j8ear, if the Republicans send up a right wing nut, the Democrats will (and should) protest. Now, if Bush consults the Democrats to find a consensus candidate as Clinton consulted Republicans to find someone everyone could agree with, AND the Democrats protest against that person, then they should be called on it.
But if Bush tries to ram a hard-right candidate down America's throat, and ignores Democratic advice, then the Democrats should have every right to protest. In fact, if Clinton had tried to ram a far left candidate on to the Supreme Court, then I fully believe that Republicans would have every right to protest. However, Clinton chose what was best for this country by working with Republican leaders to find someone most Americans could agree with. will Bush do the same? I doubt it.
Lastly, on Janice Rogers Brown, she is clearly unacceptable and far-right, as well as someone the Democrats have every right to - and should - protest:
Quote:
Part of being a qualified judicial nominee is an ability to show some judicial temperament and restraint. Janice Rogers Brown, clearly one of Bush's worst would-be judges, obviously doesn't understand that.
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.
Brown's remarks come as a partisan battle over judges has evolved into a national debate over the proper mix of God and government and as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) ponders changing the chamber's rules to prevent Democrats from using procedural moves to block confirmation of conservative jurists such as Brown.
Her comments to a gathering of Roman Catholic legal professionals in Darien, Conn., came on the same day as "Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith," a program produced by evangelical leaders and simulcast on the Internet and in homes and churches around the country. It was designed to paint opponents of Bush's judicial nominees as intolerant of believers.
Apparently, Judge Brown was on quite a roll. She described these as "perilous times for people of faith" in the United States; she insisted the "idea of human freedom" is undermined when we move away from the nation's alleged religious underpinnings; and she condemned atheists for rejecting the "idea of freedom."
So, let's put this in context. Bush has nominated a person to serve on the second highest court in the nation that believes FDR was a socialist, that minimum-wage regulations should be outlawed, that the New Deal was a "socialist revolution," and that Social Security should be equated with "cannibalism."
Then, to top things off during the fight over her nomination, she describes herself as a combatant in a religious war against non-believers.
Brown is Phyllis Schlafly in a judicial robe. Her nomination sounds more like some kind of bizarre joke than a serious move to fill an appellate court vacancy.
If the Republican Party still had any sense of decency left, Dems wouldn't have to filibuster Brown's nomination — GOP senators would have the sense to vote against her.
|
Link.
P.S. More on Brown:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751
Brown on Social Security:
Quote:
|
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. [IFJ speech at 2,3]
|
Brown on government:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Brown on pretty much every major civil rights case in the last 60 years:
Quote:
|
The United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment…The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy…The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it’s probably not incorporated. [
|
Whether you agree with her positions or not, you can't deny that her views are clearly not in the mainstream and that she is worthy of protest from the Democrats.