Janice Rogers Brown for VP

[toowm]

I have reservations about most of the potential running mates for Dr. Paul. In particular, he personally seems at odds with all the current Republican nominees. I don't think I've seen Janice Rogers Brown suggested on these forums. She is currently a judge for the DC court of appeals. While I'd prefer her to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I think a Paul/Brown ticket could smoke even a Clinton/Obama one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

A quote from Judge Brown

Where government advances - and it advances relentlessly - freedom is imperiled, community impoverished, religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

The little I just read on her was not to bad. If the state of Commifornia judicial board didn't like her, she must not be to bad. She is for property rights and families.

.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Don't waste someone that good on the VP. Supreme Court is where she would have the biggest impact.

VP doesn't have that much power, no more power, in fact, than your average Senator. Put someone like Clint Eastwood -- a pretty name/face -- on the ticket for VP.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Yes, I've been suggesting her here, great choice. Couldn't she be Veep BEFORE being Supreme Court justice? (Taft was prez first...)

 

[nayjevin]

weird. the wiki makes her look like precisely the type of judge who would NOT be appointed by Bush. will be looking for more info.

 

[nayjevin]

'Janice Rogers Brown in her own words'

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751

I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document...1937...marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests... In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned

[P]rivate property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco…I would find the HCO [San Francisco Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance] preempted by the Ellis Act and facially unconstitutional. …Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.

We are heirs to a mind-numbing bureaucracy; subject to a level of legalization that cannot avoid being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. What other outcome is possible in a society in which no adult can wake up, go about their business, and return to their homes without breaking several laws? There are of course many reasons for our present difficulties, but some of our troubles can be laid at the feet of that most innocuous branch – the judiciary

Politicians in their eagerness to please and to provide something of value to their constituencies that does not have a price tag are handing out new rights like lollipops in the dentist’s office.

The dichotomy between the United States Supreme Court’s laissez-faire treatment of social and economic rights and its hypervigilance with respect to an expanding array of judicially proclaimed fundamental rights is highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid.

Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism’s virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance, but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice – including our freedom

Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms – a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights – is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions. (citations omitted) But surely, the right to preserve one’s life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one’s privacy.

seems like bush's worst nightmare. what's up with that?

 

[beermotor]

Don't waste someone that good on the VP. Supreme Court is where she would have the biggest impact.

VP doesn't have that much power, no more power, in fact, than your average Senator. Put someone like Clint Eastwood -- a pretty name/face -- on the ticket for VP.

Haha ... I wish Clint Eastwood wanted the job. I'd vote for him for president, too. Probably not over Ron Paul, but if he was running and RP wasn't, definitely.

 

[Gee]

seems like bush's worst nightmare. what's up with that?

Dubya isn't the smartest guy in Washington, by a long shot