Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You cant MAKE people put kids in segregated schools if they are racist and can afford to move or pay for private schools
If legislatures don't fund schools sufficiently to compensate for the problems that come from lower socio-economic areas then poor people stay and those w/money move to better areas
Thank god trump won’t be around much longer. He has turned this country into a Swamp. Trump is a hypocrite and he is constantly giving his enemies more ammunition every day he opens his big mouth. I pity his poor lawyers. Not only won’t Trump pay them but they are really earning their money with this moron they have to represent.
That sounds like she is admitting to racist belief
How can an attorney admit it was correctly decided (honors the Constitution) yet she disagrees with it??
If this was anyone but a Trump nominee, I might be inclined to give their "coyness" the benefit of the doubt, that they aren't garden-variety racists and perhaps have a legit, esoteric issue with some aspect of Brown v Board.
But Trump is no Obama, nor is he a Mitt Romney, or George W. Bush, or George H Bush, or Reagan. And he does not deserve to be treated as a typical 'opposition party politician' should be treated. He's proven himself to be morally bankrupt human filth, and his appointments thus far have been appalling, and I cannot give anyone associated with him the benefit of the doubt.
Another way to look at it was that she didn't want to get drug into the merits of Roe vs. Wade but they started with Brown as essentially a trap.
Being an avid pro-lifer, she likely has issues with R v Wade and exposing that bias could sink her.
So, the questioner came in with the gotcha where she either comments on all the cases they bring up or tries to blanket refuse to do so. In this case, since she wouldn't hang her nomination by speaking about R vs. Wade (which is not the same thing as a personal view of being pro-life) they can instead claim she's racist.
The big hint you guys should have picked up on was that the questioner asked about her pro-life views which wasn't accidental. On top of that, the questioner is not non-partisan, this is like being grilled by opposing counsel.
I mean holy crap, do you think both the questioner and this lady are stupid? Do you really think that they both didn't approach this like a high stakes debate where the questioner would try to make her seem unfit for the role and she in turn knowing at least some of the angles that would be attempted prepared as well?
This is Senator David Vitter’s wife, Wendy Vitter of Louisiana. She’s a lawyer being nominated by Trump for a federal judgeship.
For those of you who don’t know what Brown vs Board is, here is a brief encapsulation of it:
Why in the world would a judge be unwilling to say whether or not she agreed with a landmark decision like Brown? The SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts had no problem saying that he agrees with Brown, but this mere lawyer sees some sort of conflict of interest by stating her support or lack thereof for Brown?
Here’s more:
Now why should she be trusted to uphold a decision that she practically admits that she doesn’t believe in? And if she doesn’t agree with the decision, why? She had no problem saying that she’s pro life in her confirmation hearings, but she can’t speak on Brown?
So here’s another Republican nominee with controversial issues. African Americans need to come out swinging against this nominee. Oh, and next time you talk about why African Americans don’t vote Republican, remember this.
sounds to me like she has been clear on her opinion of brown v boar of ed, and that she would support the ruling, since it is settled law.
it seem to me that the only controversy here is one of the democrats making.
All of these processes are partisan with the idea of discrediting the nominee.
This certainly is not the fault of the democrats, it's always a smear-fest and the republicans do the same.
Heck, the Republicans flat out stone-walled several Obama nominees.
As for trying to torpedo a nominee the playbooks main topics are:
1) Portray them as someone that won't uphold the law.
2) Financial impropriety
3) Harasser (Clarence Thomas)
4) Bigot
5) Competency, booze, painkillers type stuff.
Frankly, the questioner in this case is a pro and set up the classic catch-22 anchored around the big weak spot the candidate has and that's R v. Wade. They did a very good job and it provided the necessary story for the appropriate press outlets to run with.
"I don't mean to be coy, but I think I get into a difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with," Vitter said.
Can someone explain to me why "correctly decided" means she was against Brown vs Board of Education???
It was a TRAP used to set a precedent of quizzing Wendy Vitter on ROE and Abortion and other dirty tricks the Leftists always use in their Hatred and Never Ending Obstruction. She made it clear she was NOT going to play that game. Settled Law is Settled Law, she said under oath that she will not be an activist Judge that goes against Settled Law and Supreme Court decisions .... it doesn't matter whether she likes those decisions or not.
Vitter was born in 1961 ...... 11 years after this Settled Law Supreme Court decision.
It's ludicrous to expect nominees to have to re-litigate or affirm any US Supreme Court decisions.
It's valid to question them on cases they have been involved in, not cases that they had nothing to do with and that are Settled Law and have been Settled Law for 68 years.
I think her answer was perfectly clear. She is not going to discuss settled law, not 'Brown' not 'Roe vs Wade'.
Blumenthal!? Get serious. He's not going to vote to advance any Republican that he doesn't have to.
This is not a matter of whether or not it's settled. We all know it's settled. This is a matter of how someone feels about the ruling, what someone thinks of it. Evading the question raises alot of eyebrows. There is a reason. It implies someone has something to hide.
That sounds like she is admitting to racist belief
How can an attorney admit it was correctly decided (honors the Constitution) yet she disagrees with it??
That does raise some suspicions. She could be implying that she disagrees with Brown v Board of Education. She sounds like she has something to hide.
All of these processes are partisan with the idea of discrediting the nominee.
This certainly is not the fault of the democrats, it's always a smear-fest and the republicans do the same.
Heck, the Republicans flat out stone-walled several Obama nominees.
As for trying to torpedo a nominee the playbooks main topics are:
1) Portray them as someone that won't uphold the law.
2) Financial impropriety
3) Harasser (Clarence Thomas)
4) Bigot
5) Competency, booze, painkillers type stuff.
Frankly, the questioner in this case is a pro and set up the classic catch-22 anchored around the big weak spot the candidate has and that's R v. Wade. They did a very good job and it provided the necessary story for the appropriate press outlets to run with.
i do agree with you that nominees will be smeared by the opposition party, i was merely pointing out that the controversy in THIS is being generated by the democrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
