Looking for a new job? Perhaps you should watch the classified advertisements for an employment opportunity to serve as judge on one of our Nation’s most influential courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. After all, the classifieds appear to be the only place left where President Bush can search for a nominee who meets the criteria of those Senators filibustering multiple judicial nominations. Candidates who have any personal opinions espoused in a speech or included in an article simply need not apply.

Miguel Estrada, the President’s former nominee for the D.C. Circuit seat, withdrew after his Senate confirmation was blocked again and again and again, making it impossible to move his confirmation to a final up-or-down Senate vote, which all agree he would have won. Now one of the President’s current nominees, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the first female African American appointed to that bench, is caught in the same political hailstorm.

Labeled by the Left as an outspoken and controversial conservative, Brown’s nomination has also been targeted for filibustering . At the center of the bulls-eye are comments Brown made in speeches about her views on the law to organizations disdained by liberals. This guilt by association has led dozens of organizations, ranging from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to the People for the American Way, to line up against her.

Many of these organizations are the same ones that, in 1987, closely scrutinized President Reagan’s Supreme Court candidate, Judge Robert Bork, for his conservative viewpoints. It now seems that if the candidate happens to be both a conservative and a minority, the scrutiny only intensifies. Much like the treatment Justice Thomas received at the hand of special interest groups during his confirmation hearings, far more emphasis is being placed on Brown’s comments made in speeches and writings than on her judicial track record, thus ignoring the hundreds of court rulings she authored or joined while serving for the past seven years as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court.

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution writes that "Brown's views, as espoused in speeches to ultraconservative groups, are far out of the mainstream of accepted legal principles." (October 29, 2003). Can someone please find for us where, exactly, the proverbial line in the sand is drawn when it comes to mainstream America? Most likely, as with anything political, where the line is drawn depends greatly upon the leanings of the individual or group holding the stick. Such a point was not lost on California Third District Court of Appeals’ Judge Arthur Scotland who defended Brown this week, saying "Let’s be honest. Janice Rogers Brown is being opposed by some not on the basis of her qualifications, but because they perceive the strength of her intellect and the quality of her character as a threat to the implementation of their political views."

Here, the stick is held by liberals who seem unmoved by the fact that Brown’s record as a judge, when fairly evaluated, demonstrates that her published opinions fall on both sides of the political fence. Whatever happened to actions speaking louder than words?

While under intense questioning this week from Democrats during her four-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brown defended herself, saying, "I absolutely understand the difference in roles in being a speaker and being a judge," and added, "I have only one agenda when I approach a case, and that is to try to get it right."

Getting it right is exactly what she does when it comes to upholding the Constitution. Brown views the Constitution as colorblind, authoring the majority opinion enforcing California’s Proposition 209, which was overwhelming passed by the citizens of that state, to strike down a city program that offered preferential treatment to businesses owned by minorities or women.

Further, Brown’s dissent in the Nike case is evidence of how she relies on jurisprudence to find an existing legal framework within which to rule. In Nike, Brown urges the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the boundaries of the commercial speech doctrine and afford full protection under the First Amendment to speech, such as Nike’s, where it "is more like noncommercial speech than commercial speech because its commercial elements are inextricably intertwined with its noncommercial elements." She should be applauded for resisting the temptation to legislate from the bench.

We happen to believe that judicial nominees shouldn’t have to give up their free speech rights. In fact, we believe that jurists often bring a special perspective to public debate, and that’s just fine so long as the law, rather than the person, is the deciding force from bench. The record of Janice Rogers Brown shows she knows the difference between a podium and the bench.

If Senators aren’t happy with her qualifications to serve, they can and should vote against her nomination. But at the very least, as is the case with every nominee, all 100 senators should be afforded their right under "advice and consent" to cast their vote.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen as a minority of Senators is once again playing partisan politics with the administration of justice.