And then there's Janice Brown, an African-American on the California Supreme Court nominated for the D.C. Circuit. Democrats are plowing for any excuse to filibuster her, lest Mr. Bush someday decide to promote her to the U.S. Supreme Court. Modern liberalism's ultimate nightmare is a black conservative woman in a position of moral authority." (Editorial, "Rainbow Filibuster Coalition," The Wall Street Journal, 10/15/03)

JUSTICE BROWN HAILED AS EVEN-HANDED, INTELLIGENT

Bipartisan Group Of California Law Professors Describe Justice Brown As Having "High Intelligence" And "Unquestioned Integrity." "We know Justice Brown to be a person of high intelligence, unquestioned integrity, and even-handedness. Since we are of differing political beliefs and perspectives, Democratic, Republican and Independent, we wish especially to emphasize what we believe is Justice Brown's strongest credential for appointment to this important seat on the D.C. Circuit: her open-minded and thorough appraisal of legal argumentation- even when her personal views may conflict with those arguments." (Letter From Bi-Partisan Group Of 15 California Law Professors To The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, 10/15/03)

Justice Brown's Current And Former Judicial Colleagues Say She "Applies The Law Without Favor, Without Bias, And With An Even Hand." "Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the federal bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily basis know her to be an extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias, and with an even hand." (Letter From A Bi-Partisan Group Of 12 Of Justice Brown's Current And Former Judicial Colleagues [Including All Of Her Former Colleagues On The Court Of Appeal, Third Appellate District And Four Current Members Of The California Supreme Court] To The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, 10/16/03)

DEMS' DEMAND: MEET LIBERAL LITMUS OR FACE RIDICULE AND POLITICAL HATE SPEECH

"The Democratic Minority In The Senate Is Rampaging Through The Constitution, Trampling On 200 Years Of Practice In Confirming Federal Judges By Simple Majority Vote." (Editorial, "Rainbow Filibuster Coalition," The Wall Street Journal, 10/15/03)

Liberal Groups Decry Justice Brown For Alleged "Aggressive Judicial Activism" And Call Her "Far Right Dream Judge." A joint press release from People For The American Way and the NAACP called Justice Brown a "far right dream judge," and says she has a "record of ideological extremism and aggressive judicial activism that makes her unfit to serve on the appeals court ..." The release, as shown on www.BlackCommentator.com, also depicts the offensive cartoon at left.

Congressional Black Caucus Says Justice Brown Has "Disdain For Legal Precedent." "The Congressional Black Caucus came out Friday in strong opposition to the confirmation of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, calling her a conservative activist with a 'disdain for legal precedent.'" (David Whitney, "Congressional Black Caucus Opposes President's Court Nominee," Fresno Bee, 10/18/03)

Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) Says Justice Brown's Civil Rights Record Is "Atrocious." "'This Bush nominee has such an atrocious civil rights record she makes Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall,' said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif." (Jesse J. Holland, "Black Democrats Denounce Judicial Nominee Brown As Another 'Clarence Thomas,'" The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

"Party Of Inclusion" Excluding. "If [the Democrats] succeed it means the 'party of inclusion' will have excluded a black woman, a Hispanic immigrant, a Southern woman, a Catholic woman and three white Southern men. ... If Daschle continues to prevail, only liberals will be confirmed and the Constitution may become, as someone said, 'Silly Putty.'" (Editorial, "Congress: Senate Softies," [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union, 9/14/03)

Nominees Being Blocked For Not Supporting "Liberal Political Agenda." "[I]n Congress recently, judicial nominees Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, William Pryor, Charles Pickering and Terrence Boyle have been blocked from assured majority approval because a Democrat minority has used Senate rules to block an up-or-down vote. These nominees are opposed not because they lack qualifications but because the obstructionists fear the nominees would uphold the Constitution and the law instead of supporting the liberal political agenda." (Lee Anderson, Op-Ed, "Does 'The Law' Matter Anymore?" Chattanooga [Tennessee] Times Free Press, 9/25/03)

Doubleday distributed more than 10,000 free advance copies to the media, which, according to the New York Times, was more copies than any of his earlier books sold -- a major reason why the book hit the best-seller list. Let's go into as many canards as we can quickly. Brown says Jesus was not the son of God but a good man elevated to God status by the emperor Constantine as a means of boosting the Roman's power, with the New Testament adjusted to support the God myth. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene who, at his crucifixion, was carrying his unborn child. The Holy Grail was not the chalice from which Christ drank at the Last Supper, but literally the womb of Magdalene: a secret that Catholicism -- indeed all Christianity -- has preserved by countless murders to suppress the ''sacred feminine'' truth. The key is supposedly found in Da Vinci's ''Last Supper,'' where, Brown insists, the figure at Christ's right is not St. John but Magdalene (not true, insists Bruce Boucher, curator of arts and sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago, who has debunked the theory).

Brown's supposed ''research'' is derived from extremist feminist theories, including The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels; Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leight and Henry Lincoln, and The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine by Margaret Starbird. These eccentric suppositions are co-mingled with fact and sloppy research (the ancient Olympic games were held to honor Zeus, not Aphrodite; the Knights Templar, who supposedly guarded the Magdalene ''secret,'' did not build the cathedrals of their time, they were constructed by bishops throughout Europe; the gothic cathedrals do not represent feminine symbolism (as critic Sandra Miesel asks scathingly, ''What part of a woman's anatomy does a transept represent? Or the kink in Chartres' main aisle?''). While hatred of Roman Catholicism dominates the book, no part of the church receives more invective than Opus Dei, the personal prelature of John Paul II.

A ''monk'' of Opus Dei (astoundingly, Brown doesn't understand that the group has no monks) is a murderer, killing to keep the Magdalene ''secret'' from being exposed. While not an Opus Dei member, I am familiar with, and admirer of, among other things, its schools for the education of disadvantaged youth in Chicago, where I once taught. Because of Opus Dei's great influence, when its founder died, more than a third of all the world's bishops petitioned the Vatican to begin the process of his canonization. When John Paul II declared Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer a saint last October, the many thousands in St. Peter's Square stretched all the way to the Tiber River.

The novel is part of a genre to present a hate-filled stereotype of Roman Catholicism as a villain. ''Almost as troubling as the sheer abundance of anti-Catholic rhetoric is the failure to acknowledge it as a serious social problem,'' writes Jenkins, distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University. ''In the media, Catholicism is regarded as a perfectly legitimate target. . . . What sometimes seems to be limitless social tolerance in modern America has strict limits where the Catholic Church is concerned.''

The Da Vinci Code is only the latest crude assault, as frightening in its own way as were recent demonstrations by mobs at Catholic cathedrals in New York City and Montreal (no ''hate crime'' sanctions were invoked there). That this erratic tale will soon fade away will be fitting justification for a church whose founder died, out of love, for man's redemption and prophesied its unending persecution -- but also that will endure to the end of time.

"This legislation bans a specific procedure in which a baby is partially delivered, scissors are stuck in the back of the baby’s skull, a vacuum suction tube is inserted into the skull, and the baby’s brains are sucked out," explained Fitzgerald. "Those of us on both sides of the abortion issue should be able to agree that this is too cruel and inhumane a procedure to allow in the United States."

Fitzgerald is the lead co-sponsor of legislation, introduced earlier this year by Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), prohibiting doctors from performing a specific procedure, called a partial-birth abortion, in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers the baby and kills it before completing the delivery.

"I am struck that in the four-plus years I have been in the Senate we have on several occasions had debates on the Senate floor and votes in the Senate about banning cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. A number of us voted to protect the animals out West, the coyotes, wolves, and bears that were being inhumanely trapped in these steel-jawed traps and neck snares," stated Fitzgerald.

"The suffering of a bear or a deer can lead many of us to say no to a steel-jawed trap or a neck snare, but what about the scissor through the head and neck of a child? Legislation banning partial-birth abortions is a question of basic humaneness, a plea for care and empathy directed towards our most helpless members of society. I don’t understand how those who can hear the howl of a wolf or a squeal of a dolphin can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child," Fitzgerald continued.

Thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed each year in this country, many for elective reasons, on healthy babies of healthy mothers. These abortions take place in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, and many experts agree that babies 20 weeks and beyond are fully capable of experiencing the pain of the procedure. The American Medical Association has said this procedure is "not good medicine."

"Unborn children have had to wait far too long for the protection they deserve from this barbaric procedure. This bill will save lives. I thank my colleagues in the House and Senate for passing this important legislation and encourage President Bush to quickly sign it into law," Fitzgerald concluded.

The Santorum-Fitzgerald legislation is similar to bills vetoed by President Clinton in the 104th and 105th Congresses. In the 106th Congress, the House and Senate failed to reach a conference agreement, and last year the House passed a version of the bill, but it was not brought up by the Senate. President Bush has said he strongly supports a ban on partial-birth abortions.

# # #

==>Calvin Coolidge