Moveon.Org: Using fake "grass-roots" letter writers

[Liberty]

In the next 10 days the Republican leadership is planning to pull the trigger on their scheme to break the rules of the Senate and seize absolute power over judicial appointments. We must act.

Two weeks ago, you flooded the nation with tens of thousands of letters to the editor, and soon afterwards:

* Major national papers editorialized against the “nuclear option,” including The New York Times, and the Washington Post.

* Three Republican Senators came out against ending the filibuster, including John McCain. If we can get three more, we’ll win.

This month, the cover story of the New York Times Magazine is about the extreme judicial philosophy known as “constitution in exile” that threatens some of our most treasured rights, like the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, and basic environmental protections. Janice Rogers Brown, the first judge the “nuclear option” is likely to force onto the D.C. Court of Appeals (a common stepping stone to the Supreme Court) is one of its leading advocates. Also see this short L.A. Times editorial.

*snip*

# In the next 10 days the Republicans will try to use the "nuclear option" to seize absolute power to appoint judges who will roll back decades of progress in protecting worker rights, the environment, and privacy.
# The "nuclear option" is a parliamentary trick to eliminate the filibuster - the right to extend debate on controversial judicial nominations.
# One of the first judges the "nuclear option" would force through is Janice Rodgers Brown of California, who is nominated for the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, a common stepping stone to the Supreme Court
# Judge Brown follows an extremist judicial philosophy that calls for the courts to block Congress from guaranteeing such things as the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

MoveOn.Org

Michelle Malkin did a little research to see if any of the letters got published.

Click here to read ASTROTURF ALERT: ANOTHER MOVEON.ORG MAIL BLITZ by Michelle Malkin.

[RandomNY]

Umm the 40 hour work week is one of our TREASURED RIGHTS?

Ummm did BEN FRANKLIN and GEORGE WASHINGTON and JOHN ADAMS and HAMILTON, etc ever debate mininum wage and 40 hour work weeks or 4 weeks paid vacation?

Maybe I missed that day in AMERICAN HISTORY..


Hmmm let's see every successful business owner worked 60 to 80 hours per week building thier business that they took the risk in opening.

But the 40 hour work week is in our constitution somewhere..

I would love to read the LIBERAL version of the US CONSTITUTION..

That would be some great comedy.

[La Chevelure]

I wonder how the early Americans would have fared if they actually worked only 40 hours a week, with the 4 weeks vacation. Considering the number of farmers, I think we would have starved to death. Oh wait! I know the solution that allows that short of a work week - slavery! That's how they did it! Hmm, wonder how that gels with the Liberal agenda...

[fjccommish]

Asking people to write letters isn't fraud. It's still grass roots.

But I agree that MoveOn's point here is ridiculous. Only the dems tried to block legislative fillibusters. The republicans wanting to uphold the tradition of no fillibusters for judicial nominees has nothing to do with legislation about the 40 hour work week.

[AAnderson]

Not only are their points ridiculous, lobbying newspapers will have little effect. (1) Even if a newspaper receives 1,000 letters, they only print one or two. A good paper will also print a dissenting views. (2) Complaints from out of their circulation area are usually filed appropriately. (3) Editorial editors are the intelligentsia of newspaper folk, not easily cowed by numbers. They stick to their own political conscious, rightly or wrongly, until they are fired. These MoveOn numbskulls are too dumb to know they need to lobby newspaper board members and their own congressmen and senators.

This is a tempest in a teapot. Luckily their naivete will prevent them having any impact.

[curious]

Originally posted by fjccommish:
Asking people to write letters isn't fraud. It's still grass roots.

But I agree that MoveOn's point here is ridiculous. Only the dems tried to block legislative fillibusters. The republicans wanting to uphold the tradition of no fillibusters for judicial nominees has nothing to do with legislation about the 40 hour work week.

It has everything to do with every right we have -- and every legal protection we have.

The biggest deception being perpetuated by plliticians and the media about the judicial nominating process is that it's all about things like abortion and gay rights and religion and otehr social issues.

It's also -- and perhaps more importantly -- about economic issues and issues of basic power. Having judges who do not believe that goivernment has any place in regulating economic behavior and the exercise of private power automatically undercuts regulations that have created the middle class and protected the weak and small from the big and strong.

I realize to conservatives, that's a good thing. But burying that beneath issues like abortion is hiding otehr corer issues in the whole process.

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by curious:

It has everything to do with every right we have -- and every legal protection we have.

No, it has to do with protecting prior un-Constitutional court decisions. That's what its all about for you. The Constitution identifies several key individual rights and places limits on federal legislation which you vehemently disagree with. You wish to protect the rights of government and its social programs over them.

The biggest deception being perpetuated by plliticians and the media about the judicial nominating process is that it's all about things like abortion and gay rights and religion and otehr social issues.

You have no other serious objections to these candidates, only vague abstractions. A liberal state approves of Janice Brown's performance by over 60%. The only thing you have against her is that she's pro-life. And contrary to your senator's idea, pro-life is not out of the mainstream.

It's also -- and perhaps more importantly -- about economic issues and issues of basic power. Having judges who do not believe that goivernment has any place in regulating economic behavior and the exercise of private power automatically undercuts regulations that have created the middle class and protected the weak and small from the big and strong.

*Bzzzt* Curious fails again. Economic freedom created and sustains the middle class, not the other way around. Socialism, nepotism, and protectionism curtail it. This is in high school history texts, you don't need a degree. I suggest you peruse one and recalibrate your views. Remember the scientific method, which liberals claim to adhere to more than conservatives. It implies that if the facts you base your theories on are wrong, then your thesis is wrong and you must start over.

Sorry Curious, none of these justices has said that the US government cannot regulate interstate commerce - as that's in the Constitution. But they will more than likely rule against liberal causes that have bizarrely pushed the limits of the Commerce Clause.

If those programs and policies that you hold so dear were Constitutional to begin with, then you wouldn't have anything to worry about. You want judges who apply the Constitution and the law as its written, right? Oh, no, I forgot, you prefer justices that will rule your way rather than protect real rights.

I realize to conservatives, that's a good thing. But burying that beneath issues like abortion is hiding otehr corer issues in the whole process.

Sorry Curious, you have no platform. These nominees are not "extremists" by any stretch of the imagination. The Supreme Court that allowed

[curious]

Originally posted by TXNavy:
No, it has to do with protecting prior un-Constitutional court decisions. That's what its all about for you. The Constitution identifies several key individual rights and places limits on federal legislation which you vehemently disagree with. You wish to protect the rights of government and its social programs over them.

No,the Democrats have approved the vast majority of Bush judicial nominees with nary a squawk. It's not a matter of whether a judge is liberal or conservative, or "Constitutional" or "unconstitutional."

The issue is whether a judge's loyalties on the bench are more to the law or to an ideology.
Democrats in Congress are simply asking for judges whose primary loyalty on the bench is to the law, not to an ideology or an agenda of dismantling government.

Loyalty to objectivity and the law is the only way that individual cases and legislation can truly be given a fair hearing.

As the recent fracas about Terri Schiavo proves, concepts like "Constitutional" and "activist judiciary" has more to do with whose oxen is being gored than any real sense of principle.

The same conservatives who rail against "activist liberal judges" ursurping the Constitution and state's rights and individual rights wanted the Federal courts to become activist and overrule the Constitutional role of state courts.

I realize that you were intellectually honest and consistent in your stance on that, so I don't include you among the hypocrites on that.

However, that episode of Republican conservative hypocrisy only illustrates that the real battle lines on this usually boils down to judges supporting one political agenda or the other -- NOT whether liberals support activist judges and unConstitutional laws while conservatives support unactivist (?) judges who adhere to the Constitution.

.

Your esteemed Justice Brown, for example, gave a speech in which she railed against moral "relativism." But the fact is that a judge has to be somewhat of a "relativist" to interpret the law impartially.

Judge Greer, for example, is basically a conservative Republican Christian. Had he been a rigid ideologue, he could well have found ways to artificially interpret the Schiavo case very differently to support the Schlindler's position and remain popular with his political allies. However, as a well-qualified justice, he was able to be enough of a "relativist" to set his personal beliefs aside and look at both the circumstances and the law in an objective way.

And, as you yourself acknowledged, that enabled him to make a decision that was painful and unpopular with his fellow conservative Christians, but which was carrying out the law as it exists.

That's why it's extremely important that judges be moderate and as impartial as possible, rather than being ideologically driven. And THAT's what I and others who object to the more right-wing of Bush's nominees are concerned about

You have no other serious objections to these candidates, only vague abstractions. A liberal state approves of Janice Brown's performance by over 60%. The only thing you have against her is that she's pro-life. And contrary to your senator's idea, pro-life is not out of the mainstream.

No, I am less concerned with the fact that she is "pro life" than that she is a committed ideologue rather than an impartial jurist.

She sees government as the enemy, she criticizes "relativism" (which is merely a code word for anything outside of the conservative Christian worldview) and she tends to side with the powerful over the powerless.

It's not just my "feelings" or what the Ministers of Left Wing Propaganda say. Both her public statements and her record together show a very pronounced ideological bias that many believe would position her merely as a tool for an agenda, rather than a fair independent jurist.

I am more concerned, for example, whether she can be truly objective in a case involving a community-supported land-use plans versus an unpopular toxic waste dump planned by a big corporation. Based on her stridently expressed view of government as tyranny will she automatically side with the corporation against the community regardless opf the specific situastion?

That's why I originally said above that the social wedge issues are almost a distraction from the real issues at stake.

But even in the social issues, it's important that a justice be more concerned with the law than an agenda. Judge Greer is a positive example of how someone with a political agenda can also be a fair minded jurist.

It's the ones like Brown who so stridently ally themselves with an ideology that is the problem. It's just like the way you'd probably react if a vehement leftist judge from California were nominated. You would see him as an ideologue who could not possibly be objective.

*Bzzzt* Curious fails again. Economic freedom created and sustains the middle class, not the other way around. Socialism, nepotism, and protectionism curtail it. This is in high school history texts, you don't need a degree. I suggest you peruse one and recalibrate your views. Remember the scientific method, which liberals claim to adhere to more than conservatives. It implies that if the facts you base your theories on are wrong, then your thesis is wrong and you must start over.

Well, as usual, you merely take your opinion and interpretation of other opinions and set that up as some supreme arbiter of what is objectively correct.

In other words, you state your opinions as being the only possible objective truth.

I will concede one point, however. I overstated by saying those things "created" a middle class. They didn't. However, they did play an important role in the framework that created the middle class by broadening the benefits of capitalist prosperity. It was an important element in the overall formula, but it was -- as I often say -- a balance.

Sorry Curious, none of these justices has said that the US government cannot regulate interstate commerce - as that's in the Constitution. But they will more than likely rule against liberal causes that have bizarrely pushed the limits of the Commerce Clause.

If those programs and policies that you hold so dear were Constitutional to begin with, then you wouldn't have anything to worry about. You want judges who apply the Constitution and the law as its written, right? Oh, no, I forgot, you prefer justices that will rule your way rather than protect real rights.

Bah-loney. Now you're denying modern reality.

In the 18th Century, the lines between interstate and innerstate commerce were much clearer. Today, they have become blurred almost beyond distinction du to transportation, technology and the nature of economic activity today.

By requiring modern laws to adhere strictly to the conditions of the 18th Century, you are effectively trying the hands of any government to do anything.

But, of course, that's the real point of this neo-Constitutionalism isn't it? To take the conditions of life in the 18th Century and say that anything that happened after 1800 is unconstitutional....It's a great way to accomplish the agenda of allowing the powerful to do whatever they want with no restraints, but it's very disingenuous to claim that it is being "Constitutional."

Intellectual honesty would recognize that the Founders were as divided among themselves as we are today. And if they were alive today, they'd include liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans and all shades in-between.

But what is really in the spirit of the Constitution is recognizing that they were smart enough to realize that these issues would never be permanently settled. They knew that paradoxically, the basic issues would be the same but that times and conditions would change. So they created a framework that was sturdy and detailed enough to keep future generations honest, but also flexible and open enough to allow for the changes they knew would occur.

So yeah, I'd prefer justices that would rule my way. But you'd prefer justices that would rule your way. THAT's exactly why impartial judges, rather than ideologues of either left or right, are the only ones who can truly do that job adequately.

Sorry Curious, you have no platform. These nominees are not "extremists" by any stretch of the imagination. The Supreme Court that allowed [/QB]

I assume you got interrupted there. So I'll respond by saying...

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by curious:
No,the Democrats have approved the vast majority of Bush judicial nominees with nary a squawk.

Yes, that's right Mr. Details. They've approved a bunch of lower court justices. Care to guess what their record is on Appellate court justices that could actually make big decisions contrary to liberal wishes? Or do I have to do your homework for you as usual?

It's not a matter of whether a judge is liberal or conservative, or "Constitutional" or "unconstitutional."

I suppose I would dearly hate to have a "Constitutionally" oriented judge

The issue is whether a judge's loyalties on the bench are more to the law or to an ideology.

If this is a problem, then find examples in practice where these judges have transgressed against law or Constitution for personal agendas.

If the best you can do is public speeches where you amazingly discover that these judges have opinions, then you're blowing smoke. You really just don't want judges who will rule against un-Constitutional liberal policies and programs. And that is a fact.

Democrats in Congress are simply asking for judges whose primary loyalty on the bench is to the law, not to an ideology or an agenda of dismantling government.

They've had years to find evidence of such a flaw and haven't done so. The best you've done is take a public speech and hold it up as an example of how this California Supreme Court justice will stick to ideology rather than law and justice.

This is somewhat akin to idiotic liberal assertions that because George Bush says in public that he's a Christian, he must be "violating" the separation of church and state.

Loyalty to objectivity and the law is the only way that individual cases and legislation can truly be given a fair hearing.

If you really want the rule of law, then you want judges who will rule against unlawful and un-Constitutional government acts. This would put a severe crimp in your liberal day. You realize that, don't you?

As the recent fracas about Terri Schiavo proves, concepts like "Constitutional" and "activist judiciary" has more to do with whose oxen is being gored than any real sense of principle.

The same conservatives who rail against "activist liberal judges" ursurping the Constitution and state's rights and individual rights wanted the Federal courts to become activist and overrule the Constitutional role of state courts.

And those conservatives were wrong - but for the wrong reasons. If the facts they believed had been correct, then they likewise would have been correct. There's a difference between that and wishing for activist judges who will circumvent the law and the Constitution.

An independent judiciary is important - but so is preserving the role of the legislature and the executive branch. You don't like the flip side of that coin because the judiciary is all you have...you want to get some legislative mileage out of it before we get non-liberal judges on the bench.

However, that episode of Republican conservative hypocrisy only illustrates that the real battle lines on this usually boils down to judges supporting one political agenda or the other -- NOT whether liberals support activist judges and unConstitutional laws while conservatives support unactivist (?) judges who adhere to the Constitution.

Bull****. The Republicans worked on the wrong facts - true. Suppose those facts had been right...would they still have been looking for "conservative activist judges?"

The answer is no. Curious, conservatives support judges who adhere to the Constitution because the Constitution supports conservatism. They go hand in hand. The Constitution limits the power of government and preserves property rights of individuals - something anathematic to you. You prefer government before people rather than the other way around.

Your esteemed Justice Brown, for example, gave a speech in which she railed against moral "relativism." But the fact is that a judge has to be somewhat of a "relativist" to interpret the law impartially.

No, you really don't. The law is the law, Curious. It takes literacy, not "moral relativism" to interpret it. Its not my fault that liberals can't read the law...or just don't like it.

Does it shock you to find out that justices have opinions? I'll bet that they also have lives, Curious! Get real, or at least get some real professional evidence that would disqualify Janice Brown from the circuit bench. Or are vague claims snatched from the ether the best you have?

Hint: "moral relativism," as you claim to use it, doesn't mean "this text means whatever I want it to mean." If you have to take logical leaps to absurd conclusions, then your thesis probably isn't worth it.

Judge Greer, for example, is basically a conservative Republican Christian. Had he been a rigid ideologue, he could well have found ways to artificially interpret the Schiavo case very differently to support the Schlindler's position and remain popular with his political allies. However, as a well-qualified justice, he was able to be enough of a "relativist" to set his personal beliefs aside and look at both the circumstances and the law in an objective way.

No, Again, bull****. Curious, he didn't have to be a "relativist." A "relativist" would have found something other than what the law prescribes because they don't believe in set standards of justice (you did know that before you wrapped yourself in that flag, didn't you?). Just because social conservatives didn't read the case files doesn't mean I'm going to let you off the hook either. You've never read a single primary source or vetted your own opinions on anything here, so its no surprise to find that you're once again forming conclusions on what you think happened rather than what really happened.

Judge Greer had no choice because the case was much more cut and dry. The evidence is overwhelming for the defendant. If he had made the decisions that you believe he "could have," it would have been grounds for appeal. Its not as if there's no recourse under the sun. Look at how far the Schindlers got on weak appellate grounds.

Do try to find a better, more relevant example of "moral relativism" as a required quality in judges. You may want to do some reading up on what that really means first. I suggest some kind of legal ethics reference rather than "common dreams."

That's why it's extremely important that judges be moderate and as impartial as possible, rather than being ideologically driven. And THAT's what I and others who object to the more right-wing of Bush's nominees are concerned about

Again, bull****. You need to find substantive evidence that these judges are "right wing extremists." You haven't yet. Poor Curious...he's going to get judges that adhere to the Constitution and the law...whatever will he do?

Oh, and Curious, here's an idea...you can name so many "right wing extremist judges." Can you name any "left wing extremist judges?" I mean, you can't identify the President of the United States as a moderate Republican with a socially liberal platform, and you couldn't put Kerry in a liberal lineup, so I would imagine that by your skewed perspective there's no such thing as a liberal judge. Just "conservative" and "impartial."

No, I am less concerned with the fact that she is "pro life" than that she is a committed ideologue rather than an impartial jurist.

She's been a judge for a long time. If she's a "committed ideologue," then you can find a credible example of how her personal agenda influenced her decisions on the bench.

Put up or shut up The people of a state more liberal than thou seem to like her...what's your problem? Its well known that the pro-choice Nazis are putting the thumbscrews in your politicians. You can pretend that there's some other serious flaw in these judges that you just haven't discovered yet, but the fact that you haven't been forthcoming with it in over three years makes us doubt the liberal clarion call on this one.

She sees government as the enemy, she criticizes "relativism" (which is merely a code word for anything outside of the conservative Christian worldview) and she tends to side with the powerful over the powerless.

My my my, I must've missed getting those "code words" in my sunday school class. Good thing that liberals are here to tell me all about them.

It's not just my "feelings" or what the Ministers of Left Wing Propaganda say. Both her public statements and her record together show a very pronounced ideological bias that many believe would position her merely as a tool for an agenda, rather than a fair independent jurist.

Oh okay. So name a decision that was wrong or unfair according to the law. It should be easy...or its not.

I am more concerned, for example, whether she can be truly objective in a case involving a community-supported land-use plans versus an unpopular toxic waste dump planned by a big corporation. Based on her stridently expressed view of government as tyranny will she automatically side with the corporation against the community regardless opf the specific situastion?

What would the law say, Curious? The people write the law in the legislature, not the court. You need to give a few more details than "Oooohhhh the eeeevil corporation against the Community...uhhh, but this isn't Marxist class warfare rhetoric, uh, I never even knew Marx!"

That's why I originally said above that the social wedge issues are almost a distraction from the real issues at stake.

Curious, you have a simplistic and incorrect view of what corporations are and how they work. You really should quit trying to draw them as the ultimate evil. PS - if you're really so altruistic, quit buying plastic things, it comes from evil oil companies.

By the way, as a California judge and justice, I'm sure you can find some kind of example where Janice Brown showed undue preference for an "evil corporation" over a community. Good luck!

Well, as usual, you merely take your opinion and interpretation of other opinions and set that up as some supreme arbiter of what is objectively correct.

What kind of foolish idea is this? Weren't you taught at some point in your life that economic liberation by the Protestant Reformation, which lifted arcane Catholic laws governing commerce, created the middle class? Weren't you informed that the bourgeoisie flourished in places with more economic freedom, and invented capitalism? Did anyone tell you that this removed power from the oligarchy and placed more with the people? Did you read anywhere that this transition from serfdom to capitalism and creation of a middle class led to the downfall of monarchism in Europe? Didn't you know that this intellectual and economic phenomenon is what spawned the philosophies which eventually created America?

I know that's in high school text books, Curious. You don't need my degree. You only need literacy. Its not even interpretational - its simply a true or false test.

I will concede one point, however. I overstated by saying those things "created" a middle class. They didn't. However, they did play an important role in the framework that created the middle class by broadening the benefits of capitalist prosperity. It was an important element in the overall formula, but it was -- as I often say -- a balance.

As liberalism nee socialism didn't exist until the late 1800's at best, I'd say your ideas fail the historical accuracy test. If the facts don't support your thesis, then your thesis is wrong. Find examples of how a nanny state and redistribution were necessary to create the middle class. Again, good luck. Not an easy assignment...unless of course you resort to some kind of craptacular tertiary source. No, websites do not count, and I do check your sources for veracity and primacy.

Bah-loney. Now you're denying modern reality.

You have absolutely no clue what I mean when I talk about "bizarre extrapolations of the Commerce Clause," do you? What government programs that liberals spawned might you think were justified before the Supreme Court with them, eh?

But, of course, that's the real point of this neo-Constitutionalism isn't it? To take the conditions of life in the 18th Century and say that anything that happened after 1800 is unconstitutional....It's a great way to accomplish the agenda of allowing the powerful to do whatever they want with no restraints, but it's very disingenuous to claim that it is being "Constitutional."

Yes Curious, liberalism is repsonsible for all improvements of quality of life since 1800 If you want to make that kind of vapid claim, then you need to look at what liberalism did for quality of life after Lenin took over Russia. That nanny state only killed 100 million people, Curious. I can see why you're so eager to continue to grow government rather than liberty.

Intellectual honesty would recognize that the Founders were as divided among themselves as we are today. And if they were alive today, they'd include liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans and all shades in-between.

Really? You want to play "intellectually honest" today? Find me the founding father that advocated redistribution. Its not hard to find ones that oppose it, so if your theory is true the evidence must be out there. I await your results. Let me know if you need the library data for some good books to read, as I have a feeling you'll be looking for a long, long time.

But what is really in the spirit of the Constitution is recognizing that they were smart enough to realize that these issues would never be permanently settled. They knew that paradoxically, the basic issues would be the same but that times and conditions would change.

Yeah, I'm sure they had all sorts of liberal plans in mind when they wrote the injunction against unreasonable property seizure in the Fifth Amendment.

So yeah, I'd prefer justices that would rule my way. But you'd prefer justices that would rule your way. THAT's exactly why impartial judges, rather than ideologues of either left or right, are the only ones who can truly do that job adequately.

I'd prefer justices that rule Constitutionally and according to law. You don't, because you can't get your way out of the Constitution or the law. The way in which you try to tap dance around this has now reached a bizarre level.

Its clear that you don't like government according to written law and Constitution; you're just dishonest about why. You're more than willing to deprive the Executive Branch of its Constitutional check on the judiciary by taking the idiot route with judicial filibusters. You're more than willing to embrace un-Constitutional seizures of property from individuals in order to give it to others for the "general welfare." You're more than willing to ignore the Second Amendment and strip citizens of their rights to bear arms. You're more than willing to let the judicial branch write the law, rather than let the legislature determine the law and reflect the will of the people. You say you want democratic principles to govern, but the fact is that you really don't. The majority clearly disagrees with you (so much for your ideas about what populism means), so you'd rather preserve the un-Constitutional inroads the court has made into the other branches' powers and ride it for as long as you can.

[curious]

Originally posted by TXNavy:
Yes, that's right Mr. Details. They've approved a bunch of lower court justices. Care to guess what their record is on Appellate court justices that could actually make big decisions contrary to liberal wishes? Or do I have to do your homework for you as usual?

Ron Brownstein

"The first step toward solving the problem is measuring it. Congress has moved efficiently on Bush's nominations for the federal district courts, the lowest rung of the federal court system. In his first term, Bush made 179 district court nominations; Congress confirmed 170 of them.

The tension has come over Bush's appointments to the powerful Circuit Courts of Appeals. Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them. That's prompted the GOP charge that Democrats are abusing the right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.

But Republicans blocked almost exactly as many of President Clinton's nominees. Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges — and the Republican Senate confirmed 35. The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress."

"....Both sides need a longer view. Democrats genuinely consider the nominees they have blocked to be out of the mainstream. But the republic has survived the appointment of individual judges that either side considered extreme. At this point, it's more important to establish a process that would allow future presidents to reach reasonable agreements with Congress on how to fill vacancies.

The solution may be no more complicated than reviving an idea that might seem quaint in this hyper-partisan era: making a deal. Bush could quietly review his list of nominees with Senate Democratic leaders, drop a few they consider most objectionable and adopt a small number of choices they prefer (perhaps some of the blocked Clinton nominees). In return, Democrats would accept the rest of his names. Then the two sides would agree to quietly construct slates for future vacancies that accept the president's predominance but acknowledge Democratic concerns...."

If this is a problem, then find examples in practice where these judges have transgressed against law or Constitution for personal agendas. If the best you can do is public speeches where you amazingly discover that these judges have opinions, then you're blowing smoke. You really just don't want judges who will rule against un-Constitutional liberal policies and programs. And that is a fact.

No that's not a "fact." It's your fact, based on your view of what is Cionstitutional or unConstitutional. You define "unConstitutional" so broadly that any regulation or pro-active government program is unConstitutional.

Believe it or not, I have read a fair amount about Judge Brown, and not just from Common Dreams. You seem to idealize her popularity, as I've come across a number of sources within the legal community that are not as enamored of her as you seem to be.

It's not just my "feelings" or what the Ministers of Left Wing Propaganda say. Both her public statements and her record together show a very pronounced ideological bias that many believe would position her merely as a tool for an agenda, rather than a fair independent jurist.

I don't have the time at the moment to retrace my steps and find them again for you, but if i get a chance I will.

Justice Brown has had rulings regarding such issues as housing, workers rights and other matters that consistently show that she defines so much as a government "taking" that it would be impossible to have any policies or regulations under her view.

For example, she was a minority on the Cally court in trying to outst a fee paid to replace lost housing if a hotel boots out low-income residents to become more upscale. She called it similar to taking the hotel's property.

She is so far on the right in terms of "property rights" that she wants to negate all government regulation. To you, that's a good thing. But it is beyond reasonable conservative protection of property rights. It is extreme.

As for discrimination, let me use her own words:

NewsHour

Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold questioned Brown about her opinion in a case involving the right of age discrimination victims to sue:

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Do you really believe that age discrimination does not stigmatize elderly Americans, and that this kind of discrimination not only should be tolerated in our society, but is actually natural and justifiable?

JANICE BROWN: My statement that it doesn't have the stigma simply reflects the reality that we all know and love people who are old, and if we have a long life, we are going to be people who are old. We all pass through that stage. So in that sense, it is different from being a racial minority or gender discrimination.

It's okay to allow age discrimination, because someday we'll all be old and then it'll be our turn to be discriminated against? This kind of twisted logic (as you would say) is evidence of someone who will look for any reason to avoid acting against discrimination.

And she is a judicial activist. Here's an example of where the majority of the court said the circumstances regarding a case should be handled by the legislature instead of the courts, Brown wanted to take a more activist role.

Civil Justjce Association of Ca. -- (A conservative source)

In a 6-1 decision allowing the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200) to be used against title insurers for refusing to insure property bought at a tax sale, the California Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Marvin Baxter said the “court is not unmindful of the abuses to which the UCL is subject. Many of those concerns are matters that should be addressed to the Legislature, not the judiciary, however.” The ruling reversed a lower court in a case (Quelimaine Company v. Stewart Title Guarantee Co.) where the defendants contended that only the Insurance Code governed the situation. Justice Janice Brown, writing in dissent, said “It is a truism that UCL litigation over industry-wide economic practices hampers rather than advances effective regulation” and that the Department of Insurance was “likely to prove better at the job” of resolving “a myriad of complicated fact and policy issues tied to the economics, risks, costs and availability of title insurance” than a single Superior Court judge hearing a single UCL case. “Orderly legal development is not advanced by placing this court's imprimatur on yet another unfair competition claim of dubious pedigree,” she wrote.

In otehr words, she wanted to strike down a regulatory action, rather than leave it to the legislative process that you conservatives claim to be so enamored of.

It just goes to show that this is less about principle, and more about ideology. And her ideology is that the government is bad, so regulations should be overturned at every opportunity. And if that means taking on the role of a legislator, so be it.

They've had years to find evidence of such a flaw and haven't done so. The best you've done is take a public speech and hold it up as an example of how this California Supreme Court justice will stick to ideology rather than law and justice.This is somewhat akin to idiotic liberal assertions that because George Bush says in public that he's a Christian, he must be "violating" the separation of church and state. If you really want the rule of law, then you want judges who will rule against unlawful and un-Constitutional government acts. This would put a severe crimp in your liberal day. You realize that, don't you?

That's typical overstament. No one objected to George Bush saying he is a Christian. Every dang president we've had has said that. The issue is how he chooses to use his religion politically.

You continue to miss the point. There IS a difference between a qualified justice who happens to be conservative, and an ideologue who happens to be a justice.

Regarding Brown, it's not a few statements that reasonably state conservative opinions. I've read her statements and speeches and legal decisions. They are bone chillingly right wing -- not merely conservative. They are also sarcastic, self-righteous and condemnatory of anything she views as even remotely liberal or "relativistic."

I realize to you that's a good thing. But you are not mainstream or moderate.

And those conservatives were wrong - but for the wrong reasons. If the facts they believed had been correct, then they likewise would have been correct. There's a difference between that and wishing for activist judges who will circumvent the law and the Constitution. An independent judiciary is important - but so is preserving the role of the legislature and the executive branch. You don't like the flip side of that coin because the judiciary is all you have...you want to get some legislative mileage out of it before we get non-liberal judges on the bench.

(See the example above for how much Brown values the legislative process. And there have been other cases where she did the same thing.)

No I (and others who oppose right wing court packing) am not looking to get some "legislative mileage." I accept that for the time being we have a Republican conservative legislative and executive government. I don't like it, but that's part of the political tug-of-war and ebb and flow of power.

But this whole thing is about making a temporary political advantage into a long-lasting system of dismantling the government and making it impossible to actually allow the political process to operate in the future.

Two different issues there.

That's why we do not want right wing extremists. We realize we have to live with conservative apointees, but that's different than appointees who have an ideological agenda.

You know that's really the case, you just don't want to acknowledge it. This is not a battle over anything but ideology. And conservatives are trying to impose a rigid ideology that is not what mainstream opinion -- including mainstream moderate conservatives really believe in.

Maybe it can be said that it is logical for Bush and the right wing of the Republican party to press their current political advantage. But it is also logical for the other side to fight back instead of rolling over.

If you were honest you'd admit that this is merely a political battle from your side too, instead of your crocodile tears over "unConstitutional" liberal activist justices.

Bull****. The Republicans worked on the wrong facts - true. Suppose those facts had been right...would they still have been looking for "conservative activist judges?" The answer is no. Curious, conservatives support judges who adhere to the Constitution because the Constitution supports conservatism. They go hand in hand.

No, the Constitution recognizes balance and moderation between liberal and conservative principles. It is more concerned with preventing excessive concentrations of power -- but it recognizes that such definitions have to be constantly interpreted within the context of specific situations and changes of the times.

The Constitution limits the power of government and preserves property rights of individuals - something anathematic to you. You prefer government before people rather than the other way around.

To use your style of overstatement, You prefer property over people. Your philosophy prefers to let the wealthy and powerful minority do whatever the hell they want without any restraints or consequences. Modern conservatives have a distorted view of "rights" and individuality that sees the private life of people as subject to government control, while disavowing any outside controls on the public actions of economic power.

While he Constitution stands for freedom and liberty, it also recognizes that we are social creatures. That aspect of it is the part you ignore.

The law is the law, Curious. It takes literacy, not "moral relativism" to interpret it. Its not my fault that liberals can't read the law...or just don't like it.

You confuseliteral-minded rigidity with literacy.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically recognize many things that we all -- including conservatives -- take for granted as rights. Nor does it specifically give government many of the powers that we all also take for granted and support.

That means the Constitution is always having to deal with things that were not spelled out specifically.

To take your style of thinking to a ridiculous extreme is an example regarding defense. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically give the government the authority to have airplanes or space waponry. It only mentions land and water defense. Does that mean that all of our air-based military system are unConstitutional? Obviously not. It merely wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution because planes and missiles had not been invented.

That's a cartoonish example, I realize, but it illustrates the point regarding the need to interpret the Constitution in more subtle ways.

Does it shock you to find out that justices have opinions? I'll bet that they also have lives, Curious! Get real, or at least get some real professional evidence that would disqualify Janice Brown from the circuit bench. Or are vague claims snatched from the ether the best you have?

I'm not just grabbing it from the ether. I have read them.

The unfortunate thing about the way these things are handled is that people who are nominated to positions are treated as if they are doing something wrong when aspects of their lives make them unqualified for particular positions.

Judge Brown is a bright woman, and she is entitled to have as many, and as strong, a set of opinions as she wants. However, someone with views as strong as she has is not qualified to serve in a powerful federal position where she is expected to objectively judge individual cases which often have far-reaching effects.

Her speeches are not merely expressions of opinion. They are so one-side and partisan and ideological and sarcastic that they cast serious doubt on her ability to seperate her ideology from her actions.

Hint: "moral relativism," as you claim to use it, doesn't mean "this text means whatever I want it to mean." If you have to take logical leaps to absurd conclusions, then your thesis probably isn't worth it.....My my my*, I must've missed getting those "code words" in my sunday school class. Good thing that liberals are here to tell me all about them.

You were in Sunday school long before folks like Bill Bennett decided that "moral relativism" was a high-sounding way to brand whatever is outside their priggish worldview.

"Moral relativism" has become a pseudo-intellectual code that conservatives use in modern politics. If it were used honestly it would be a legitimate source of discussion.

But conservatives have made it into an Orwellian buzzword that is used to denigrate freedom of thought and to make diversity of opinion and recognition of complexity seem like a sin.

Again, bull****. Curious, he didn't have to be a "relativist." A "relativist" would have found something other than what the law prescribes because they don't believe in set standards of justice (you did know that before you wrapped yourself in that flag, didn't you?). Just because social conservatives didn't read the case files doesn't mean I'm going to let you off the hook either. You've never read a single primary source or vetted your own opinions on anything here, so its no surprise to find that you're once again forming conclusions on what you think happened rather than what really happened.Judge Greer had no choice because the case was much more cut and dry. The evidence is overwhelming for the defendant. If he had made the decisions that you believe he "could have," it would have been grounds for appeal. Its not as if there's no recourse under the sun. Look at how far the Schindlers got on weak appellate grounds. Do try to find a better, more relevant example of "moral relativism" as a required quality in judges. You may want to do some reading up on what that really means first. I suggest some kind of legal ethics reference rather than "common dreams."

You mean I don't use primary sources like the Cato Institute?

You are smart enough to realize that he could have handled it very differently by twisting interpretations.

The point I was making about Judge Greer is that he DID proceed from the specific case, and not from what he wished were the case. He did not think "life is sacred, therefore I have to find a way to justify denying her husband's claims."

And he made a decision that put him in a very uncomfortable position (to say the least) and even had to leave his church. I also suspect it made him very uncomfortable within himself. That's the mark of an honest jurist, which is different from someone tryoing to push an ideological agenda.

Oh, and Curious, here's an idea...you can name so many "right wing extremist judges." Can you name any "left wing extremist judges?" I mean, you can't identify the President of the United States as a moderate Republican with a socially liberal platform, and you couldn't put Kerry in a liberal lineup, so I would imagine that by your skewed perspective there's no such thing as a liberal judge. Just "conservative" and "impartial."

No there are judges who might be called left-wing extremist.

Unlike you, I am honest enough to say on a personal level, I don't mind that in a strictly pragmatic sense. If they further the "liberal agenda" I'm all for it.

But also, unlike you, I am honest enough to say that it doesn't mean they are any more qualified to serve on the bench than right-wing ideologues. My own personal preferences is not a valid litmus test for a good judge, anymore than yours are.

In fact, people like you and me are exactly the kind of people that should not be selecting judges. Rather than reflecting the personal preferences of people with strong political opinions, judges should be moderate. They should also be unpredictable, in the sense that they are not going to be predisposed to side with a "liberal agenda" or a "conservative agenda."

As for the rest of your labels, that's getting off the subject. But President Bush is an opportunist who tries to make his conservatism palatable, while being dishonest about the real agenda he supports which is pandering to the strange bedfellows of corporate power and fundamentalist Christianity.

Kerry is a liberal who was afraid to acknowledge his liberalism. He was more of a "new Democrat" who is socially liberal but economically was more towards the corporate end of the scale. That is what I always objected to. I never denied that he is basically liberal.

She's been a judge for a long time. If she's a "committed ideologue," then you can find a credible example of how her personal agenda influenced her decisions on the bench.Put up or shut up The people of a state more liberal than thou seem to like her...what's your problem? Its well known that the pro-choice Nazis are putting the thumbscrews in your politicians. You can pretend that there's some other serious flaw in these judges that you just haven't discovered yet, but the fact that you haven't been forthcoming with it in over three years makes us doubt the liberal clarion call on this one.

I've read less about the others so far, but what I have seen bothers me.

And, to reinforce my original point, regardless of what the pro-abortion "Nazis" say (gee I thought conservatives didn't like the use of that term) the issues are bigger than that. I frankly wish the damn wussy Democrats in the Senate would be more upfront about the real stakes, instead of pandering to that particular special interest. In that respect, the Democrats are their usual ineffectual selves, by allowing it to be portrayed as all about abortion.

What would the law say, Curious? The people write the law in the legislature, not the court. You need to give a few more details than "Oooohhhh the eeeevil corporation against the Community...uhhh, but this isn't Marxist class warfare rhetoric, uh, I never even knew Marx!"Curious, you have a simplistic and incorrect view of what corporations are and how they work. You really should quit trying to draw them as the ultimate evil. PS - if you're really so altruistic, quit buying plastic things, it comes from evil oil companies.By the way, as a California judge and justice, I'm sure you can find some kind of example where Janice Brown showed undue preference for an "evil corporation" over a community. Good luck!

Well, as usaual, you take a criticism of something and immediately exagerate it.

As I have often said, I am not opposed to corporations and business and capitalism or private property. But, unlike you, I am not willing to simply say that because something has many positive aspects that it is incapable of also doing things wrong or not meeting every need of society and individuals too.

Nor am willing to say that we should let the harsh religion of the Holy Markets be the only driver of society. (Nor that Jesus said that we should render our souls and society to the Almighty Dollar either.)

With all of your intelligence, I should think you'd recognize that if ANY sector of society becomes too powerful, it is unhealthy. And you would also appreciate that critical thinking does not mean finding one little slot and sticking to it, come hell or high water. For a guy who claimns to be a hard-headed realist in love with logic, you seem determined to live in your own world of wishful thinking.

I will try to supply more specific references regarding the specifics of Judge Brown when I get more time.