Janice Brown - Suzanne gift to Buck
ANSWER TO BUCK DARE – JANICE ROGERS BROWN
I believe that the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown would do tremendous damage to religious liberty rights of millions of Americans.
In a speech to the Pepperdine Bible Lectureship in 1999 entitled, “Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square,� Justice Brown made clear that she seriously questions firmly settled constitutional law applying the protections in the Bill of Rights to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). This extreme view would have dramatic consequences for Americans’ most basic and fundamental First Amendment rights, among many others. In her speech, Justice Brown stated: The United States Supreme Court . . . began in the 1940’s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. Now, that has an interesting effect on how the law about religious expression gets developed. Because they incorporated all of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, that not only made them binding on the States, that is to say that now the States were covered by the first ten amendments as the Federal government, it also gave tremendous power to the Federal judiciary, because now they [would] decide at least the minimum level of protection that would be provided for all of these rights. The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy . . . So if you went by the language you certainly would not get there. They relied on some historical materials which [are] not overwhelming. The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it’s probably not incorporated.
If Justice Brown were able to act on such a radical view, she would effectively bar religious minorities from exercising any rights under the U.S. Constitution for the protection of their religious practices against State intrusion. At a time when America should be reaffirming its commitment to religious pluralism, Justice Brown is advocating a dangerous course.
Justice Brown also belittled the importance of the separation of church and state in the Pepperdine speech. She maintained that the U.S. Supreme Court had: skipped over a lot of formidable interpretive problems that required a real attention to language and history and purposes that had been Lavished on other parts of the Constitution but were not really given to this part of the First Amendment. The Court instead relied on a rather uninformative metaphor of the “wall of separation between church and state.� And that was their substitute for really getting in and trying to figure out what this meant.
These views would threaten the fundamental rights of countless Americans, especially in view of the D.C. Circuit’s exceptionally powerful role among the federal circuit courts.
I am seriously concerned that such a position could result in States blatantly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the rolling back of basic Free Exercise rights to State employees, beneficiaries of State government programs, and other individuals interacting with State governments. The results of any alteration to the “incorporation doctrine,� established decades ago, would have devastating consequences for millions of Americans relying on the federal courts to protect their individual rights.
I do not oppose Brown’s nomination because of her personal religious beliefs or her conservative views in general. Rather, I have serious concerns that her extreme views of the non-applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States, as well as her rejection of the separation of church and state embodied in the Establishment Clause could dramatically undermine core religious liberty protections.
Now, Buck, as you know The Establishment Clause is a very big issue with me, but not only just me, this is becoming a wide spread issue all over The United States. People are no longer just hiding their heads and accepting whatever is thrown to them. They are beginning to stand up and YELL!
You dared me I accepted the dare
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 3rd, 2005 at 7:45 am
By championing justices like Brown and Pryor, the Religious Right and their allies in Congress promote a simple plan of court stacking. Once the filibuster rule is out of the way, ultra-conservatives in Congress will be free to work with Bush to load the courts with far-right ideologues. In time, these judges will overturn existing court precedent on issues such as tax aid to religion, religion in public education, reproductive freedom, gay rights and others.
When speaking to conservative audiences, DeLay has been clear about his goal: He wants to see the courts knock down the wall of separation between church and state. In an April 13 interview with The Washington Times, DeLay asserted, “The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that’s nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn’t stop them.” DeLay has been a consistent critic of church-state separation during his tenure in Congress and has frequently addressed Religious Right organizations.
The Constitution provides for a system of check and balances. Ultra-conservatives in Congress and their Religious Right allies are angry that federal courts have struck down some of their blatantly unconstitutional proposals. In response, they have cooked up various schemes: mass impeachment of judges, stripping the federal courts of their ability to hear certain types of cases or abolishing courts wholesale. All of these proposals and more were openly discussed by speakers at Scarborough’s conference, despite their radical nature.
But these proposals are really just rhetorical red meat. They sound good in a fiery speech, and talking about them keeps the Religious Right’s shock troops happy, but they are unlikely to gain traction precisely because they are so radical. Nothing in the Constitution, for example, allows for impeachment of judges just because some members of Congress do not like the decisions they hand down. In fact, the separation of powers would seem to preclude such actions. Attempts by Congress to demand that the courts interpret the Bill of Rights in a certain way would spark a confrontation between two branches of government. While some Religious Right activists on the ground want to see that fight, few in official Washington really want to provoke it.
That leaves the Religious Right with one useable option: Convince the Senate to implement the nuclear option and after that stack the courts with judges who have extreme legal philosophies, judges who will voluntarily rule in ways that please the Religious Right.
What Motivates Opponents
The Religious Right’s opponents are determined to prevent this from happening. They are determined to stop aggressive Religious Right groups from using the courts to convert their narrow theologies into laws that everyone must follow. They seek to protect the integrity of the courts and to buttress our tradition of church-state separation.
That’s what this fight is about. It has nothing to do with “religious bigotry.” It has everything to do with what type of country we’ll leave the next generation. Will it be a multi-faith republic where people of all faiths (and none) live together in peace thanks to the separation of church and state or will it be a quasi-theocracy where the Religious Right has been handed the power by federal courts to meddle in everyone else’s lives?
We must make every effort to see that it is the former, not the latter.
sUZANNE
Suzanne Says: June 4th, 2005 at 5:02 am
Buck, I am waiting, you dared I took the dare
come on show up where are you
do not hide behind this computer screen
I want to see your responce
LK
Suzanne
Javan Says: June 7th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
So basically you don’t like the nomination cause you disagree with the nominee? Well that’s acceptable because that’s how democracy runs.
Everyone always brands the “religious right” as crazy ignorant people. Some of them are but most of them are only branded this because they have morals. Something America i lacking today. Liberals will tell you “murder is wrong” and then ratify an amendment to legalize the slaughter of thousands of innocent children, yes I’m talking about abortion. As for gay “rights” well looking at all the major branches of christianity, and muslim beleifs homosexuality is implicitly BANNED. In fact it’s called an abomination so of course the “religous right” wouldn’t support something like that.
The “narrow theology’s” are only narrow because they don’t agree with your view, but most of the time they’re actually saying something that makes good sense. It just scares the liberals. And since they control pretty much everything they get shut down and branded as something bad.
That’s the problem with the lefties. They were so busy trying to keep an open mind their good sense fell out of there open head.
Suzanne Says: June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Sorry, but I think you have completely lost any understanding of everything I have posted on this site.
I do not think the Religious Right People are either crazy or ignorant. They are no different than most other Americans; honest good, moral and wonderful.. I do not have a problem with the Religious Right, nor do I have a problem with morals, nor do I think murder is right it is horrible, as is abortion.
Gay Rights, that is a different subject, I am not gay, but do tend to be a bit more understanding of the Gay problem than the Religious Right. Even in stating this, I do not say the Religious Right are wrong on their stand with the Gay Issue. On the other hand I also do not state that I believe it is correct.
I believe deeply in God and Gods Laws, I am not a Liberal - I am also not a wacko.
I do not have a narrow theology, nor do I think if someone else does not believe as I believe, only my beliefs are correct.
I learn for what others believe. The beliefs of the Religious Right do not scare me in the slightest, why should they?
If a person’s political or religious viewpoint is different than mine, I do not find it necessary to brand them with –Not-So-Nice-Names.
One can always learn from others beliefs, as I have in the past, present and will so in the future.
Lately, I have been given a few titles, putting them all together, reads as follows –
“The Wacko, Moderate, Leftie, Wordy Drama Queen”
Actually, the only title I will answer to is either my name or the name of Flowers.
I am not a “leftie”, nor a “rightie”, or a “Wacko” or a “Drama Queen” and or any other brand you wish to place on me.
In addition, I have not been so busy keeping an open mind that I lost my good sense. Just the opposite, I have been so busy my good sense is getting a bit upset.
It is my thinking that many of you (not all just some) actually read what you want to read and that which you do not wish to accept you blank it out of your mind. Adding your predetermined thoughts as to what it was I was writing about to begin with.
However, I think you have lost your good sense by assuming that my commentaries and comments are against the Religious Right, as they are not, were not and will not ever be!!!
If you read all of my commentaries, and comments, you will not see one word where I have stated in any way or form anything against the War in Iraq, or the manner in which Bush conducting this war, nor have I made any comments against his role as President. I have stated my thoughts on the judge issue, but this was not against my President it was in relation to the main topic, which runs through most all of my commentaries and comments. I do not and I will not put down my President, as to do so is against the oath I took when joining the Military. In addition, to speak against the President when this country is at war undermines The President in the eyes of others in other countries.
It is however, my right and duty to state if I believe the Laws of The Constitution are being broken, misused, stomped upon, and or disregarded.
This is not a Religious Right Issue, this is not Putting down my President, This is not being a Liberal, or a Wacko, or any other word you may come up with to describe me and that which I believe in.
I think you and many others on this site have completely lost or do not understand the main topic of my Commentaries or comments..
As an American citizen, and as all American citizens, who were born in America - That group of Americans never had to take the same oath as someone in the Military, or someone who came to America from another country and became a citizen - as to the oath they must take-.
In this oath, (I am not quoting exact) but in this oath, “both for citizenship and joining the Military” one states something as to the following.
“I will uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America. I will in time of war, stand behind my President, support his decisions and obey (military) any and all orders as given to me by my government. I will uphold the Bill of Rights” . . . .. and so on and so forth.
We are at war, it does not matter if I agree or disagree with this war in Iraq, and it is my duty as an American Citizen to support my President in time of war. More-ever, I do this, both as an American Citizen and as a person in the US Military.
As an American Citizen and a person in the US Military, it is my duty to uphold the —
Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights; not to do so, would go against everything I believe in everything I pledged my oath to, my duty as an American Citizen, my obligation as a Military Person.
The above is the main subjects within most all of my words on Laugh at Liberals.
Nowhere have I stated, nor do I believe in killing babies, or that I agree or disagree with the abortion issue. In addition, my comments on the Gay Rights Issue stayed within the bounds of the subject of Separation between Church and State
(These three subjects are not a government issues they are religious issues).
I have not branded anyone or any group as either bad or good, but boy, have I been branded, and branded for what?
I have mainly written and commented on the Establishment Clause - The Separation between Church and State,
This is not against the Religious Right, nor is it only a Liberal complaint. This is a National Complaint. Read the polls, read the newspapers, bring your head out of your dream world
“that all who do not agree with you must be a “Liberal” - “Wacko” - “Lefties” or any other title you and others like you so easy put on to someone who disagrees with you”.
IT IS MY DUTY JUST AS IT IS YOUR DUTY TO DEMAND THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BE UPHELD AS THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY, LIKE THEM OR NOT THEY ARE THE LAW!!!
Try as you may, the wording is clear, it does not take the Almighty God to make it any clearer. Nor does it take a lawyer, a politician or you to try to alter the meaning of the following items:
“Amendment I” of the “Bill of Rights”, - “Separation between Church and State” – “The Establishment Clause”. In addition, within my research, I have discovered some very interesting documented information.
1- The Constitution was not in any way founded upon the Christian Religion.
2- The first coins in America did not have “In God We Trust” inscribed on either side..
3-.The history of Pre-World War II, should anyone wish to read, is enough in itself
For every citizen of this country to demand that our Constitution be upheld by the present government, and the future government elected to be either the President or Congress, or in the House, and or in anyway involved in the creation of Bills which will be presented to the House and then to Congress for vote.
Our Supreme Court Judges MUST have the ability to remove and disregard their own personal religious conviction when making decisions upon political and legal cases placed before the Supreme Court.
I was against this nomination based upon Judge Brown’s history of disregarding The Establishment Clause, and wrote a commentary stating exactly that and nothing else. Each word in that commentary came for reliable documents.
Personally, I like the woman although against this nomination based upon the fact that a Judge completely disregards the Constitution of The United States of America. Publicly states her disagreement with the “Bill of Right” mainly in reference to the Establishment Clause, along with other parts of Amendment I. This disregard for our Constitution was part of several public speeches one of which was at the same University where my sister received her law degree.
Now, if this has not made it clear where I stand, then you have the problem, not I, I know exactly who I am what I am and all that I stand for.
I do not wave and wan depending upon the tide of public opinion.
I realize that calling me “A Wacko Liberal” “take no offence Suzanne” was a jest, or was it. Was I offended? No, I was not offended - I was hurt.
Now, that is my problem not anyone else’s, as a good friend once told me, not use my emotions and my heart in either business decisions or in political discussions. He was and is so right. I made the mistake of allowing my emotions to become involved in what actually is meant to be a fun site.
So let the record be set straight:
Suzanne is not a Liberal
Suzanne is not a Wacko
Suzanne is not a Leftist.
Suzanne is not immoral
Suzanne does not kill babies
Suzanne is but Suzanne an American Citizen.
Thank you for reading this “Wordy Dramatic Comment”
Suzanne
Just a girl with the name of Flowers
,
Suzanne Says: June 10th, 2005 at 5:58 am
TO JAVAN:
A Second Thought on Last Nights Comment to Mr. Moral who dares to judge me!
I have no problem whatsoever with your morals, religious values, etc. JUST KEEP THEM IN YOUR OWN HOME! I do not care if you think you are God…you have no right to bring your values into my home or my government.
Now, because I know that you are so good and faithful, I went ahead and baptized you, by proxy, into the LDS Church, also known as the Mormon Church, headquarters in
Salt Lake City, UTAH
Gosh, that is where I live, my goodness
I do not care how you feel about abortion that is between a woman and her doctor and her God. It is not the decision of a politician or other citizen. If it is murder, let God judge it . . . He did not appoint you to judge for Him!
In addition, while I am at it, send me about $10.00 per month to cover the cost I have to pay on my cable television bill so your damned religious programs can be on the cable channel. Not one, but several . . . .I do not watch them and I do not care who watches them. However, why should I have to pay for them? Well, the FCC has allowed that, and the FTC and they are branches of government forcing me to subsidize religion.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 10th, 2005 at 6:28 am
And the war goes on -
Published by - AMERICANS UNITED
AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE APPROVAL OF JANICE ROGERS BROWN JUDICIAL NOMINATION
AU’s Lynn Says Brown Is Unfit To Serve On Federal Appeals Court Bench
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today deplored the Senate’s confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown to a seat on the federal appeals court bench.
After contentious debate, the Senate voted 56-43 late today to approve Brown’s nomination for the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.
Americans United had urged senators to reject Brown’s nomination, citing the former California Supreme Court justice’s contempt for the First Amendment principle of church-state separation.
“The Bush administration’s campaign to crowd the federal appeals courts with extremist judges was advanced today,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Brown has shown herself time and again to be a judge eager to destroy protections of civil liberties grounded in our Constitution. She is woefully lacking in judicial temperament and undeserving of lifetime appointment to the federal appeals court bench.”
In an April 20 letter to senators, Lynn cited a speech Brown gave at Pepperdine University titled “Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square.” In that speech, Brown argued against the federal court precedent that says the states are bound to uphold fundamental rights protected in the Constitution and that the Supreme Court has “relied on a rather uninformative metaphor of the ‘wall of separation of church and state.’”
In April before a church-sponsored breakfast for judges, Brown maintained that the nation was in war of Civil War proportions. She claimed these “are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”
But AU’s Lynn said the issue was not Brown’s religious beliefs, but rather her lack of support for basic constitutional protections.
“Today the Senate has approved a judge who has revealed great contempt for or a seriously flawed understanding of our nation’s Constitution,” he said.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 10th, 2005 at 6:44 am
And on and on and on
Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown
The Senate Judiciary Committee should reject the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to a federal appeals court because her views on religious liberty are too extreme. Brown’s views in this area are so narrow that she would effectively leave minority religious believers subject to majority rule.
These views would threaten the fundamental rights of countless Americans, especially in view of the D.C. Circuit’s exceptionally powerful role among the federal circuit courts. I have serious concerns that her extreme views of the non-applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States, as well as her rejection of the separation of church and state embodied in the Establishment Clause, could dramatically undermine core religious liberty protections
Appellate court judges must apply the law as stated by the Supreme Court, not engage in judicial activism by attempting to create new law more to their liking. Brown’s statements and writings indicate that she has little respect for the concept of respecting precedent - a key feature of modern jurisprudence.
Brown’s views go far beyond a conservative interpretation of separation of church and state. Her views are, in fact, radically regressive. She would turn back the clock on religious freedom and overturn more than 50 years of church-state law
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 11th, 2005 at 4:12 am
To Comment # 3 - I posted this last night but it did not show up so it might show twice, as Buck may be out of town, but I actually like this reply to your comment to me better than the one above
I will call you Mr. Moral
A Second Thought on Last Nights Comment to Mr. Moral who dares to judge me!
I have no problem whatsoever with your morals, religious values, etc. JUST KEEP THEM IN YOUR OWN HOME! I do not care if you think you are God…you have no right to bring your values into my home or my government.
Now, because I know that you are so good and faithful, I went ahead and baptized you, by proxy, into the LDS Church, also known as the Mormon Church, headquarters in
Salt Lake City, UTAH
Gosh, that is where I live, my goodness
I do not care how you feel about abortion that is between a woman and her doctor and her God. It is not the decision of a politician or other citizen. If it is murder, let God judge it . . . He did not appoint you to judge for Him!
In addition, while I am at it, send me about $10.00 per month to cover the cost I have to pay on my cable television bill so your damned religious programs can be on the cable channel. Not one, but several . . . .I do not watch them and I do not care who watches them. However, why should I have to pay for them? Well, the FCC has allowed that, and the FTC and they are branches of government forcing me to subsidize religion.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 25th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Buck you do not play fair
you gave me a dare I took you up on it and found the dirt now you can not answer
is it silienc to suzanne?
Ok everyone enjoy
When I am in a bad mood I will come back