So much for the GOP moderates

June 9, 2005

I’m not surprised that Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday. She was part of the Gang of 14’s “compromise” deal and, in order to defeat her nomination, opponents would have needed every Dem vote plus six Republicans to break ranks with their party. That wasn’t going to happen, so yesterday’s vote hardly comes as a shock.

It is surprising, however, that not one Republican opposed Brown’s nomination. Linc Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter — the alleged centrists of the Republican Senate caucus — all considered Brown’s record and believed she deserves a lifetime position on the second highest court in the judiciary. This defies comprehension.

Chafee, in particular, has shown a willingness to oppose the worst of Bush’s nominees in the past. Indeed, just last week, Chafee joined the Dems in opposing Priscilla Owen’s nomination to the appeals bench. He believes Owen isn’t suitable for the judiciary but Brown is?

I realize it’s a long-shot, but I hold out some hope that this vote could come back next fall as a campaign issue. In 2006, Republican Sens. Santorum, Snowe, Talent, DeWine, and Chafee, among others, will face tough re-election fights, and a few of them will appeal to their respective state’s voters by emphasizing their willingness to break with their party on occasion.

Yet, each of them voted for Brown, whose nomination was more a bad joke than a serious attempt to fill a judicial vacancy. Voters won’t remember this vote 16 months from now, but if Dem candidates wanted to remind them, yesterday’s vote could be a problem.

I can imagine, for example, a debate in which Sheldon Whitehouse turns to Linc Chafee during a debate and asks, “Senator, you voted to put a woman on the second highest court in the nation who doesn’t believe in minimum wage laws, believes FDR was a socialist, sees herself as part of a ‘religious war,’ insists liberal democracy ‘leads to slavery,’ and equates Social Security with ‘cannabalism.’ Can you explain your confirmation vote to the people of Rhode Island?”

The same question could be asked in Maine, Missouri, or Pennsylvania. Coming up with a persuasive answer may not be that easy.

How these people could vote such a ” lunatic ” into a lifetime office show’s how crazy they all are. This woman does NOT deserve to be a judge at any level!!!
Didn’t I read one Dem also voted for this crazy BITCH?

  • “Senator, you voted to put a woman on the second highest court in the nation who doesn’t believe in minimum wage laws, believes FDR was a socialist, sees herself as part of a ‘religious war,’ insists liberal democracy ‘leads to slavery,’ and equates Social Security with ‘cannabalism.’ Can you explain your confirmation vote to the people of __________ ?

    A great question CB. Every Repug Senator up for re-election should be made to answer it several times
    a day. Or more often if possible. I hope the Dems
    aren’t dumb enough to let this one slide.

  • Let’s not forget some of her nastier environmental views for hitting against Senators running out west.

    “Senator Burns, after the good people of Montana have had their air and water poisoned by various corporations looking to wiggle out of paying the bill for cleanup, how could you possibly support a judge (or a string of judges) looking to not only give those pollutors a free pass, but to also allow them even more free reign to do whatever they want to our wilderness without constraint?”

  • Or this:

    “Senator, you voted to send an ambassador to the UN who believes the organization shouldn’t exist, reportedly withheld information from two Secretaries of State, has bullied several countries into exempting our officials from International Criminal Court jurisdiction and has been accused of undiplomatic conduct and abusive behavior toward his subordinates. Can you explain your confirmation vote to the people of _____?

    Both of these are campaign ads waiting to happen.

  • Hey Cowboy,

    You’re right, that great Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted for this abominable nominee.

    I know that most common sense people, including all progressives understand Brown’s shortcomings. Lawyers who work with the law everyday (including myself), however, can most fully appreciate the damage she will do, especially because of being placed on the D.C. Circuit bench. *shivers*

    As to the substance of this post by Mr. Carpetbagger, why are we surprised that not even one Rethug would vote against her? During the debate on Owen, Sen. Schumer put up a chart to show that since Bush was installed, there had been 2,703 Rethug votes FOR Bush’s judicial nominees in the Senate, and only -1-, just one, against (and that was by Trent Lott against a black nominee that we a holdover from Clinton).

    Wake up; it’s business as usual for the lying bastards. Linsay Graham (1) tells the White House to “consult” with the Senate (to which Bush said “fuck you” as he gets ready to send up another 22 to fill existing vacancies without consulting Dems at all), and (2) said that one of the three that would be voted on (Owen, Brown and Pryor) would NOT get confirmed. Riiighhht … and I’m Thomas Jefferson applauding the destruction of the Constitution that we overthrew the first King George III to establish.

    It’s Lucy pulling the football away from poor Charlie Brown; a smart person will ignore the words and watch what they do — THAT’S the REAL Rethug agenda and mentality. All of these clowns, including the Gang of 14 — and especially Nelson — are more concerned with their INDIVIDUAL success at staying in office than in upholding their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. They all need to go away.

    Moral and craven cowards, all of them!

  • Snowe does not face a ‘tough re-election fight’ in 2006. She has a lifetime seat, more’s the pity.

    A million and a half dollars — what she raised in 2000 — will basically buy all the media there is in this small state.

    She can lose half her 2000 margin — she won 70%-30% — and still win in a mild squeaker. Unless she is personally blamed for base closings, she’ll win in a walk.

    Wish it were otherwise.

    • Comments are closed.