Homocon

Opposed vehemently by a laundry-list of politically left organizations that would make any self-respecting Conservative swell with pride (NOW, CBC, NAACP, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Friends of the Earth, Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project, etc. etc.), Janice Brown believes that judges should subordinate their own political and social agendas in order to neutrally apply the written law, stating emphatically that it is the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

There are, of course, the ensuing shrieks of leftist outrage at any attempts to clear away the haze of modern judicial bong-smoke that's led our entire society, blind and stumbling, towards vague and yielding abstracts of truth and justice, but when the law is interpreted according to politically-correct fashions and intellectual whims, and the Constitution is regarded as a "living document" to be folded, spindled and manipulated to suit recent collectivist agendas that were never offered a place at the table to begin with, then the non-stop, high-pitched whine of supposed progressivism reveals itself as just another layer of white multiculturalist noise to be tuned out, along with your typical NPR broadcast.

Deliberately mischaracterizized as anti-Enlightenment for the heresy of criticizing the Enlightenment for its "failure to provide a rational explanation of the significance of human life," and also derided as "another infamous Black character from the bootlicking quarters of California," for declaring that equality of individual opportunity rather than affirmative action is what the constitution requires, Brown was recently informed that she was being harshly ridiculed for being too much like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and George Bush, to which she responded, “At least I’m in good company!”

Here here!

"By accepting the beguiling proposition that all perspectives are equal," she stated in her commencement address to the Class of 2003 at the Columbus School of Law, "we left Western Civilization . . . undefended," a problem which she has stated is the direct result of a lack of a firm world view, and an overly vague sense of truth. "The idea of constitutional government is deceptively simple," she stated in her speech to the Institute for Justice, "the government cannot legitimately infringe upon our rights even if the majority votes to do so," and in "our rights" she includes the rights of the unborn as well as the mother, the comatose as well as the fully aware -- and as marriage is a traditionally heterosexual ritual with its own inherent limitations and obligations, then I would assume that gays are included in the "beguiling proposition that all perspectives are equal" part for their quixotic insistence that what one person has must be watered down and made available to everyone else, no matter the impracticality of it, or the potential consequences.

"Evil is not merely a matter of opinion," she told the graduates at the Columbus School of Law, and it is in this regard that she is most emphatically a nominee of the Bush Administration. "What we need is to revive our passion for freedom and our determination to defend vigorously, rationally and without apology our way of life, which is unique and deserves not scorn nor diffidence, but devotion."

Perhaps if the Democratic members of the Senate actually read her words, they wouldn't be so quick to filibuster a justice whose respect for truth, life and constitutional law would be an obvious credit to any administration.