Liberals like to embrace the idea that their party is emblematicof open-mindedness and acceptance of all viewpoints. This sounds like an accurate assessment. Thus, it would not be unreasonable for one to assume that "all viewpoints" includes those of dissent from the liberal ideology. However, one recent example that remains an ongoing saga in the U.S. Senate demonstrates that this is not always the case. I am referring to the unwillingness of Senate Democrats to consider objectively several of Bush's judicial nominees, in particular, Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
Justice Brown, an African-American who currently sits on the California Supreme Court, was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Bush on July 25.
Historically, the basis for a judicial nominee confirmation by the Senate has rested on the particular nominee's abilities and credentials. However, as of late, the Senate Democrats have added on a new criterion: ideology that parallels their own. Shortly after President Bush took office, Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "It's high time we return to a more open and more rational consideration of ideology when we review nominees." Since then, ideology has become the "litmus test" for Democrats. In an unprecedented move, the Democrats have decided to filibuster or not even allow an up-or-down vote on the floor for several federal judicial nominees, including Judge Charles Pickering, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Justice Priscilla Owen, Judge Carolyn Kuhl and Miguel Estrada. While they have confirmed 76 percent of nominees during Bush's first two years in office (compared to 90 percent during Clinton's first two years), a filibuster of a federal judicial nominee has never occurred in U.S. history.
Justice Brown holds mainstream conservative views; she is pro-life, she supports the death penalty and she is against affirmative action. As a California Supreme Court justice, she voted to ban racial quotas in California. Democrats saw that as an example of her extremist position interfering with her judicial role. However, this was by no means a radical opinion. In California, 54 percent of the citizens voted in favor of Proposition 209, which banned racial quotas. In addition, the ban was supported unanimously by her colleagues on the California Supreme Court.
She has been criticized by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, NARAL and several other liberal groups. Somehow, the NAACP managed to play the race card; Washington chapter Director Hilary Shelton said that the Bush administration was attempting "to get some kind of credit because she is the first African-American woman nominated to the D.C. circuit." Well, isn't this is a hypocritical statement by an organization that champions affirmative action? But Justice Brown certainly isn't looking for any "credit" due to her skin color. She is against what she describes as "entitlement based on group representation."
However, her stance against affirmative action does not translate into a total disregard for civil rights; as a matter of fact, it is quite the contrary. For example, one particular case she ruled on involved the arrest of a man riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the street. He was searched without a warrant. Justice Brown, the only justice against the search, thought this was a case of racial profiling.
The Democrats accuse her of dissenting from the majority opinion on many cases, but according to Orrin Hatch, she "has written more majority opinions on the California Supreme Court than anybody else." In some of the cases that she has dissented, such as the one described earlier, her reasoning wasn't extreme at all.
In terms of her credentials, Justice Brown has received a "qualified" rating for her nomination by the American Bar Association, whose rankings Sen. Schumer refers to as the "gold standard." She has sat on the California Supreme Court for the past seven years, dealing with approximately 750 cases. Californians voted in the last election to keep her on the bench -- by a staggering 76 percent.
Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Gerald F. Uelmen stated the following in defense of Justice Brown, as noted on the Department of Justice website: "Although I frequently find myself in disagreement with Justice Brown's opinions, I have come to greatly admire her independence, her tenacity, her intellect and her wit..."
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the Democrats' intolerance of views just outside of their party line. Senate Democrats are concerned that Justice Brown will not be able to put her political views aside when rendering a decision. I doubt that one could ever find a person who doesn't hold any beliefs of any political persuasion. Everyone has some minimal set of opinions. However, Justice Brown has proved to be an exceptional justice, and at least deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. For now, the Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have not stated which way they will vote, but hopefully they will follow the advice of their colleague Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Ca., who stated during the Clinton administration: "A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down."
(Whitney Blake's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
CULLEN: Let's not make the U. like it used to be
By Robert B. Cullen | 10 hours agoFortunately, there is a remedy for this that can produce a diverse student body without resorting to affirmative action based on race or gender. It is affirmative action based on socioeconomic status.
5 U.Va. COMMUNITY MEMBERS: Gerber has it wrong — our U.Va. is better
By 5 U.Va. Community Members | YesterdayIt seems clear to us that expanding the available pool of faculty and students has heightened the School of Law’s standards and dramatically improved the University.
RASHID: The time to expand the students’ role at the administrative level is now
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 4 days agoSo long as students’ power is limited to an advisory role in the administration, governance at the University will remain fragile.
