Sandefur on Janice Rogers Brown

While she has interesting ideas, expressed better than a whole host of squishy pseudo-conservative columnists, and the idea of a Randian Circuit Court Judge issuing sole dissents is more entertaining than some bland alternative, there is this:

"There seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided. It's not a shooting war, but it is a war," [Janice Rogers Brown] said, according to a report published Monday in the Stamford Advocate.

The war she was talking about was the Bill Frist-and-James Dobson-invented one between secularists (her word) and people of faith. Given that she grew up in Alabama in the 50s and 60s in the midst of the civil rights struggle, riots, and church bombings, I think she must be crazy.

"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." ["A Whiter Shade of Pale," Speech to Federalist Society (April 20, 2000)]

"My grandparents' generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family's honor. Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much "free" stuff as the political system will permit them to extract...Big government is ... [t]he drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms, for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens." ["A Whiter Shade of Pale," Speech to Federalist Society (April 20, 2000)]

From her speech via Ted Kennedy

I also find it odd that Sandefur simultaneously criticizing the Democrats for wanting more than a bare majority, but praises the fact that "she rejects any notion of the judge as a rubber stamp for whatever the majority does. She believes that courts should function, first and last, as defenders of freedom."

Why should the Democrats be a "rubber stand for whatever the majority does"? Shouldn't a lifetime appointment meet a higher standard? Shouldn't the fact that her ideology would declare Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA and the Endangered Species Act all to be illegal be a basis for vigorously opposing her?

Josh-
I have no problem with the two quotes from Brown. I think she's essentially correct. I also don't think there is a contradiction in Sandefur's words on the subject. He didn't criticize the Democrats for using the filibuster, he criticized them for using the filibuster against this particular candidate because he thinks she's an excellent candidate for the court, and he thinks that at least in part because she does not believe that judges should rubber stamp legislative acts that don't pass constitutional muster.
I'm more interested in her other views, at least as they have been portrayed for me. If she truly does reject incorporation, then I have a major problem with supporting her nomination even if I agree with her on other things. I would certainly have a difficult time supporting her for a Supreme Court nomination if that is truly her belief.

Janice Rogers Brown is a religious fanatic who believes that "people of faith" are being persecuted by tyrannical "socialists" and "Marxists", and blames the Enlightenment for America's current ills. She may have strong pro-business views which she expresses in the language of libertarianism, but she is no libertarian.

Sadefur is either gleefully happy that Brown sided with him in a case, or supports the same positions as she. Thus he is opining that he too favors the end of all civil rights protections(the Civil Rights Act of 1964) including each of the voting amendments, which would protect racial minorities from all forms of discrimination, including verbal abuse in the workplace. Yes Brown suggests that employers have no right to protect their minority employees from racially abusive speech by the white employees.

Now i suppose libertarians might think that a world of unfettered corporations free to racially profile employees and customers, free to impose their own will on citizens, free to discriminate in any way they choose against people of color--while insuring that these corporations do not provide sufficient tax bases whatsoever to insure that any and all minorities might in some way be protected from such discrimination is all well and good. My only caveat is that they should also free themselves from paying taxes that support law enforcement agencies, thus empowering and enabling those same discriminated against minorities the same freedom to act in as many vile and despicable ways towards the corporations, the business, universities, and ruling class majority. Aahh, but that is the rub. All well and good to remove the core principles that regulate and restrict the oppression of minorities, but never good to remove the security apparatus that protects the abusers. Yes let us go back to a US of the early 1800's, as Brown has written about in her solo dissents.

Has Sandefur lost his senses? Since when does "rude, ignorant and wrong" equal "libertarian?"

Go here, see some facts: http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=16978

Here're some quotes from a recent LA Times article:

'Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech.

'"The Advocate quoted Brown as lamenting that America had moved away from the religious traditions on which it was founded.

'"When we move away from that, we change our whole conception of the most significant idea that America has to offer, which is this idea of human freedom and this notion of liberty," she said.

'"She added that atheism "handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom.... Freedom then becomes willfulness."'

Her supporters are saying that her comments she makes in speeches are unrelated to her judicial decision making, and should not influence the vote on her appointment. Well, I'll go along with that is she recuses herself from any cases that are related to religious freedom, or any other topics on which she decides to make incendiary remarks about.

The ABA rated her as qualified for her appointment, but a significant minority rated her unqualified. (The system has ratings of Well qualified, qualified, and unqualified, and notes whether a significant majority or significant minority supported a particular rating.)

There are MANY Conservative judges out there who don't go around making ridiculous statements like this, but who probably share some of her views. The reason she is being nominated is not just because she will be a responsible jurist, but that she showed up on Bush's radar by making such comments.

Brent Rasmussen has some quote from her concerning Judge Brown and her views on the religious root of this country:

"that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech."

Of course, these were taken from one LA Times article, so if that is wrong, all bets are off.

I will let Sandefur defend himself, as he's more than capable of doing so. I've seen some quotes from Brown that disturb me as well, but I don't know if they're accurate or in context, and that's one reason why I wrote this.