Talk:Janice Rogers Brown

message: Does anybody have any idea how the daughter of sharecroppers from Alabama was able to afford Cal State Sacramento?  As an out-of-state resident, her tuition would have been pretty high, even back then.  Did she get government grants, something she opposes for other people?  RickK 21:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
::Have you even heard of scholarships based upon academic qualifications????  Also, give me the citation where she specifically--as you state--"government grants, something she opposes for other people?"  Where did she say that??? When did she say that????  Until you provide a specific quote then I am going to assume that you are a biased editor of the article.  I am also going to assume that you are simply looking for things to critize her for.  Also, have you ever heard of people working, earning cash, and paying tuition????  I know that most of the editors in Wikipedia are left-wing radicals, but shouldn't you attempt to cover up your biases so that you don't exhibit them so clearly???------Keetoowah 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear RickK:  I have noticed that you have NOT provided the exact quote where JRB stated JRB opposes "government grants"???? I guess you don't have any back up for wild accusation.  Just blowhard hot air.------Keetoowah 20:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Her mother took her to California when she was a teenager. College in Sacramento would have been inexpensive. Activist (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Her education

message: From The National Journal, via The Week http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.asp?id=953
Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court. A radical libertarian, she once called Social Security a �triumph of our own socialist revolution� and likened the New Deal to the Bolshevik uprising of 1917. Though she�s black, Brown has argued that racial slurs in the workplace are a permissible form of free speech. Libertarian == "wacko" ?
Brodo 19:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Brodo:  It seems that you believe that Wikipedia is your platform to spew your opinions.  It is not.  Nothing that you take out of context above disqualifies Brown from any position.  Keep your silly opinions to yourself.-----Keetoowah 17:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair 'n Balanced

message: I removed this from the article: "In 2003 she was the lone vote against homosexual co-parent adoption, saying that a homosexual legally adopting the child of their partner 'trivializes family bonds'." If you read her opinion in that case, that's not what she says at all. What she says is that second-parent adoption of a child by someone who has no legal ties to the birth parent trivializes family bonds, and she points out specifically that "every Californian adult has access to such a relationship", via marriage and domestic partnership. - Nat Krause 07:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification, Nat. I did some research on the quote but never found the article you mentioned. I apologize for including the information without presenting a more accurate picture. Since this is a ruling that she has been frequently criticized for, maybe you should include her statement to explain her position. --JamesB3 08:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from the article

message: Brown has also surprised some conservatives with traditionally liberal positions on criminal sentencing and freedom of speech. The majority opinion Brown authored in Varian v. Delfino has reinforced California's SLAPP statute. She was the lone justice to contend that a provision in the California Constitution requires drug offenders be given treatment instead of jail time.
Can someone document that conservatives were actually surprised?  Or was it instead that liberals who held a certain conception of the conservative viewpoint on freedom of speech were surprised?  Theoretically, conservatives do stand for free speech as a first amendment freedom, and I could produce quotes from Ronald Reagan and other conservative leaders that would really surprise some liberals.
Can someone provide a reference to an article that documents some conservatives expressing surprise or disappointment at these Brown decisions?  If not, I think perhaps this needs minor revision as unsubstantiated. 199.176.87.2 12:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprised conservatives? 

message: This article begins: "Janice Rogers Brown ... is a Judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, since June 8, 2005."
Yet United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit#Pending nominations states: "The U.S. Senate confirmed Justice Brown on June 8, 2005, by a 56-43 vote. She received her commission on June 10, 2005. She has not yet been sworn in." (emphasis added)
Which is correct? --zenohockey 8 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
*She's been approved by the Senate and recieved her commission, so she's "on" the court once it's back in session. Swearing in is a formality - just as you can say that someone is a witness in a case before they have been sworn in to testify. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 16:57 (UTC)
**Obviously the point has long since become moot with regard to Brown, but being sworn in as a judge is not merely a technicality. It's more akin to taking the oath of office as President or as a member of Congress. You don't actually hold the office until you're sworn in. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is she on the DC court or not? 

message: * What is the religious faith of judge Janice Rogers Brown?
Protestant. She was a member of the Rancho Cordova (near Sacramento, CA) Church of Christ, before moving to the D.C. area.http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000208425/ Activist (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Faith 

message: Several links to notable sources have been repeatedly labeled "linkspam" and deleted by a single user. "Linkspam" means links to material with no relation to the topic and usually with a commercial or spurious goal; characterizing these links as such is clearly not accurate. Given this fact, and the fact that only one user continues to re-add the links after multiple users have re-added them, the presumption should be that the links are relevant and should stand unless the opposite case is convincingly argued here first, particularly given Wikipedia's interest in not white-washing over relevant, factual information due to controversial nature, and given the well-known record of political figures having partisans whitewash their Wikipedia articles. It is very well-documented in the news that Judge Brown has been of notable interest for advocating particular positions, which need to be referenced if this article is going to be encyclopedic rather than being subservient to a particular political viewpoint. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant links repeatedly labeled as "linkspam" and deleted by a single user 

message: According to the article, Brown "received an LL.M. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2004."  That's hard to believe, since by then she had already been on the California Supreme Court for eight years.  She was near the pinnacle of her profession and had no need to earn another degree.  She also would have been very busy, making it difficult to juggle her career and her school.  And let's not forget the fact that there's an entire continent between her chambers in San Francisco and the law school in Charlottesville.  Did someone make a mistake about the year?  Was the degree honorary (in which case it should not be presented as part of her education, and UVA should be removed from her list of alma maters)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.201.12 (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 2004 LL.M. from Virginia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Janice Rogers Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061012002129/http://www.calbar.ca.gov:80/calbar/2cbj/96may/art27.htm to http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/96may/art27.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Janice Rogers Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100407171708/http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/Stub+-+Biographical+Sketches+of+the+Judges+of+U.S.+Court+of+Appeals+for+the+DC+Circuit to http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/Stub+-+Biographical+Sketches+of+the+Judges+of+U.S.+Court+of+Appeals+for+the+DC+Circuit
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050520232714/http://www.usdoj.gov:80/olp/brownresume.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/brownresume.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050906002318/http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_04-2005_09_10.shtml to http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_04-2005_09_10.shtml#1125942214
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050903053929/http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=30975 to http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=30975
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511143433/http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/nominees/brown.html to http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/nominees/brown.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Janice Rogers Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060923064109/http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/VL+-+Publications+-+Judge+Brown+Investiture to http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/VL+-+Publications+-+Judge+Brown+Investiture
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Janice Rogers Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/Stub%2B-%2BBiographical%2BSketches%2Bof%2Bthe%2BJudges%2Bof%2BU.S.%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeals%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BDC%2BCircuit
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/VL%2B-%2BPublications%2B-%2BJudge%2BBrown%2BInvestiture
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127080202/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200505u/nj_taylor_2005-05-03 to https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200505u/nj_taylor_2005-05-03
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On February 1st, an anonymous contributor made an edit [] to this article that included factual errors and unattributed editorial comments. I reverted the edit, and my revert was rolled back in turn. To prevent further edit warring, I wanted to describe my concerns in detail:
* 69.121.157.1's edit includes a quote in which then Senator Biden characterizes a particular vote as "the single-most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years". While the text of the quote itself is accurate, 69.121.157.1's edit incorrectly suggests Biden was speaking against about Brown's nomination. In fact, he was speaking against changes to the filibuster as is clear from  ()the original video and transcript. It is true that Biden mentions Brown later in the speech, but the quoted text clear refers to the debate about the "nuclear option" not Brown's nomination alone.
* 69.121.157.1's text incorrectly implies that Democrats blocked R.B. from being appointed to the Supreme Court, but Rogers Brown was never nominated for this position (only to the D.C. Circuit). 
* I concede that this interpretation of the Democrats' actions has a "source." But the source in question is not scholarly or journalistic source--it is a write up of editorial comments made by Dana Perino (a Fox New host). *•(2b) Perino claims that Democrats "told the media" they opposed Rogers Brown because "they didn't want the Republicans to have a shot at nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court." But, the article does not link to any reports that substantiate this claim. Nor does offer a "liberal" or Democratic spokesperson an opportunity to respond to her claim, as it would if it were a journalistic source. 
* According Wikipdidia's guidelines on Reliable Sources, editorial comments or statements of opinion (1) should be attributed to the author and (2) should not be represented as fact. 
* Thus, at the very least, 69.121.157.1's text needs to be edited to represent the editorial nature of the source it is drawn from.
* The larger question, however, is why Perino's comments are relevant to this article. They seem to be motivated by contemporary political debates (i.e. Biden's upcoming Supreme Court nomination) rather than an attempt to illuminate the circumstances of Brown's nomination.
* • So, until better sources can found, I believe 69.121.157.1's text should be reverted.
Illion123 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit (69.121.157.1) regarding Democratic motives for blocking Rogers Brown