Brown! Brown! Brown!
Posted by Richard on July 4, 2005
Everyone knows that Pres. Bush will be under some pressure to replace Sandra Day O’Connor with a woman, right? And I, for one, sure don’t want another Souter or Kennedy (someone recently suggested that Gonzales was Spanish for "Souter"). So why do I keep reading about Gonzales, Garza, Luttig, McConnell, etc? To me, there’s an obvious female candidate who is uniquely positioned from a public relations standpoint due to the profoundly unpopular Kelo decision.
During the battle over confirmation of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court, Democrats denounced her as radical, extreme, and out of the mainstream. One of the examples they frequently cited was her dissent in a takings case, San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, in 2002.
I blogged about this a couple of months ago in my first post about Brown, quoting Brown critic Stuart Taylor Jr. on San Remo Hotel:
… In dissent, Brown wrote that "property ownership is the essential prerequisite of liberty" and that the city had engaged in "theft" and "turn[ed] a democracy into a kleptocracy." Criticizing the Supreme Court’s "labyrinthine and compartmentalized" case law on the Constitution’s requirement of "just compensation" for governmental "takings" of private property, she called for a new "conceptual approach" that would invalidate laws redistributing wealth from one group to another. …
I want Bush to name Janice Rogers Brown and explain his choice thusly:
"During the Senate confirmation battle over Judge Brown’s appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court, Democratic Senators argued that her strong defense of property rights was extreme and out of the mainstream. In the wake of the Kelo decision, the public outrage across the political spectrum has made it clear that those Democratic Senators were wrong. When she forcefully defends our property rights, Janice Rogers Brown speaks for the American people. And the American people need her voice on the Supreme Court."
Let the Democrats try to justify a filibuster (having abandoned one just weeks ago) against a black woman who is a forceful and articulate defender of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Leave a Comment