24 May 2005
You go, girl!
Man, I hate to keep picking on the editors of the Fresno Bee, but like Art Linkletter's kids in the '50s and '60s, they say the darndest things.
Today, the editors say that California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown is unfit for the U.S. Court of Appeals because of her "19th century economic theories". The theories they abhor are those that move Judge Rogers Brown to be, as the Bee characterizes, "willing to use judicial power to reverse government's role in the economic life of the nation." Sounds like my kind of gal.
The judge has the belief in the inverse proportionality between economic health and government intervention, which is as close a theory to fact as Newton's law. The Bee seems to believe more fervently in another set of 19th century economic theories that promote government intervention. So, it seems that their beef is not so much with the age of the theory.
The Bee editors also seem to believe that the Constitution, born in the 18th century, must be interpreted in a way that embraces the 21st century. Not Newton's nor Ohm's nor Boyle's nor any other scientific law is going to change because of the millenium celebration. The economic laws of supply and demand do not change because we are more modern. The "problems of the 21st century" are not going to be solved any more effectively by violating core economic principles that are ageless.
Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, also adopted in the 18th century, is still there. The federal government has no authority to act unless the Constitution explicitly says it can. The Amendment has not changed, so why should our judicial treatment of it change?
While I don't think that anti-Christian bigotry is as prevalent as the judge does, her clearly libertarian outlook in economic matters and police authority (the latter supported by the Bee editors rightfully) makes her not only qualified for the DC Circuit Appeals Court, but the most qualified jurist for a Supreme Court nomination in decades. As a fellow African-American, early-seventies, Sacramento high school graduate, I am proud of her and hope she is able to go the distance.
Meanwhile, Ray Appleton and the conservative audience on KMJ is bemoaning the fourteen senators who have seized the initiative in the judicial nomination process. They are really fuming over the seven Republicans, calling them some pretty mean names. Some Rs have called in to say that they are changing into Is because the Rs are too wimpish. We never heard any of these Rs as pundits or callers or politicians upset about Clinton's judicial nominees not getting up-or-down votes because of Senate Republican tactics. You have to have an inexhaustable store of righteous indignation to waste some of it on this blatantly hypocritical judicial campaign.
Today, the editors say that California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown is unfit for the U.S. Court of Appeals because of her "19th century economic theories". The theories they abhor are those that move Judge Rogers Brown to be, as the Bee characterizes, "willing to use judicial power to reverse government's role in the economic life of the nation." Sounds like my kind of gal.
The judge has the belief in the inverse proportionality between economic health and government intervention, which is as close a theory to fact as Newton's law. The Bee seems to believe more fervently in another set of 19th century economic theories that promote government intervention. So, it seems that their beef is not so much with the age of the theory.
The Bee editors also seem to believe that the Constitution, born in the 18th century, must be interpreted in a way that embraces the 21st century. Not Newton's nor Ohm's nor Boyle's nor any other scientific law is going to change because of the millenium celebration. The economic laws of supply and demand do not change because we are more modern. The "problems of the 21st century" are not going to be solved any more effectively by violating core economic principles that are ageless.
Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, also adopted in the 18th century, is still there. The federal government has no authority to act unless the Constitution explicitly says it can. The Amendment has not changed, so why should our judicial treatment of it change?
While I don't think that anti-Christian bigotry is as prevalent as the judge does, her clearly libertarian outlook in economic matters and police authority (the latter supported by the Bee editors rightfully) makes her not only qualified for the DC Circuit Appeals Court, but the most qualified jurist for a Supreme Court nomination in decades. As a fellow African-American, early-seventies, Sacramento high school graduate, I am proud of her and hope she is able to go the distance.
Meanwhile, Ray Appleton and the conservative audience on KMJ is bemoaning the fourteen senators who have seized the initiative in the judicial nomination process. They are really fuming over the seven Republicans, calling them some pretty mean names. Some Rs have called in to say that they are changing into Is because the Rs are too wimpish. We never heard any of these Rs as pundits or callers or politicians upset about Clinton's judicial nominees not getting up-or-down votes because of Senate Republican tactics. You have to have an inexhaustable store of righteous indignation to waste some of it on this blatantly hypocritical judicial campaign.
# posted by Rodney Austin @ 2:46 PM 
