Guest
Contributor
FROM
PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
A Judicial Candidate Feminists Should Support
California's Janice Brown is worth considering for the
U.S. Supreme Court
[Tammy Ku] 8/8/03
As rumors
circulate about the retirement of at least one U.S. Supreme
Court judge,
many have begun to speculate about the choices for a successor.
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is considered
to be at the head of the list, as her views reflect both that
of the Bush administration and recent Supreme Court decisions.
Her personal story is one of struggle and accomplishment.
Janice
Brown grew up as a sharecropper's daughter in Alabama during
the 1950s. Inspired by her grandmother's stories about
civil-rights attorney Fred Gray, who defended Martin Luther
King Jr. and Rosa Parks, she decided to become an attorney
and attended
law school at UCLA.
Before sitting
on California's highest court, Brown worked as a state government
lawyer for 12 years
and then at a law
firm
run by Steve Merksamer, chief of staff for former Republican
Governor George Deukmejian. She then became Republican
Governor Pete Wilson's legal affairs secretary before he nominated
her to a Sacramento state appeals court in 1994.
Two years
later, she rose to the state Supreme Court. In 1997, Brown
soon found herself embroiled in what was considered
to
be a controversial case at the time.
The justices,
in a 4-3 vote, repealed California's law that required minors
to acquire parental consent before
getting
an abortion.
In a scathing dissent, Brown called her colleagues "philosopher
kings" and deemed the case to be "an excellent
example of the folly of courts."
Her signature
case though, which caught the eye of conservatives and the
Bush administration, came in 2000. Brown wrote
the majority opinion in a case that provided the first
application
of Proposition
209's anti-affirmative action conditions. The opinion
annulled a San Jose ordinance requiring government
contractors to
seek bids from companies owned by women or minorities.
Brown denounced
past affirmative-action decisions and argued that the
Constitution calls for "equality of individual
opportunity."
Her political
similarities to the Bush administration do not end there. Brown,
in accordance
with White House
efforts
to
expand the use of federal death-penalty statutes,
regularly supports
death sentences. In addition, her views on gun control
are very similar to the policies of Attorney General
John Ashcroft.
Both
support the right to own firearms and both believe
the government has a role in placing restrictions
on firearm
ownership.
Seven years
ago, many liberals attacked Brown, a minority woman, as unqualified
for her current position on
the
state Supreme
Court. Today, there can be no doubt that Brown is
qualified to sit on the nation's highest court.
Although
she is both smart and accomplished, there are doubts that she
will
gain the support of Senate
Democrats,
who have
recently used filibusters on two conservative federal
appellate candidates. She has also failed to garner
the support of
feminists. Instead of a minority woman whose credentials
are impeccable,
feminists are searching for a candidate who will
serve their political agenda. Knowing that Brown
will not
voice anyone's
views but her own, feminists refuse to support
her.
Instead of
criticizing her possible nomination, feminists and the left
should acknowledge that
Brown is deserving
of appointment.
She brings experience, independence, a commitment
to true equality, and aversion to preferential
treatment. Qualities
in short
supply.
If selected,
one hopes that she will be confirmed without the usual partisan
fighting or any shameful
attempt
to "Bork" her.
Those who stoop to such tactics, particularly those
who call themselves feminists, reveal a great deal
about themselves.
Tammy Ku is Public-policy Intern, Business and Economic Studies
at the Pacific Research Institute
copyright
Pacific Research Institute
|
