Smug? Moi?

Counterbias: Appeals Court Nominee Janice Rogers Brown Merits the Filibuster — Here’s is what the Senate Fillibuster is all about. This woman is a stooge for big business and a front for the now arrogant and hateful Christian Right. And you can be certain she will be a big supporter of open borders and cheap labor.

Here’s the code for this I found in the article linked above.

In the case of Peatros vs. Bank of America, Justice Brown ruled that a 135 year-old law allows banks to discriminate against employees on the basis of race and age. This decision was contrary to numerous federal rulings that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act make such discrimination illegal. In the case of Stevenson vs. Superior Court, she issued the lone ruling that a plaintiff could not sue an employer for age discrimination. Justice Brown wrote, “Discrimination based on age is not like race or sex discrimination. It does not mark its victim with a stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship; it is the unavoidable consequence of that universal leveler: time.

So do you understand what this means? Fire the older employees, especially once they get near their pension. Put in a cheap worker. With this woman on the bench you will literally be able to fire them for being old! This is the current state of the conservative agenda. Corrupt.

This woman is a disgrace for this concept alone. But this is the tip of an iceberg. The irony of it all was cartoongate where she and some Republicans made a fuss over a characicture of her giving her a big “afro.” This was utterly offesnive they said. But this woman herself, while on the bench, said that racial slurs were OK in the workplace — just part of living in the real world. What a jerk.

This is why there is a fillibuster. What I do not understand is why no Republicans appear to be thinking for themselves or for the good of the country. It is a pathetic indictment. How can anyone rationalize supporting this woman? Toadies.

Article on Cartoongate here:
Black Commentator

And here is your religious angle and support outlined here.

Harry Jackson, the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Md., also chairs the High Impact Leadership Coalition, which is promoting a “Black Contract with America on Moral Values.” He took part in the “Justice Sunday” broadcast urging religious conservatives to lobby against the Democrats’ judicial filibusters.

Janice Rogers Brown, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court, has described herself as a “true conservative.”

On Sunday, Brown gave a speech to Roman Catholic legal professionals in Connecticut. She warned, “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.”

On what planet? Apparently the opposite is true on Earth.

  1. Howard Roark says:

    If the nitwit Dems hadn’t filibustered so many nominees they my have been able to filibuster this one. Now it appears that they’ll all go through. Personally, I think the Republicans should change the filibuster rules to bring back real filibusters. I’d love to see the former Democratic Grand Kleagle holding up the Senate talking about his dog and other such nonsense.

  2. Ima Fish says:

    I love how the Religious right in our country constantly feels that they are on the offensive. That they are the ones who are afraid to speak out. That their views are unpopular and will get them in trouble. Yeah right. It’s pure BS.

    Every president throughout out history has been a Christian and believer. Nearly every Senator or Congress person has been the same. And the same is true of nearly ever governor, mayor, all the way down to the local county clerk.

    We currently have a radical Christian in the white house. Fox is the most watched news channel. And the Right controls both houses.

    Exactly why do they think they are an oppressed minority?!

    I personally think that religion does better when it’s in a perceived oppressed minority. When it’s “us against them” it’s easy to get support. I see a lot of similarities between Muslims and the religious right in the US. They both are against secularism. They’ll both resort to terrorism to support their views. They both see their God as the sole god. And they both use their God to support their views.

    And I’m wondering how having the religious Right will differentiate us from the much more secular Europe when it comes to Muslim based terrorism. Will the Right breed more hostility? Or will Muslim terrorists see us as less of a threat because we’re less secular, which is really their true adversary.

  3. CharliePATpk says:

    We’re that the case, are you seriously thinking that no moderate Republicans (calling Sens McCain, Snowe, et al) would join hands with the Democrats and reach a deciding majority against her nomination?

    Clearly, the minority party is breaking Senate rules and 214 years of tradition to demand a super-majority where none is required, simply because they want a precedent for the upcoming SCOTUS nominations.

    THAT is why there is a filibuster, as unconstitutional as it is.

  4. Gizzy says:

    You gotta get the gansta tranizzialation on this whole thing bitches.
    We ride spinners ya’ll. We ride spinners. Chizneck wit yo lawyer. Dig!

    In tha case of peatros vs. bank of america, justice brizzay ruled tizzle a 135 year-old law allows banks ta discriminate against employees on tha basis of rizzle n age . Holla!. this decision was contrary ta numerous federal rul’n T-H-to-tha-izzat tha civil rights act of 1964 n tha age discriminizzles in employment act makes sizzuch discriminizzle illegal . Tru niggaz do niggaz. in tha case of stevenson vs. superior court, she issued tha lone rul’n thizzat a plaintiff could not sue an motherfucka fo` age discriminizzles motha fucka. justice brizzown wrote, “discriminizzle based on age aint like rizzle or sex discriminizzle bitch ass nigga. it does not mizzark its victim wit a stigma of inferiority n second class citizizzles it is tha unavoidable consequence of that universal gangsta . Drop it like its hot: time.

  5. Robert Blanchette says:


    You can love or hate the nominees as you choose. However, using the filibuster to stop nominees is not playing well with the general public. The dems can fight this issue all they want. In the end they will lose. The republicans will simply change the rules. They have that prerogative, as they are the party in power. The dems can’t seem to get their act together and stop engaging in politically disastrous fights like this one. How many elections do they have to lose before they wise up?

    By the way, have you seen the latest report on their wunderkind, Howard Dean? He has managed to cause donations to the Democratic Party to plummet since being appointed DNC chair. I thought he was the guy who could “deliver the goods” through internet donations.

    Dolts like Dean are the reason the dems are self destructing as a party. Here’s a newsflash for the dems: Dean didn’t’ win any primaries! Therefore, what makes him the guy to lead the democrats to victory?

    Here’s some simple math: judicial filibuster + Howard Dean + Nancy Pelosi + Harry Reid + atheism + gay marriage + pro-abortion + pro-immigration + anti-gun = Repuplican President, House and Senate. Could the dems be more out of touch with mainstream America? Nope.

    Democrats can take any ideological stance they like. Standing up for what they believe is right is honorable and praiseworthy. Too bad it’s not winning them any elections. That’s politics for you and it appears that the democrats have forgotten how to play the game.

  6. AB CD says:

    I think you’re referring to a myth that says she said racial slurs in the workplace are OK. The actual case involved some Hispanics who filed and won a lawsuit, and the judge ordered the company/employees not to say specific things which were racially offensive. She made the obvious point that under the First Amendment, neither Congress nor a judge can outlaw speech ahead of time, just like with the Pentagon Papers.

  7. AB CD says:

    Several judges are being attacked by special interest groups on fringe issues. They want to defeat the nominee, so they make dishonest charges based on some ruling they wrote. One judge from Mississippi was branded a racist because he disapproved of jailing some cross-burners(and that he was from Mississippi), even though he had a history of fighting for civil rights and was endorsed by the brother of Medgar Evers as well as black groups in his state. It turns out in the cross burning case, his objection was that the head perpetrator was getting a smaller sentence in the plea deal.

  8. T.C. Moore says:

    These fights over judicial nominations are happening because both side’s bases say they care about the outcome. Calling a judge “out of the mainstream” and then blocking their nomination gets Dems cheering. Saying the filibuster and Democrats are discriminating against people of faith gets the religious right cheering.

    We’re in a nuclear arms race of the political arena. Both sides have trashed procedural traditions that have been in place for centuries. Whoever gets power tries to make up for and out do the previous party’s political atrocities.

    I am surprised at how quickly the Republicans are overplaying their hand. The irony is that there is more intellectual breadth in the Republican party. The Republican Party has a bigger tent right now, with fiscal conservatives/social liberals trying to keep the excesses of the political-steroid popping religious right in check, before in their fervor they eliminate the estate tax on the goose that lays the golden egg, and then kill it to prove a point.

    On the other hand, the Democrats are in no position to capitalize on any Republican overreaching. The whole “Reid + Pelosi + etc” equation above is right on target for most of the country, even though I don’t agree with many of those positions. First, because the standard bearers are all so liberal and anathema to middle america. Second, the Demos just don’t have the breadth of ideas to fight back in new ways. Where are the moderate Democrats? Lieberman can’t do it alone.

    Meanwhile, November 2006 is a long way away, and the American electorate’s memory is short.

  9. to_glow says:

    Yes, if you are a true believer in Christ Jesus and His commands, you are not allowed to speak out, least someone find you offensive. Witness gay marriage or immigration law enforcement, where even the President is calling anyone a vigilante that wants to enforce the rule of law.

    While unfortunate, in that each person should be judged for their own worth and not their genetic make-up, it is not unconstitutional and is a part of free speech. Only an arrogant and self-centered individual would consider taking that freedom away. If it’s to punished, then the employer should be the one to do it, in the same way they should have the right to decide what clothes you wear to work, or language you speak while working. But, as it stands right now the only group that is ever punished are the whites, when was the last time you heard of a Afro-Amer, Hispanic, or any other so called minorities punished for their racial slurs. As a side point, when was the last time you’ve heard of a so called minority punished for any high profile killing of a white. The North-Eastern elite might have rights and lawyers, but for the rest of us poor white trash we don’t, vis-à-vis Clinton’s walking all over the woman in Arkansas.

    I agree with many of Dvorak’s view, but his 1950’s view of discrimination is about on the level of the little leprechaun ‘Bill O’Reilly’. This is exactly the type of thinking that has lead us to this point. Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, each reflect this defective traitorous view point. Their thinking has destroyed this counties economy and is going to destroy the very fabric of the county itself, but then that is the idea isn’t. All must bow to globalism and the U.N., and it’s new ruling elite. When the serfdom comes, who will own you and don’t say it won’t come to that, who would of imagined this present state of affairs when NAFTA and GATT where being passed. Now they want to push CAFTA, That should just about finish our economy, but then again since we are so busy being lawful and respectable, I guess we deserve this. You don’t see the Communist/Democrats/Neo-Cons worrying about such things, they go for what they want and right now it’s the destruction of this country.

  10. Pat says:


    Of all the topics you have raised, I think this one has appealed to the most far out commentators.

    This Judge and several others that the Democrats have deemed unworthy of sitting on the Federal Bench are but a handful of nominations by Bush. If Bush and the Republicans think they have God’s blessing, I advise them to think again.

    This reminds me of Jesus and the Pharisees. In that one it ended up short term gain for long term pain.


    Gay marriage and immigration law have nothing to do with the right to speak.

    “…it is not unconstitutional and is a part of free speech. Only an arrogant and self-centered individual would consider taking that freedom away.” Yup, sounds like Bush, O’Rielly, Hannity, Delay, Frist, Limbaugh, and the other radicals way of thinking.


    “By the way, have you seen the latest report on their wunderkind, Howard Dean? He has managed to cause donations to the Democratic Party to plummet since being appointed DNC chair.”

    Sir, as with most trends, political contributions swell during Presidential elections then subside until the mid-terms when they rise again. The Republican Party is undergoing the same trend right now.


    “Clearly, the minority party is breaking Senate rules and 214 years of tradition to demand a super-majority where none is required,…”

    For that 214 years, the Senate has had the duty of advice and consent. That mission has been determined by the Senate over time to mean that Filibusters are within the rules. Originally a Filibuster could not be over ruled, then that was changed to 2/3 of the Senate could over rule a Filibuster, and recently even that was changed to 60%.

    The Filibuster has worked reasonably well over the years as a method of preventing the tyranny of the majority from abusing the minority.



    It appears that you enjoy hearing yourself talk. Your rantings are not enjoyable to read. I am not sure if this shows your level of intelligence, but it doesn’t seem like an intelligent thing to do.

  11. Hank C says:

    Ya gotta figure. Any one who thinks that FOX is “fair and balanced” will NEVER EVER understand why the founding fathers gave us “checks adn balances.”


Bad Behavior has blocked 3883 access attempts in the last 7 days.