancement of a colored person. How ironic.

[Anonymous]

Disgusting Bullshit, even for you, Reason-

Don’t you think the fact that she got the lowest passing rating (Qualified/Unqualified) from EVERYONE who evaluated her record deserves some mention? That she was babbling and incoherent in her interview in Congress, and was confused about the content of her own opinions? Doesn’t that seem a little more germane than baseless charges of “racism”?

Don’t you think playing the race card is disgusting, regardless of who does it?

Of course not- you just cherrypick the parts you agree with, and smear anyone who disagrees. You pull out nonsense like “The Daughter of Sharecroppers”, as opposed to the substantive reasons for her being barred. There should be a comfy position waiting for you at FOX News or Democrats.com-

Congratulations, whores.

[Sekkie Four]

She is also a far right wacko. But remember, Tim didn’t get his job at National Review, so instead he touts his warmongering pseudo-libertarian corporate PR here on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Bollocks, Tim, it’s BoLick!

I guess I should start watching TV again, I didn’t know
she was a black woman.

[thoreau]

The best test for whether a pundit will say judicial nominee will be an unbiased arbiter of law vs. partisan hack is to check the pundit’s party affiliation and compare it with the President’s party affiliation. If the pundit is of the same party as the President then he/she will almost certainly approve of the nominee, whereas if the pundit is of a different party he/she will almost certainly denounce the nominee.

I’m not suggesting that all nominees are in fact equally good/bad, or that all criticisms/praise are equally unreliable. But I am suggesting that the current climate is so polluted with lock-step commentary that it’s hard to tease out whether a judicial nominee is in fact good or bad. Bush may be nominating some truly wonderful people and some truly awful people. But the (nearly) uniform GOP support for all of his nominees makes it hard to tell whether we can really believe the praise heaped on them, and the (nearly) uniform Democratic opposition makes it hard to tell whether we can really believe the criticism.

[Richard]

Anon at 3:04

The endorsement (or disendorsement) of the ABA is not anything that is taken too seriously by attorneys. If one were to look at the ABA’s positions on tort reform, gun control, population control, abortion, etc., one would be able to easily discern the pattern that the ABA is very left-leaning. Not every attorney belongs to the ABA…most just belong to their state bar and consider the ABA to be the epitomy of self-dealing self-serving protectionists…

Just so you know, I belong to the Student Section of the ABA and happen to disagree with many of their views, but I am always hopeful for change.

…and just so everyone knows this…I personally hate anonymous posts…just type in chickenshit next time or don’t post. Don’t be afraid of responses.

[joe]

“the current climate is so polluted with lock-step commentary that it’s hard to tease out whether a judicial nominee is in fact good or bad.

“the (nearly) uniform Democratic opposition makes it hard to tell whether we can really believe the criticism.”

Last time I checked (a couple months ago), the Senate had approved over 120 of Bush’s nominees, the vast majority of whom are Republicans. The number who have received enough opposition to make the news can be counted on one hand.

After Bush was appointed President, there were a lot of Democratic voters who demanded that no judicial nominations should be approved, unless the nominee was endorsed by the Democratic Senate leadership – not just confirmed, but actively supported. The Democratic Senators ignored this, and have routinely waved through all but the most objectionable sliver of Bush’s nominations.

[Jason Ligon]

Far Right Wacko, adj.: 1) One who holds the belief that the common welfare clause, even when combined with the interstate commerce clause, still doesn’t give the government power to do whatever the hell it wants. 2) One who counts ten issues in the bill of rights. See also, gun nut, oil shill.

[Jason Ligon]

Make that a noun and ten amendments. Nothin’ like being a smartass and bunging it up …

[bennett]

Joe, thats probably because they were filling positions that don’t require news coverage. The rub here is that the Dems have held up the nominations to the positions that actually matter. The ones with some real power. And they have done so using the standard bag of tricks all politicians use.

[Steve in CA]

Whoever called Brown a “right winger” is a fucking moron, or just to lazy to read past a headline.

I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to see an actual libertarian nominated to a position like this. On the other hand, the liberal reaction to her nomination shows just how far away our side is from its opinions being received reasonably.

I’m not someone who gets excited about the usual Bush nominees, but I really hope he stays in office long enough to nominate Janice Brown to the Supreme Court.

[Steve in CA]

She also has a record as an oustanding justice. I mean, really — if all the Democrats can come up with is that she has (gasp) libertarian views, she must be squeaky fucking clean.

[Jean Bart]

Here I thought libertarians were against affirmative action.

[Jean Bart]

“Remarkable for the breadth of sources upon which she draws?ranging from Hayek, Ayn Rand, Cicero, Toqueville, and the Founding Fathers to Chris Rock, Paul Simon, and Buffalo Springfield?Justice Brown’s speeches and opinions are spirited and provocative.”

Oh wow! Cicero! So if I write an article which qoutes from Madison, Kant, Aristotle, and Bruce Springsteen, does that qualify me for a US Circuit Court position? BTW, anyone uses Ayn Rand is likely not very bright; as Rand’s thoughts on the theory of universals testifies.

Of course the next person on the US Supreme Court should be Richard A. Posner. Of course he won’t be because the Republicans have too many black and hispanic judges, who are not equal to his merit, to get onto the court for their political purposes.

[Steve in CA]

Oh, shut the fuck up, Bart. I’m happy that there’s a judge who shares my worldview. I could give two shits about her race. But obviously, it’s important to you.

And I guess if you would make any assumptions about Justice Brown as an individual because of her race, then you just might make a generalization as dumb as “anyone uses Ayn Rand is likely not very bright.”

[Warren]

Here here

[fyodor]

Jean Bart,

You’ve scraped the barrel on this thread. I don’t see ANYONE saying or implying that Brown should be confirmed because she’s black, not in the thread nor the blog entry nor the original article.

That said, I agree that her bad performance when questioned about the supremacy clause was disappointing. But I don’t know if that entirely disqualifies her by itself.

[Jean Bart]

fyodor,

Then why even mention her race? Perhaps this is just a cross-cultural issue, but whenever anyone black is mentioned in the US, it appears the fact that they are black must also be mentioned! Please do explain.

[nm156]

It does not say in the article that she is a libertarian, only that she has those leanings. God, you people will bend over backwards for anyone you can even remotely tag as “one of us.”

[Anonymous]

But Jean, you’re the one who mentioned her race!

[Anonymous]

In what sense is Brown not a libertarian?

[Jean Bart]

Anonymous,

Actuallyy, the article this conversation is based on did; as did her supporters in the Senate – Orrin Hatch specifically.

[joe]

fy,

“I don’t see ANYONE saying or implying that Brown should be confirmed because she’s black, not in the thread nor the blog entry nor the original article.”

Um, how exactly should we interpret this post?

“So, this mean that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is against the advancement of a colored person. How ironic.”

[fyodor]

Joe,

Personally I think he was mainly just trying to say something snide about the NAACP. I do admit, though, that I had glossed over and essentially ignored that post cause it seemed rather stupid. Okay, maybe, MAYBE that one poster was advocating confirming Brown based on her race, though it still seems rather vague. But if that was his point, then I’m on Jean Bart’s side contra him. But I still think there’s no evidence that such is the general position of “libertarians” as he implies. I should add, actually, that libertarians are not necessarily against affirmative action as long as it’s not mandated by coercive laws.

[Jason Ligon]

Jean Bart:

It all depends on your view of judicial branch, and what it is supposed to do. The test these days is not capability, but ideological purity. If we accept that the bench can create and remove rights at will, then smart in any traditional sense has to take a back seat to agenda. FDR’s court stacking threat has screwed us forever. More explicitly, the court’s caving to his demands screwed us forever. We can never again pretend that the court is designed to uphold the constitution, they are now tyrant by committee. The game is to get the tyrant you can live with.

But maybe I’m a cynic.

[Jean Bart]

Steve in Ca.,

Boo hoo. Get some backbone. If the woman’s race is not important, then why at every turn by her supporters is it mentioned? You see, Repuglicans like to say they are against Affirmative Action, until they can play the tokenism game.

And if you had listened to the woman’s answers to questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she for confused about the nature of the US Constitution’s Supremecy Clause, then you would know she isn’t as bright as made out by the editors here.

To be frank this is another example of tokenism; and whether it is practiced by the right or the left its sickening.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, I stand by my statement. Judge Richard Posner should be the next appointment to the US Supreme Court; and this would happen if merit and intelligence were the main reasons for appointments to the court. But the Repuglicans and the Demorats will put their favorite persecuted minority on the court just because they are a persecuted minority.

[packard aaron]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PILLS-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 12:13:47
John Bradford, Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins

[Lee Jung]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://natural-penis-enlargement.drugsexperts.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 01:28:29
There was no immunity to cuckoo ideas on Earth.

[Romero Oscar]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 193.251.169.169
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 01:25:01
We are as God made us, and often a great deal worse.