STORM2K

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



The Rev. Al Sharpton implored Senate Democrats yesterday not to filibuster President Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the nation's second-highest federal court.
Justice Brown, who is black, has come under intense criticism by liberal black groups, such as the NAACP, and by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel plans to vote this morning on her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
"I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background," said Mr. Sharpton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. "But she should get an up-or-down vote."
Democrats have been sharply critical of Justice Brown, though they have not yet explicitly vowed a filibuster, which would prevent her name from reaching the Senate floor for a confirmation vote that likely would pass. If all nine Democrats vote against the nomination today, they will likely begin a filibuster against her.
Mr. Sharpton's comments not only complicate the vote for several Democrats on the panel, they also are a stark departure from some of the best-known black groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said Justice Brown is "hostile to civil rights and civil liberties and ill-prepared to sit on the nation's second-highest court."
"The president's penchant for choosing extremist minority judicial candidates is an exercise in cynicism of the worst kind," Mr. Bond said. "Clothing extreme views in color is designed to make them more difficult to oppose, but judicial selections should be based in principle, not in pigment."
Born into a poor, sharecropping family in segregated Alabama, Justice Brown made her way through law school as a single mother. After serving in former California Gov. Pete Wilson's administration, she was named by him to the California Supreme Court.
At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bond and other black leaders portrayed Justice Brown as a "far right-wing extremist" and "outside the mainstream."
They were asked how Justice Brown could be described as a right-wing ideologue when 76 percent of California voters cast ballots to return her to the bench in 1998, the highest percentage of any justice in that retention election.
"It's inexplicable to me," Mr. Bond said. "I cannot think of a response. But nonetheless, that election does not invalidate any of the things [we] have said."
Mr. Sharpton echoed the concerns of many conservatives — especially black conservatives — that Justice Brown is being opposed because she doesn't conform to the Democratic ideology that many blacks espouse.
"We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us," Mr. Sharpton said in a television interview conducted by Sinclair Broadcasting yesterday. "I don't think she should be opposed because she doesn't come from some assumed club."
Mr. Sharpton compared the filibusters to the same sort of "pocket vetoes" used for so long against blacks.
Wade Henderson, director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who attended the anti-Brown press conference, was later asked about Mr. Sharpton's remarks.
"I don't believe it. That can't be true," he said as he headed to a meeting in the Democratic leadership office. "It would be shockingly surprising."
Mr. Sharpton's position could create particular problems for Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat and candidate for president, who plans to vote against Justice Brown's nomination in the Judiciary Committee today.
A group supporting Justice Brown's nomination is airing television ads in South Carolina criticizing Mr. Edwards for blocking the nominee, who was born into the same conditions as many of those in that state's large black population.
South Carolina is Mr. Edwards' birth state and his best early hope for a primary victory. South Carolina also is the state where Mr. Sharpton has the highest poll numbers.


i have always said, dems dont care about blacks, they only care about using them.

Those lobbist groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of the Communist Party (NAACP) are not interested in civil rights at all as the have long waged a campaign to deny thousands of Americans, including this future federal justice, their civil rights. They want superiority for the few who agree with their Communist principles and want oppression for the masses

think one way!!

rainstorm wrote:By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



The Rev. Al Sharpton implored Senate Democrats yesterday not to filibuster President Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the nation's second-highest federal court.
Justice Brown, who is black, has come under intense criticism by liberal black groups, such as the NAACP, and by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel plans to vote this morning on her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
"I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background," said Mr. Sharpton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. "But she should get an up-or-down vote."
Democrats have been sharply critical of Justice Brown, though they have not yet explicitly vowed a filibuster, which would prevent her name from reaching the Senate floor for a confirmation vote that likely would pass. If all nine Democrats vote against the nomination today, they will likely begin a filibuster against her.
Mr. Sharpton's comments not only complicate the vote for several Democrats on the panel, they also are a stark departure from some of the best-known black groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said Justice Brown is "hostile to civil rights and civil liberties and ill-prepared to sit on the nation's second-highest court."
"The president's penchant for choosing extremist minority judicial candidates is an exercise in cynicism of the worst kind," Mr. Bond said. "Clothing extreme views in color is designed to make them more difficult to oppose, but judicial selections should be based in principle, not in pigment."
Born into a poor, sharecropping family in segregated Alabama, Justice Brown made her way through law school as a single mother. After serving in former California Gov. Pete Wilson's administration, she was named by him to the California Supreme Court.
At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bond and other black leaders portrayed Justice Brown as a "far right-wing extremist" and "outside the mainstream."
They were asked how Justice Brown could be described as a right-wing ideologue when 76 percent of California voters cast ballots to return her to the bench in 1998, the highest percentage of any justice in that retention election.
"It's inexplicable to me," Mr. Bond said. "I cannot think of a response. But nonetheless, that election does not invalidate any of the things [we] have said."
Mr. Sharpton echoed the concerns of many conservatives — especially black conservatives — that Justice Brown is being opposed because she doesn't conform to the Democratic ideology that many blacks espouse.
"We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us," Mr. Sharpton said in a television interview conducted by Sinclair Broadcasting yesterday. "I don't think she should be opposed because she doesn't come from some assumed club."
Mr. Sharpton compared the filibusters to the same sort of "pocket vetoes" used for so long against blacks.
Wade Henderson, director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who attended the anti-Brown press conference, was later asked about Mr. Sharpton's remarks.
"I don't believe it. That can't be true," he said as he headed to a meeting in the Democratic leadership office. "It would be shockingly surprising."
Mr. Sharpton's position could create particular problems for Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat and candidate for president, who plans to vote against Justice Brown's nomination in the Judiciary Committee today.
A group supporting Justice Brown's nomination is airing television ads in South Carolina criticizing Mr. Edwards for blocking the nominee, who was born into the same conditions as many of those in that state's large black population.
South Carolina is Mr. Edwards' birth state and his best early hope for a primary victory. South Carolina also is the state where Mr. Sharpton has the highest poll numbers.


i have always said, dems dont care about blacks, they only care about using them.

Hey hey now. Democrats are strongly for civil rights and minorities....that is as long as they are liberal.

You guys make me Laugh!!.. Geez.. if the dems are so racist I am surprised Trent Lott isnt switching parties:):):)

ameriwx2003 wrote:You guys make me Laugh!!.. Geez.. if the dems are so racist I am surprised Trent Lott is switching parties:):):)

Never said they were Racist. But they sure are not the party of tolerance! Senator Byrd was a head of the KKK from Christ sake. Quit pretending Democrats hold the racial high ground.

Storm.. I never said the Dems were holding the racial high ground just responding to Rainstorms thread asking if the Dems are racists. It sure sounds like Derek and Rainstorm are pretending the Republicans hold the high ground:):):)

ameriwx2003 wrote:You guys make me Laugh!!.. Geez.. if the dems are so racist I am surprised Trent Lott isnt switching parties:):):)

Trent Lott is not racist! All this was started by the liberal left media and it was blown out of porportion.

IMO Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP and the ACLU need to be removed. They are the ones that are hurting their own people and keeping racism alive!!

An African American woman (Barbara Blackmon) was running for Lt. Governor in my state. She lost by a wide margin. She blames her loss because of her race. BULL!! She lost because she is a radical Democrat. She voted against prayer in schools, against crack down on street gangs and she is Pro-Choice but yet brought up abortion in her campaign. IMO that was her fatal mistake. I am so sick and tired of everything being blamed on the color of the skin!! When she was campaigning she only targeted black communities. IMO, she is racist too.

ameriwx2003 wrote:Storm.. I never said the Dems were holding the racial high ground just responding to Rainstorms thread asking if the Dems are racists. It sure sounds like Derek and Rainstorm are pretending the Republicans hold the high ground:):):)

I never said that...the point is that every year Democrats campaign against Republicans as being the party of racist and we all know its just not true. Lincoln was a Republican and Wallace of Alabama ( you know..."segregation today, segrgation tomorrow..segregation forever") was a Democrat. Neither party can take the lead on racial high ground but time and time again Republicans are bashed vby Demos as being racist.

I feel and have always felt that Democrats campaign on division where Republicans campaign on the issues. If the Democrats want my vote, then tell me what they intend to do different and how. More money for education, the poor, and higher taxes. We have done those things since the New Deal and nothing has changed and maybe even gotten worse. Its time for something new!!

Storm.. you bring up a good point. I disagree on one view though. Both parties are guilty of avoiding the issues and doing alot of mudslinging. It seems each campaign is filled with more mudlsinging then anything else before its all over. Heck, both parties engage in mudslinging in there primary races during election years. John McCain learned this the hard way in the South Carolina primary in 2000 and I am very confident the Dems will resort to mudslinging against each other before they nominate a canidate for the 2004 election:):):):)

ameriwx2003 wrote:Storm.. I never said the Dems were holding the racial high ground just responding to Rainstorms thread asking if the Dems are racists. It sure sounds like Derek and Rainstorm are pretending the Republicans hold the high ground:):):)

the dems have blocked votes on miguel estrada, a highly qualified hispanic, and now, a black woman. sounds racist to me. they dont like minorites that think independently of their own dem racist dogma

rainstorm wrote:

ameriwx2003 wrote:Storm.. I never said the Dems were holding the racial high ground just responding to Rainstorms thread asking if the Dems are racists. It sure sounds like Derek and Rainstorm are pretending the Republicans hold the high ground:):):)

the dems have blocked votes on miguel estrada, a highly qualified hispanic, and now, a black woman. sounds racist to me. they dont like minorites that think independently of their own dem racist dogma

Totally independant of thier qualifications (which I know nothing about) simply the fact that they've blocked the appointment of two racial minorities does NOT constitute racism. My boss turns down people of all races and colors who were equally qualified as any for the job she offers. Turning down 20 blacks and 17 hispanics and giving the position to the only white doesn't mean she's basing her decision on race- it means that she felt that the person she hired- regardless of color- would make a good fit with the position she was hiring for.

Again I will point out that I know nothing of qualifications- jsut addressing the issue of race as a determination. You all know my feelings on the rest of it

dems and liberals are intolerant of any other viewpoints. al sharpton is quite right, the dems are wrong on this

*scratches head* What does that make you if you're unwilling to listen to democrats/liberals and/or moderate sweeping judgements against them?

opera ghost wrote:

rainstorm wrote:

ameriwx2003 wrote:Storm.. I never said the Dems were holding the racial high ground just responding to Rainstorms thread asking if the Dems are racists. It sure sounds like Derek and Rainstorm are pretending the Republicans hold the high ground:):):)

the dems have blocked votes on miguel estrada, a highly qualified hispanic, and now, a black woman. sounds racist to me. they dont like minorites that think independently of their own dem racist dogma

Totally independant of thier qualifications (which I know nothing about) simply the fact that they've blocked the appointment of two racial minorities does NOT constitute racism. My boss turns down people of all races and colors who were equally qualified as any for the job she offers. Turning down 20 blacks and 17 hispanics and giving the position to the only white doesn't mean she's basing her decision on race- it means that she felt that the person she hired- regardless of color- would make a good fit with the position she was hiring for.

Again I will point out that I know nothing of qualifications- jsut addressing the issue of race as a determination. You all know my feelings on the rest of it

Put it this way...the National Organization of Trial Lawyers...a big Democrat Donor....endorsed Miguel Estrada. It wasn't racism, it was that he was Conservative. Tomorrow the Democrats will talk about how they are the party of minority views. They mean liberal minority views.

rainstorm wrote:dems and liberals are intolerant of any other viewpoints. al sharpton is quite right, the dems are wrong on this

This is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. And Republicans have no faults and are extremely inclusive right??? This is what I despise about people who are blinded by words and associate everything as blanket.

Republicans are always guilty of that sort of thing, Garrett.


























Disclaimer: What I just said may have been sarcasm, or an attempt at humor. Please do not treat it as anything else!

WHO IS JANICE ROGERS BROWN?

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider George Bush's appointment of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Court of Appeals. Ted Kennedy has instructed the Democrats to filibuster this nomination. No matter what the Judiciary Committee does, Justice Brown probably doesn't have a chance.

Democrats are outraged at this appointment. Janice Rogers Brown presents a threat to Democrats on two fronts. First, she is a conservative. The truth is she's more of a libertarian than she is a conservative, but conservative is bad enough as far as Democrats are concerned. For decades the left has depended on the courts to enact their agenda. They depend on federal judges to make the basic tenants of the leftist philosophy the law of the land through judicial decision. Democrats absolutely hate the idea of a federal judge who pays attention to the Constitution. Janice Rogers Brown is just such a person. She believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and she bases her decisions on the law, not on popular opinion.

Democrats are also frightened of Justice Brown because she has strayed from the Democratic plantation. Democrats cannot win elections without their 90%+ support from Black Americans. Every time a black conservative is put into a position of prominence there is the chance that other blacks will see that blind loyalty and subservience to the Democratic Party might not actually be the only path to success and fulfillment.

Do you want a little insight into how Janice Rogers Brown thinks? At the core of her judicial philosophy is a belief that property rights and economic liberty deserve judicial protection. She dissented on a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a rent control ordinance. She said that "..arbitrary government actions which infringe property interests cannot be saved from constitutional infirmity by the beneficial purposes of the regulators." Justice Brown was saying that your right to your property supercedes the claims of compassion you hear so often from politicians who want to violate your right to your property for the "common good."

Now ... listen to this statement from Janice Rogers Brown. As you're listening remember that Teddy Kennedy has pronounced that this woman shall NOT become an appeals court judge. The case was San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco. The case was about San Francisco's broad range of restrictions on the way a private individual could use his own property. In a dissent Justice Brown wrote "Theft is still theft even when the government approves of the thievery. The right to express one's individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press or the free exercise of religion."

Did you hear that? Justice Janice Rogers Brown was putting property rights up there on the same level with freedom of speech! Democrats have an innate belief that all property belongs to government, and that the government will allow you to control some of that property -- some of that wealth -- if you act in ways Democrats approve of and if you are deemed worthy of the privilege. Are you beginning to see why the Democrats just don't want this woman on a federal appeals court?

Janice Rogers Brown is heading to a lynching. Hers. Ted Kennedy will tell you that she's "out of the mainstream." Well, to a Democrat, anybody who stands by the concept of individualism and individual rights is out of the mainstream. Remember, it was Ted Kennedy who praised the war against individuality in a speech in early 2002.

So ... when are YOU going to start getting upset by these Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees? Is it as important to you as tonight's TV lineup? These things aren't going to change, folks, until you get upset and until you start letting your political controllers know how you feel.

Some black race warlords are slamming George Bush for nominating a black conservative to the DC Court of Appeals. How dare the president nominate a conservative! They're saying he played the race card. So ... let's see if I have this right. Naming a black to the DC Court of Appeals is playing the race card? Doesn't George Bush know that you're not really black unless you're a liberal?

Ok..Lets keep in mind.... There is good and bad in all groups and in both partys Plain and simple