Congratulations, Justice Janice Rogers Brown
Both Thomas and I are ecstatic. A fine and well-read judge has finally received her vote for confirmation. She passed, cleanly, with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska crossing party lines. Every Republican voted for her. The rest of the Democrats voted against her, and Sen. Schumer took his scurrilous, parting shots.
In speech after speech she touts herself as a true conservative who believes that safety nets like Social Security, unemployment insurance and health care are, quote -- have, quote -- "Cut away the very ground upon which the Constitution rests," end quote. Janice Rogers Brown believes as has already been stated on the floor that the New Deal which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression was a triumph of our very own, quote, "socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with communism [sic]. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
That comes from Barack Obama, D-IL, this morning on the floor of the Senate. I would first like to address that she is correct; the New Deal did not revitalize this nation, and end the Depression. World War II did, and the law built upon the New Deal—the Constitutional law, especially—was a farce. The New Deal was a "socialist revolution" in ways that educators refuse to acknowledge from Social Security to the expansion of the "powers" of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Pres. Roosevelt, despite his "legacy" left by the success of World War II, believed in socialism. "Uncle" Joe was the monniker he bestowed on Joseph Stalin—the worst mass-murderer in history.
Senator Leahy referred to Justice Brown (I really like the sound of that) as "a doozie". Sen. Reid clarified that remakr as equivocating a "doozie" with "extraordinary". After that admission I am thoroughly surprised that Sen. Reid did not lapse into a filibuster mode, with the "Seditious Seven" joining in the chorus.
Senator Reid repeated, again, the left-wing fallacy that Justice Brown longs for a reassertion of the Lochner v. New York decision. Lochner held that the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment prevented states from passing labor laws to protect workers. In fact, Justice Brown criticized a footnote in Justice Holmes's dissent in Lochner. Holmes asserted the Founders of our country did not embrace any specific economic theory. Justice Brown pointed out that the Founders, and the Constitution they created, embraced a "Lockean" viewpoint that private property had to be protected. I would also like to add that when directly question about the Lochner decision, and whether or not is should be reasserted, her answer was "no".
Sen. Schumer took his swipes at her, calling her "out of the mainstream" and accusing her of wanting to invent a "theocracy" and a "dictatorship". Sen. Schumer, this is a woman that saw oppression when she was growing up. I sincerely doubt she wants to return to those days. She does not wish to return to the days of the Civil War, nor does she wish to see the reassertion of the "Jim Crow" laws. She wants what every person of sound mind and body wishes to see.
That would be sanity returning to the judiciary. Yes, as it stands right now, not only is the judiciary insane, but it is a wreck. Thomas has a hyphenated word for it: cluster-f**k. And it is that, precisely. For years more and more insignificant "rights" have been given to the people, as more are eroded. The Tenth Amendment is virtually non-existent, and thanks to the ICC, the government pays little attention to "private property". We have had the USSC uphold the Brady Ban on firearms. We have watched them approve of the worst abomination in human existence with Roe v. Wade. We have seen them turn aside our rights to free speech—specifically, political speech—in McConnell v. FEC.
Yes, the judiciary is a wreck, and honestly, I prefer to have justices sitting on the federal bench that interpret the law properly. No, she is not a "strict constructionist" as Sen. Schumer has accused her of being. She is an originalist, to quote Mark Levin. She not only looks at the Constitution and what it says, but she locates the meaning of it.
Words mean things. Specific words mean specific things. The Left likes to change the language. Freedom of speech has become freedom of expression. Freedom from illegal search and seizure has become a freedom of privacy. That right to privacy has evolved into the right to abort. Stare decisis, the precedent of the Court, has repercussions, and we have seen enough of it.
Janice Rogers Brown will not be the activist that the Left fears. She will be the justice—as enumerated and described in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers—that she is supposed to be. She will determine the law based on her originalist beliefs. What does it say, and what does it mean. That is originalist thinking. That is what we have on the second most powerful court in America. And I welcome it. It is about time that we gained more sanity on the federal bench.
The Bunny ;)
Both Thomas and I are ecstatic. A fine and well-read judge has finally received her vote for confirmation. She passed, cleanly, with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska crossing party lines. Every Republican voted for her. The rest of the Democrats voted against her, and Sen. Schumer took his scurrilous, parting shots.
In speech after speech she touts herself as a true conservative who believes that safety nets like Social Security, unemployment insurance and health care are, quote -- have, quote -- "Cut away the very ground upon which the Constitution rests," end quote. Janice Rogers Brown believes as has already been stated on the floor that the New Deal which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression was a triumph of our very own, quote, "socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with communism [sic]. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
That comes from Barack Obama, D-IL, this morning on the floor of the Senate. I would first like to address that she is correct; the New Deal did not revitalize this nation, and end the Depression. World War II did, and the law built upon the New Deal—the Constitutional law, especially—was a farce. The New Deal was a "socialist revolution" in ways that educators refuse to acknowledge from Social Security to the expansion of the "powers" of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Pres. Roosevelt, despite his "legacy" left by the success of World War II, believed in socialism. "Uncle" Joe was the monniker he bestowed on Joseph Stalin—the worst mass-murderer in history.
Senator Leahy referred to Justice Brown (I really like the sound of that) as "a doozie". Sen. Reid clarified that remakr as equivocating a "doozie" with "extraordinary". After that admission I am thoroughly surprised that Sen. Reid did not lapse into a filibuster mode, with the "Seditious Seven" joining in the chorus.
Senator Reid repeated, again, the left-wing fallacy that Justice Brown longs for a reassertion of the Lochner v. New York decision. Lochner held that the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment prevented states from passing labor laws to protect workers. In fact, Justice Brown criticized a footnote in Justice Holmes's dissent in Lochner. Holmes asserted the Founders of our country did not embrace any specific economic theory. Justice Brown pointed out that the Founders, and the Constitution they created, embraced a "Lockean" viewpoint that private property had to be protected. I would also like to add that when directly question about the Lochner decision, and whether or not is should be reasserted, her answer was "no".
Sen. Schumer took his swipes at her, calling her "out of the mainstream" and accusing her of wanting to invent a "theocracy" and a "dictatorship". Sen. Schumer, this is a woman that saw oppression when she was growing up. I sincerely doubt she wants to return to those days. She does not wish to return to the days of the Civil War, nor does she wish to see the reassertion of the "Jim Crow" laws. She wants what every person of sound mind and body wishes to see.
That would be sanity returning to the judiciary. Yes, as it stands right now, not only is the judiciary insane, but it is a wreck. Thomas has a hyphenated word for it: cluster-f**k. And it is that, precisely. For years more and more insignificant "rights" have been given to the people, as more are eroded. The Tenth Amendment is virtually non-existent, and thanks to the ICC, the government pays little attention to "private property". We have had the USSC uphold the Brady Ban on firearms. We have watched them approve of the worst abomination in human existence with Roe v. Wade. We have seen them turn aside our rights to free speech—specifically, political speech—in McConnell v. FEC.
Yes, the judiciary is a wreck, and honestly, I prefer to have justices sitting on the federal bench that interpret the law properly. No, she is not a "strict constructionist" as Sen. Schumer has accused her of being. She is an originalist, to quote Mark Levin. She not only looks at the Constitution and what it says, but she locates the meaning of it.
Words mean things. Specific words mean specific things. The Left likes to change the language. Freedom of speech has become freedom of expression. Freedom from illegal search and seizure has become a freedom of privacy. That right to privacy has evolved into the right to abort. Stare decisis, the precedent of the Court, has repercussions, and we have seen enough of it.
Janice Rogers Brown will not be the activist that the Left fears. She will be the justice—as enumerated and described in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers—that she is supposed to be. She will determine the law based on her originalist beliefs. What does it say, and what does it mean. That is originalist thinking. That is what we have on the second most powerful court in America. And I welcome it. It is about time that we gained more sanity on the federal bench.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:13 PM
2 Comments:
She is qualified and there's nothing in her background to say otherwise. We need more like her on the bench. I notice that the two senators from CA voted no. Surely they knew her. But then neither senator have any class.
Yes, she is confirmed. Judge Pryor is coming up today, and Sen. Frist has stated more are coming up.
There is still some question as to whether or not the Republicans have the ability to actually execute the Constitutional Option, as they had originally intended before the treacherous fourteen decided to undermine the Constitution with their deal.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home