From
Tulsa Today:
Inhofe on CAFTA & Supremes"Justice O’Connor’s retirement brings into focus the huge significance of choosing a successor capable of restraining judicial activist tendencies in the Court. A fine choice for Justice O’Connor’s successor would be Judge Janice Rogers Brown, as she possesses these necessary qualities."
I dunno, Brown
looks like an activist to me. A right-wing activist, but an activist nonetheless:
-Justice Brown received a not qualified rating from the California Judicial Commission. Among other things, the Commission cited a "tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions" and complaints that she was insensitive to established legal precedent, lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views, and was slow to produce opinions.
-calls Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal "the triumph of our own socialist revolution,"
-accuses social security recipients of "blithely cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much 'free' stuff as the political system permits them to extract,"
-advocates returning to the widely discredited, early 20th century Lochner era, where the Supreme Court regularly invalidated economic regulations, like workplace protections.
-uses constitutional provisions or defies the legislature's intent to restrict or invalidate laws she doesn't like, such as California's anti-discrimination statute (which she condemns as protecting only "narrow" personal interests)
-she tries to reverse long-standing California state law, including that which protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers and consumers from corporate fraud.
-Justice Brown condemns and tries to evade U.S. Supreme Court precedent. She asserts that the Supreme Court has been wrong to: outlaw vicious, speech-based racial harassment in the workplace under federal anti-discrimination law; condone certain affirmative action programs; recognize "an expanding array of judicially proclaimed fundamental rights," like the right to marry, the right to decide how to live or die and the right to live together as a family; and afford comparatively less protection to the economic rights of property owners - "a dichotomy" that, according to her, "is highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid."
