Best strategy to set up the nomination of extremist Janice Rogers Brown

Czolgosz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-05-05 12:11 PM
Original message

Best strategy to set up the nomination of extremist Janice Rogers Brown

For those who don�t know her, Judge Janice Rogers Brown is a Bush favorite and an insanely far right-wing female judge from California whose controversial nomination to the ultra-conservative DC Circuit Court of Appeal was made possible by the Senate "compromise" over the so-called nuclear option.

Here�s what others say about Judge Brown:

Brown �has such an atrocious civil rights record she makes Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall." Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA)
�All the work that I did�was undermined by that judge.� Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Brown �wants to turn back the clock, not just a few years, but by a century or more.� Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)

Judge Brown�s own words give an even clearer picture of her judicial temperament:

�Liberalism�s vaunted tolerance and openness is a lie. In America, at least, liberalism is tolerant only of those concerns to which it is indifferent.�
�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.�
�The United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment� The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it�s probably not incorporated.�
�Politicians in their eagerness to please and to provide something of value to their constituencies that does not have a price tag are handing out new rights like lollipops in the dentist�s office.�
�In the last 100 years � and particularly the last 30 � the Constitution, once the fixed chart of our aspirations, has been demoted to the status of a bad chain novel.�

If I was the President and I wanted to bolster the chances of successfully nominating a real nut job like Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court, what would I do?

First, I would have to deal with the fact that Brown has a long record where she had been very candid about her opinions. Maybe I could nominate a �straw man� candidate who is the opposite of Judge Brown � someone who has no record and who has not been candid about her opinions. This might be a good way to force a bunch of Democratic Senators to make statements about how a long record of clear statements was a good thing. If the Democratic Senators filibustered this �straw man� candidate because she has no record and is reluctant to express her political opinions, then maybe that would make those Democratic Senators look foolish if they subsequently make the exact opposite objection to my next nominee, Judge Brown (they will already catch hell for opposing Judge Brown less than a year after they agreed that she was good enough for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals; Karl says we can call them �flip floppers� hee hee).

Next, I would want the Democrats to spend their energy filibustering �the straw man� candidate so that they would be less reluctant to filibuster my next nominee, Judge Brown.

Finally, worst case scenario, if I nominate one female candidate who�s got too little of a record and the Democrats filibuster her and if I nominate a second female candidate and the Democrats filibuster her because she has too much of a record, I could finally nominate a good ol� boy without pissing off the First Lady.

OK, let�s go with the �straw man� nominee and see where it gets us.