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.
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.
She didn't give an answer to the question about Brown V Board of Education
She gave an equivocation for why she wouldn't answer
Her views on Roe V Wade come through comments she has made in speeches and other public comments--
Not to the Judiciary Review committee
I am sure if she was asked she would lie or avoid that question as wel
The point is that Gorsuch didn't have a wife running for public office
Even though he is a strict Constructionalist (like Scalia), he has enough legal sense and common decency to know that a positive answer on Brown Vs BoE -- which is safe and won't really be challenged in future cases--
Is a BETTER political answer to get Democrats on his side than an equivocation like Vitter's...
Same with Robert's much earlier response...
Her problem with really a soft-ball question is that she wants to have her cake and yet eat it too--
She wants to act like she is judicially fair but doing so will reflect poorly on her husband who is still a politician-
So she hide behind that response--which is really kind of like a KKK costume since it certainly shows she has no desire to be seen to defend Brown V BoE...
And over 60 years later, most schools are nearly all white or all black. So people voluntarily segregate themselves. Big Deal!
That’s totally irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
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.
She wasn’t coy about her pro-life stance whatsoever. She freely answered that question.
But on Brown, mums the word? Even when SCOTUS justices like Gorsuch and Roberts have openly declared their support for the decision? Vitter isn’t even a judge yet...just a mere lawyer, but she knows something that Roberts doesn’t know about commenting on settled law? If she plans to uphold Brown, why not say that she believes the decision was right unless she believes that it isn’t
And there’s the crux of the matter...she’s against the Brown ruling and doesn’t want to say so.
And THIS is why African Americans do not trust the Republican Party!!!
She didn't give an answer to the question about Brown V Board of Education
She gave an equivocation for why she wouldn't answer
Her views on Roe V Wade come through comments she has made in speeches and other public comments--
Not to the Judiciary Review committee
I am sure if she was asked she would lie or avoid that question as wel
The point is that Gorsuch didn't have a wife running for public office
Even though he is a strict Constructionalist (like Scalia), he has enough legal sense and common decency to know that a positive answer on Brown Vs BoE -- which is safe and won't really be challenged in future cases--
Is a BETTER political answer to get Democrats on his side than an equivocation like Vitter's...
Same with Robert's much earlier response...
Her problem with really a soft-ball question is that she wants to have her cake and yet eat it too--
She wants to act like she is judicially fair but doing so will reflect poorly on her husband who is still a politician-
So she hide behind that response--which is really kind of like a KKK costume since it certainly shows she has no desire to be seen to defend Brown V BoE...
That’s exactly right...she either disagrees with Brown or simply doesn’t want to upset her supporters who hate Brown.
Neither reflects well on Trump or the Republican Party.
A judge not virtue signaling on Brown v BoE is a good thing. That is an indicator that groupthink is less important to their judicial thinking than the Constitution, stare decisis, and the written law are.
That's exactly what you want in an impartial judge.
I read the article
It stated that Gorsuch--Trump's recent nominee and confirmed Justice--was asked the same question and responded with praise for the decision as a seminal piece of legal work
Roberts was another Justice who wasn't afraid to comment on Brown V Education
(And I remember that Sarah Palin couldn't even name it when asked by Katie Couric to name some Supreme Curt cases she deemed important--not one could she name)...
Read the article and see what Vitter has said about other issues
She is Catholic and apparently vehemently ProLife...
Yet she claims she can set aside her "personal" beliefs when cases that impinge on Roe V Wade or other aspects of family planning come before her...
That is a lie...
They should just hook them up to a polygraph when they do these hearings....
Or just not allow them to deflect the answer...
They are so proud of what they think/believe until it comes to get a judgeship that will allow them to use personal activism vs legal precedent...
In short, when it comes to something she doesn't feel scared of answering, Vitter will answer it. And it's interesting that you mention that she's Catholic. The Archbishop of New Orleans, Archbsp. Joseph Rummel, was in favor of Brown v Board of Education. He made attempts to desegregate the Catholic schools. When he finally got the schools desegregated, some people were ex-communicated from the church for protesting against the decision, especially after a Catholic school was burned down.
Some people will look for any excuse to duck a question. Either she is afraid of her constituents, or she is afraid of admitting that she is against Brown v Board of Education because she will expose herself as a bigot. Basically, it's a "plead the 5th"kind of thing.
I think her answer was perfectly clear. She is not going to discuss settled law, not 'Brown' not 'Roe vs Wade'.
She also said that she disagreed with it.
"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.
"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.
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??
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.
