April 28, 2005

NYT calls Rogers Brown "enemy of minorities"

Janice Rogers Brown is a well-respected jurist on the California Supreme Court. President Bush has chosen Brown as his nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Her name has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. But there's one problem -- at least in the eyes of liberals -- she's extremely conservative.

The New York Times, in an effort to play the "Uncle Tom/Aunt Jemima" card, has gone out of their way to paint Brown as alternately an evil operative of the conservative right, or an unwitting dupe that doesn't deserve to sit on the bench.

Justice Brown, currently a member of the California Supreme Court, is an extreme right-wing ideologue. She is an outspoken supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to before 1937, when the federal government had little power to prevent discrimination, protect workers from unsafe conditions or prohibit child labor. She has attacked the New Deal, which created Social Security, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution."

On the bench, Justice Brown - a black woman raised in segregated Alabama - is a consistent enemy of minorities and old people, and of people injured by big business.

That's pretty damn ornery of 'em.

And of course, if -- God forbid -- the Times, or any other news organ, up through and including the hated-by-the-left Fox News Channel referred to any liberal black person in such vindictive and demeaning terms, the ink wouldn't be dry on the first editions before Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and every other card-carrying member of the soul patrol would be on every news program screaming to high heaven about the racist smear campaign being conducted.

But when the vaunted New York Times, with "all the news that's fit to print" says the same thing about a black conservative woman, it's "OK." After all, in their minds, she's "not really black," is she?

Writers for the Times and other outlets across the land are breaking their collective necks to color the majority party -- the GOP -- and their actions as being anti-American. The Republican majority, conversely, is working to take their place as the true majority party, and work to implement their decisions -- and that includes bringing the President's judicial nominees to the full Senate for an up-or-down vote.

(More coverage from Michelle Malkin & others)

Posted by: mhking at 04:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Interesting that Judge Brown is exactly the type of person Democrats say they are doing their thing for. Single mother, who worked her way through college and Law School. Judge Brown was elected in California - that bastion of Conservatism by 76% of the vote. I am firmly convinced that this is not even about justices anymore, since the Democrats want to negotiate an allowance of 4 of the dangerous right wing zealots, if the Republicans leave Senate Rule XXII alone. Any republican who wants to get reelected better stand up to this mess. It smells.

Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at April 28, 2005 05:50 PM (oEYsC)

2 I saw a speech on CSPAN that she gave last year and shed tears. What an amazing lady. As for The Times...

Posted by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at April 29, 2005 12:15 PM (U4SDZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.0166, elapsed 0.4091 seconds.
41 queries taking 0.3982 seconds, 96 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.