Law School Discussion

Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??

elegantpearl01

Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« on: May 19, 2005, 05:42:43 AM »
Commentary: Support Janice Rogers Brown – Black Liberals Need Another Black to Hate
Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2005
By: Gregory Kane, BlackAmericaWeb.com

For the good mental health of black America, the U.S. Senate must confirm President George W. Bush’s nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to a federal judgeship.
 
Brown is a black woman who happens to be a conservative. Her appointment has been hijacked by Senate Democrats who are threatening to filibuster any Bush judicial nominee whose opinions are not “mainstream.”

That’s what the claim about Thomas has been, hasn’t it? That he hates himself and is darned uneasy being black? A guy who thinks the way Thomas does has got to hate black people.
 
That charge usually comes from black folks who are quick to quote Malcolm X, who during his heyday was the self-appointed cop determined to expose America’s self-hating Negroes. But Malcolm had problems with self-hatred himself. He was caught, on more than one occasion, making the revealing psychological slip “I hate every drop of black blood, er, uh, I mean white blood in me.”
 
Thomas is guilty of no such faux pas, but he remains black America’s Uncle Tom-in-chief all the same. When Emerge magazine was in existence, one cover depicted Thomas wearing a handkerchief on his head. Another cover pictured him as a lawn jockey, and a drawing inside showed a cheesing Thomas gleefully shining Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s shoes.
 
I have it from an unimpeachable source that those two issues of Emerge were the highest selling issues in the magazine’s much-too-brief history. For my money, Emerge was the finest magazine that ever targeted a black audience. Most of its stories were hard-hitting, informative journalism.

The two Thomas pieces weren’t the best done by the magazine. But they sold the most. Why?
 
Because they were therapeutic. Black folks have so much invested in hating Thomas that seeing him depicted as a handkerchiefhead, a lawn jockey and a shoeshine boy moved us in ways that more serious and important stories couldn’t. Hating Thomas has been cathartic for most of us.
 
That’s why we should be the ones demanding that the Senate confirm Brown. Because if one shuffling black conservative-Uncle Tom-handkerchiefhead-#%@!-house-n-word on a federal bench has been good for us, imagine what TWO can do.

And don’t listen to the naysayers like Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a sister who wrote that Brown “does not belong on the federal bench.” Tucker didn’t argue that Brown was unqualified. Liberals can’t argue that. Brown is more than qualified.

So Tucker trotted out the “mainstream” argument again. Then Tucker gave a list of opinions Brown wrote that Tucker discovered were, horror of horrors, contrary to hers. There’s only one viewpoint that belongs on a federal bench, Tucker and her fellow liberals believe, and that viewpoint happens to be their own.

That kind of thinking would have been more appropriate in Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union than in 21st century America. But once again, we see that if we so much as prick liberals, the Joe Stalin will come gushing out of them. Liberals' real objection to Brown is that she’s not only conservative, but she can back up her conservatism with sound arguments and facts.

Who would want someone like that as a federal judge? Liberals clearly don’t.

But if that judge is black and conservative, then black Americans desperately need such a person. We need another black conservative judge we can vilify as much as we have Thomas. We need another black conservative female we can revile as much as we do Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. There are some black folks still swooning from the thrill they got when poet and playwright Amiri Baraka called Rice a “skeeza.”

So let’s get Brown on the federal bench.
 
Our mental health depends on it.


While you ponder why the party out of power in the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House gets to determine what is and is not mainstream, I’ll give my reasons why Brown’s appointment will be good therapy for those black folks who need someone black to hate.

For the past 14 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has filled that role. Hating Thomas has become a cottage industry for many black Americans. He’s our whipping boy, our handy scapegoat, our living, breathing walking testimony to the dangers of what can happen to a black man who hates himself and his race.


underwhelm

Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2005, 05:49:33 AM »
Can you please erect more strawmen? Thanks.

HBCU.EDU

Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2005, 10:44:53 AM »
I love this woman. Thank God I'm a Republican. I agree with all this *&^%.


The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Strongly Opposes the Confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown
October 24, 2003
email to a friendEmail To A Friend
print this articlePrinter Friendly

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown's record to date reveals a troubling pattern of persistent and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers' rights, and fairness in the criminal justice system. Justice Brown has often been alone in her dissents from opinions of the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her legal interpretations are far outside the judicial mainstream. In her opinions, Justice Brown has also shown an inability to dispassionately review cases; instead, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Brown's extremist record includes:

# Undermining civil rights remedies. In 1999's Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the defendant employer had violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act by creating a hostile work environment through the use of racial slurs directed at Latino employees. The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's remedy that prohibited the use of racial slurs. In her dissent, Brown argued that the First Amendment protects the use of such slurs in the workplace, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination. This conclusion by Justice Brown virtually ignored several Supreme Court precedents.

# Hostility toward affirmative action. Brown's majority opinion in Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose has made it extremely difficult for California to conduct any meaningful affirmative action programs. While some of the result in this case may have been dictated by Proposition 209, the state's anti-affirmative action ballot initiative, Brown's opinion appeared to go much further than necessary by prohibiting cities from requiring their contractors to engage in outreach to subcontractor businesses owned by minorities and women. Brown's opinion stated that affirmative action is at odds with federal law, despite consistent Supreme Court rulings finding that, under the right circumstances, affirmative action is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution.

# Antagonism toward the rights of workers. In Loder v. City of Glendale, a case addressing the constitutionality of a drug and alcohol testing program for employees of the City of Glendale, Brown, in dissent, explicitly rejected binding Supreme Court precedent that called for the use of a balancing test to weigh the interest of the government against those of its employees in assessing whether these types of tests were constitutionally permissible. Despite the clear Supreme Court precedent, Brown would have imposed a bright line rule allowing drug tests for all employees. This opinion raises very serious concerns about Brown's commitment to upholding settled law in both the workers' rights context and many other areas of civil rights and liberties.

# Undermining the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. In a 2002 housing discrimination case, Konig v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, Brown's lone dissent argued that the state's Department of Fair Employment and Housing Commission, unlike the courts, did not have the authority to award damages for emotional distress. This rule, if adopted by the court, would have seriously limited the redress options available to victims of discrimination. In Peatros v. Bank of America, Brown argued in dissent that the National Banking Act of 1864 pre-empted California's fair employment law, thus preventing a bank employee from being able to file a lawsuit for race and age discrimination in state court. Justice Brown made this argument despite the fact that other more recent federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, would clearly supercede the 135-year-old banking law on this question.

# Undermining the rights of the accused. In People v. Mar, the California Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a defendant who was made to wear a stun belt during his testimony at trial. The belt made the defendant uncomfortable and nervous and may have affected how the jury viewed his testimony. In her dissent arguing to uphold the requirement that the defendant wear the belt, Brown berated her colleagues in a brazenly sarcastic and highly critical way, belittling the court's research into stun belts, accusing her colleagues of "rushing to judgment after conducting an embarrassing Google.com search," and implying that a high school student could have done a better job than the chief justice in preparing the majority ruling. Also, Brown's dissent in People v. Ray would have allowed a warrantless search of a person's home as part of law enforcement's "community care taking functions," – an exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches not recognized by the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has a critical role in our federal judicial system. The D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the second most important court in the United States, after the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of the importance of this court, it is critical that Janice Rogers Brown's nomination be carefully scrutinized.

Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2005, 10:52:36 AM »
Brown berated her colleagues in a brazenly sarcastic and highly critical way, belittling the court's research into stun belts, accusing her colleagues of "rushing to judgment after conducting an embarrassing Google.com search," and implying that a high school student could have done a better job than the chief justice in preparing the majority ruling

 :D :D :D :D

elegantpearl01

Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2005, 04:57:24 PM »
HBCU are you really a Republican...you know they are evil people...who steal elections...lol..for real, I do think that party is evil, especially given my career in politics, I've seen it

This woman needs to be voted down...thank goodness Justice Thurgood Marshall isn't alive to see people like Thomas and Brown on the bench.

Lawprofessor

  • ****
  • 3276
  • Pony Up!
    • View Profile
Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2005, 01:34:13 AM »
HBCU are you really a Republican...you know they are evil people...who steal elections...lol..for real, I do think that party is evil, especially given my career in politics, I've seen it

This woman needs to be voted down...thank goodness Justice Thurgood Marshall isn't alive to see people like Thomas and Brown on the bench.

Everyone is opposed to Judge Brown bring nominated.

One Step Ahead

  • *****
  • 6251
  • you say you want a revolution
    • View Profile
Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2005, 01:35:07 AM »
HBCU are you really a Republican...you know they are evil people...who steal elections...lol..for real, I do think that party is evil, especially given my career in politics, I've seen it

This woman needs to be voted down...thank goodness Justice Thurgood Marshall isn't alive to see people like Thomas and Brown on the bench.

Everyone is opposed to Judge Brown bring nominated.
what language are you speaking professor?  are you sure you aren't regal in disguise?

One Step Ahead

  • *****
  • 6251
  • you say you want a revolution
    • View Profile
Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2005, 01:36:53 AM »
HBCU are you really a Republican...you know they are evil people...who steal elections...lol..for real, I do think that party is evil, especially given my career in politics, I've seen it

This woman needs to be voted down...thank goodness Justice Thurgood Marshall isn't alive to see people like Thomas and Brown on the bench.

correct. 
the voice of Thurgood Marshall is calling HBCU to repent

elegantpearl01

Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2005, 04:30:06 AM »
agitatorE, I love the scrolling marquee... :D

Lawprofessor

  • ****
  • 3276
  • Pony Up!
    • View Profile
Re: Janice Rogers Brown..The New Clarence Thomas??
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2005, 10:10:14 AM »
HBCU are you really a Republican...you know they are evil people...who steal elections...lol..for real, I do think that party is evil, especially given my career in politics, I've seen it

This woman needs to be voted down...thank goodness Justice Thurgood Marshall isn't alive to see people like Thomas and Brown on the bench.

Everyone is opposed to Judge Brown bring nominated.
what language are you speaking professor?  are you sure you aren't regal in disguise?

I am speaking.  Does that mean I would be IN regal?  Hey, it was early in the morning.  Forgive me for my mistakes.