why janice rogers brown sucks

[orleans]

today barbara boxer really spelled it out; i'm trying to find a copy of the transcript and i can't--but she had her charts up, explaining that the repugs are whining over 10 judicial appointments (at the most) the dems won't confirm--while 208 have been confirmed.

reasons janice rogers brown would be HORRIBLE:

1. she sits on the california supreme court with 5 other republicans and 1 democrat judge. she has voted alone 31 times (her opinions are so extreme that 31 times she has stood by herself while the 5 other republicans and 1 democrat have voted together)

2. she has said she is against minimum wage

3. she is against the forty hour work week

4. "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.."
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751

5."Brown Called the Creation of Social Security “the Triumph of our Own Socialist Revolution.” Justice Brown’s antipathy to the New Deal and Social Security is so strong, that she stated, “..1937 ..marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...” "
http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=236962

6. "In another speech, she states her view of government as follows:
Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit.<2>"
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:NVLT0xewZ_cJ:www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/rogers_brown.cfm+janice+rogers+brown++%22minimum+wage%22&hl=en

7. she was the only member of the court to "dissent “in a case involving the sale of cigarettes to minors"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12766&print=yes&units=all

8. she was the only member of the court to "try to rule that age discrimination victims “should not have the right to sue under common law – an interpretation that is directly contrary to the will of the California legislature”;"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12766&print=yes&units=all

9. she was the only member of the court to "argue that her court should “strike down a San Francisco law that provided housing assistance to displaced low-income, elderly, and disabled people”;"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12766&print=yes&units=all

10. and it goes on and on. google her.

boxer pointed out that bush wants this woman to sit in the washington circuit--where she would be ruling on cases regarding our environment--the air we breathe, the water we're drinking, etc.

the repukes keep saying: she's black, she's the daughter of a sharecropper so the democrats should love her--see what hypocrites the dems are? i say: see what slimes the repukes are--pulling this horseshit out of their butts!

[Erika]

1. She is an extremist

Who allows her personal views to rule her decisions. No secret. You want a rabid extremist, vote for her.

[xxqqqzme]

2. all the reasons 2

oppose Brown; all the reasons the horse masturbator loves her.

[gumby]

3. These are the views of a Dominionist.

Why doesn't anyone come out and say this?

The ONLY LAW is the rightwingnut interpretation of the Bible. Civil law has NO meaning.

Isn't this clear? And isn't this why Bush nominated her and isn't this why the rightwingnuts are so agitated about these "judicial" nominations?

Why can't SOMEONE say this on national media and get this into the national debate?

edit: it is imperative to expose the political extremism of Dominionism while de-linking this philosophy from "people of faith."

[FrenchieCat]

4. She is an activist judge.....

who want to change establish law. That's more than enough to keep out of any lifetime judgeship appointment. It's really that simple.