June 09, 2005
Legal News You Can Use
Via KJ, we learn that yet another white, Christian extremist judge was confirmed yesterday... and isn't that just like those knuckle-dragging neocons who ruthlessly seized control of our government last November? Lest you think the Senate voted along strict party lines, check out the breakdown of the actual vote at NGC - it will restore your faith in the power of bipartisanship cooperation.
Now that Justice Brown has been confirmed, it's hard to remember what all the fuss was about. After all, as Charlotte Allen notes, she returned to the bench with 76% of the popular vote. Anyone would think the Democrats (who love to tout the splendors of public opinion) would consider that a powerful endorsement. Dare we say, a mandate? Not so, however. Charlotte quotes Thomas Sowell:
"What the left-wing can never forgive her for is upholding the right of California voters to ban racial quotas. More than four and a half million Californians voted for Proposition 209, which outlawed group preferences and quotas. But liberals wanted the state Supreme Court to over-rule the voters. Janice Rogers Brown refused and instead wrote the majority opinion upholding the voters’ right to make the laws under which they live."
Again with the representative democracy thingy! This sort of radical judicial extremism simply will not stand. When will the federal judiciary stop trying to overrule the voice of the people's elected repre... umm...err... nevermind.
I can't help but think Justice Brown's real crime, like that of Justice Thomas, lies in being black and conservative. Having dared to step off the DNC plantation, the dogs are in full chorus. Just consider Harry Reid's shameful remarks about Clarence Thomas:
"I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." You'd think Thomas' opinions were written in ebonics.
In the same interview, Reid called Justice Antonin Scalia "one smart guy." He said that although he disagreed with Scalia, his reasoning is "very hard to dispute." Scalia is "one smart guy"; Thomas is the janitor.
Could this be the same man who just wrote an eloquent, well-reasoned, and principled dissent in Gonzales v. Raich? Why is it that so many liberals - of all colors - reserve their deepest calumny for black conservatives who stray from the Cause? La Shawn Barber comments:
Upon meeting me, white liberals take one look at my skin and presume I’m a left-leaning, Congressional Black Caucus-supporting, racial preference-loving, pro-infanticide crony. They condescendingly offer opinions about “diversity and multicultural” this or “Democratic fundraiser” that. I usually excuse such transgressions because it’s natural to quickly size up people based on information readily available. When I rebut these presumptions and share my deeply held conservative beliefs, however, I get open-mouthed stares.
Where I come from there's a word for that: prejudice. Pre-judging someone, based solely on the color of their skin. It used to be a bad word. La Shawn has harsh words for the DNC. Judging by the way Justice Brown was treated, I'd say they're well-deserved:
With 90 percent of the black vote locked down tight, Democrats don’t quite know what to do with the other 10 percent, so they pull the old plantation routine by turning blacks against each other. While the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) shamelessly attacks California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black conservative nominated by President George W. Bush for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, white liberals sit back and gaze upon their handiwork. It’s life as usual on the old plantation.
It never ceases to amaze me how activist groups will argue that blacks and women need to stick together come hell or high water. Minor defects such as, say, a relative lack of experience or credentials or a shady past must be overlooked in the interests of furthering the agenda. Both "underrepresented groups" should be given special preferences in hiring -- that is, until a conservative is under consideration.
Then, the candidate goes under the microscope. Suddenly you'd think we were in Communist Russia - the candidate has not demonstrated the proper degree of socialist ardor and love for the Common Man. His or her views are danagerous. They cannot be heard by decent people in a free society - just listen to Ted Kennedy, he'll tell you. You see, it's the 'wrong kind' of black or woman.
Such treatment is considered justified because the victim is a Race or Gender Traitor and this is payback. But why do only minorities and women have to toe the party line? Why are they treated like second-class citizens? You'd think they'd wise up and realize that they're being denied the same rights the fascist white patriarchy has enjoyed for years: the right to think what they choose to think, say what they believe, and associate with like-minded individuals.
It's time to leave the plantation. There's something wrong with a system in which someone else is trying to tell you what to think based on your gender or the color of your skin.
Update: via the comments section, spd rdr linked this excellent NY Times article on Justice Brown. As always, a good read - thanks.
Is there any better reminder that Justice Brown has not forgotten where she came from, than the quote used to open the article?
"In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery,"
Ms. Brown has not forgotten the chains of slavery. She simply has a different conception of freedom.
Posted by Cassandra at June 9, 2005 04:45 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
"It's time to leave the plantation."
As for me, being part Native American, I left the reservation long ago...
Posted by: camojack at June 9, 2005 07:17 AM
The New York Times must have had to choke down hard before printing this:
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."
What? No reparations? Damned uppity.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 9, 2005 07:19 AM
Thanks, that was great. Now if we'd only had her on the court for Gonzalez v. Raich...
Posted by: Cassandra at June 9, 2005 08:19 AM