Private: Who is Janice Rogers Brown?

One of the most controversial potential nominees to the Supreme Court is Janice Rogers Brown. Recently confirmed to the DC Circuit, Judge Brown's nomination to that position was heavily contested, and only approved after a group of moderate Senators from both sides of the aisle agreed on a compromise to avoid the potential use of the "nuclear option." (Photo via The Washington Blade.)

Prior to her confirmation, Judge Brown served on the California Supreme Court since 1996, although at the time of her nomination to that post the state bar gave her a rating of "unqualified." Her anti-government statements in speeches and from the bench have been particularly noteworthy. Some examples collected by People for the American Way include:

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. ["A Whiter Shade of Pale," Speech to Federalist Society (April 20. 2000)("Federalist speech" at 8]

A few other hints about her jurisprudence:
Judge Brown and Racial Discrimination: In several cases, Brown has written dissenting opinions insisting that victims of racial discrimination have no grounds for relief. In Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc., she argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act could violate the First Amendment.
Judge Brown and Economic Regulations: Judge Brown has praised the mostly reviled Lochner decision as consistent with her view of the Constitution, noting, "That Lochner dissent has troubled me - has annoyed me - for a long time and finally I understand why. It's because the framers did draft the Constitution with a surrounding sense of a particular polity in mind." She has also advocated against the New Deal in general, calling it "the triumph of our own socialist revolution."
Judge Brown and Choice: In dissenting from a ruling striking down a parental consent law, Brown said "the ruling would allow the courts 'to topple every cultural icon, to dismiss all society values, and to become final arbiters of traditional morality'." In another case, Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, she dissented from a holding that required organizations like Catholic Charities to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.