April 21, 2005
Re "Judges' Battle Transcends Numbers," April 17: Republican Party leaders use "activist judges" as a red herring to build support for changing the rules -- in time for Supreme Court confirmations. As always, if Congress doesn't agree with judges' interpretation of the law, then Congress makes law that clarifies its intent. It's as simple as that -- checks and balances are the basis of our government: Congress makes law, judges interpret law, and the president enforces law. The real question is who would speak up if the president were to nominate Supreme Court justices who do not share the conservative principles of the 60 million Americans who elected him?
February 1, 2005 |
In a closely watched decision by the mortgage industry, the state Supreme Court narrowly ruled that state law supercedes local government in regulating the sale of high-cost home loans. The 4-3 decision prevents the cities of Oakland and Los Angeles from enforcing their anti-predatory lending rules, and blocks other cities from adopting similar ordinances. The ruling was hailed as a victory for lenders who specialize in subprime mortgages, which target high-risk borrowers.
January 7, 2006
THE CENTRISM THAT IS AT least briefly infusing Sacramento is fragile and likely to falter as this election year progresses. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's newly appointed state Supreme Court justice, Carol A. Corrigan, whose aversion to ideology is a hallmark, offers a steadying example. The governor and Legislature would benefit from following her dedication to deciding issues on their merits. It wouldn't hurt to adopt her sense of humor as well.
December 19, 1996 |
The judge-screening commission attacked by Republicans for its low rating of Gov. Pete Wilson's last Supreme Court nominee should be preserved but made less secretive, a State Bar panel recommends. The proposed changes include allowing a representative of the governor to attend meetings, which are currently closed; announcing the names of judicial candidates while they are being evaluated; and creating a body to review candidates for the appellate courts and state Supreme Court.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 7, 1997
The decision of the California Supreme Court to permit cities to prohibit the legal activity of street gangs is a severe blow against civil liberties (Jan. 31). Justice Janice Rogers Brown, in arguing that "the security and protection of the community" take precedence over individual freedom, advances a highly restrictive notion of liberty that has received little endorsement in the historical development of constitutional practices in the U.S. Civil liberties are a crucial part of the social cement that holds a democratic system together.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 25, 2000 |
In a ruling that could send former Los Angeles City Councilman Art Snyder to jail, the California Supreme Court decided Thursday that anyone who launders political contributions is guilty of a crime, not a mere administrative violation. The ruling reinstates misdemeanor criminal convictions against Snyder, a legendary city lawmaker who served 18 years on the council before stepping down in 1985. Snyder then became a lobbyist.
May 22, 2005
Re "A Mushroom Cloud Hovers Over a Bush Judicial Nominee," Commentary, May 18: After reading Patt Morrison's column, "tone of dismissive arrogance" would have been an apt lead, it seems to me. As an American history teacher in an earlier life, I marvel at the discussion today of what characteristics are important in a nominee for a higher court appointment. Morrison informs us that judicial nominee California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown "lectures her colleagues," has a "tone of dismissive arrogance" in her writings and dealings with colleagues, has a "compelling life story" and zings sardonic critiques, etc. Obviously, she's not made of the right stuff.
April 28, 2005
Re "Faith 'War' Rages in U.S., Judge Says," April 26: California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown may claim that "these are perilous times for people of faith." She may even delude herself into thinking that our goal as secularists is to stamp out her faith. But surely even she must recognize that the times are just as perilous for those of us who do not subscribe to hard-line Christianity. At every turn, we are demonized as the enemies of all believers, simply because we do not want their narrow-minded doctrine forced onto the rest of us. The main difference between myself and Brown is this: When I get up in the morning, I couldn't care less about her faith; when she gets up, she is hellbent on making me obey that faith.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 26, 2003 |
President Bush late Friday nominated California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Her nomination to one of three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, considered a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court, is expected to draw fire from U.S. Senate Democrats. It also would create the first vacancy on the state Supreme Court in two years. "I am honored to be considered for appointment to the D.C. Circuit.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 20, 2002 |
The California Supreme Court this week threw out a jury instruction that permitted judges in criminal trials to admonish jurors to report other panelists who refused to deliberate or intended to disregard the law. In a 4-3 ruling, the court said its disapproval of the 1998 jury instruction would not affect defendants who already had been convicted in trials where it had been given.