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.
This is why this issue is important to me. Vitter is behaving like she has something to hide. I need to know where she stands, and for this reason. I don't want someone in political office who is against Brown v Board of Education. If a person serving in public office is against the Brown v BoE ruling, I can't think of any other reason someone would be against other than being in favor of school segregation being the law of the land. Anyone who thinks like that, they are a threat to me. They don't need to be in public office. I can't trust such a person to serve the public fairly.
What someone thinks of Brown v Board of Education,there is no trying to debate it. A person is either for it or against it. And the truth is, there is only one correct way to look at this. This is to be looked at from a position of right and wrong. The Jim Crow way of doing things was and is wrong, period. No excuses. Brown v Board of Education was ruled as a way of dismantling Jim Crow. Anyone who disagrees with Brown v Board of Education, that is a problem. The only conclusion to come to is that there is a desire for the Jim Crow way of doing things.
No. Actually there's something called the Constitution that's supposed to be followed but that went out the window at least 101 years ago.
And over 60 years later, most schools are nearly all white or all black. So people voluntarily segregate themselves. Big Deal!
Uh, you need to read some books. Confederates, after Brown, took all the money away from public schools and let the black folks go there while they - since they could afford it - opened up their own "segregated schools".......
Just because someone keeps doing evil doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Besides, this applied to everything from Harvard to UCLA (colleges and grad schools, etc.)...and last time I looked, there was quite a bit of ALL diversity in many such schools.
No problem is someone wants to spend 30K per year on their kids school....that sorta naturally segregates them. But last time I looked, the community colleges accept anyone.....but NOT before Brown (in the South)....
As someone else said, it's not a debatable point. This has been constitutionally upheld and it is pretty clear to anyone other than Confederates or White Supremacists that educational institutions which use or accept public money cannot be segregated by race.
"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.
Uh, why would she state "which I disagree with"? The rest of the sentence is OK to some degree, but it is also fine for a judge to state that, in their opinion, a ruling needs to be revisited or clarified. Lots of SCOTUS cases are muddy, so asking her outlook is a fine thing.
I wonder if she puts the diapers on her hubby before he stops by the house of ill repute.
Actually, I can find time periods long before that where people's Constitutional rights have been violated. And Jim Crow segregation in schools was ruled unconstitutional in 1954. Disagreeing with the ruling really is a matter of right and wrong.
This is why this issue is important to me. Vitter is behaving like she has something to hide. I need to know where she stands, and for this reason. I don't want someone in political office who is against Brown v Board of Education. If a person serving in public office is against the Brown v BoE ruling, I can't think of any other reason someone would be against other than being in favor of school segregation being the law of the land. Anyone who thinks like that, they are a threat to me. They don't need to be in public office. I can't trust such a person to serve the public fairly.
the question you have to ask is, is brown vs boe likely to be reopened? and would it be reopened in her court? and would she be likely to rule against it at that point? and what will the appellate court and the supreme court rule?
first the chances of brown vs boe being reopened in her court is going to be very very tiny as best. thsi is already settled case law, and it would take an act fo the supreme court to reopen the case, since they hold jurisdiction over that case.
so the question is actually just one to create an issue that no longer exists so some democrat can make political hay over it. its like when democrats ask republican nominees about roe vs wade, its a moot question that has been taken care of long ago, and they only bring it up to make political hay over it.
This is why this issue is important to me. Vitter is behaving like she has something to hide. I need to know where she stands, and for this reason. I don't want someone in political office who is against Brown v Board of Education. If a person serving in public office is against the Brown v BoE ruling, I can't think of any other reason someone would be against other than being in favor of school segregation being the law of the land. Anyone who thinks like that, they are a threat to me. They don't need to be in public office. I can't trust such a person to serve the public fairly.
I think she doesn't want to discuss R vs. Wade and the questioner already knew that coming in as they'd have already crafted a strategy based upon her background before going in.
Remember, what is the goal of the person from the other party questioning her? Yeah, it's a hunting party and we all know it.
These are extremely smart lawyers...you set the trap then you swing the door shut. If they won't take the bait then you nail them for being "evasive" to the initial question.
So then they have news outlets all ready to run with "she's a racist" and just read the thread, that is some tasty tasty bait.
Man, it would be nice just once in a while for some of the people to come back and say "yeah, they probably were angling for R vs. Wade (or not and explain why) but she stonewalled so they went with the *implied* racism as a dirty political stab.
People come in here...racism...racism...racism...then you point out that this is political hunting (again both sides do it) and the strategy likely being applied but the damage is done and nobody comes back.
This went out over a bunch of media outlets.
Just like the right wingers all get collective wood over some illegal mexican doing something bad, it seems these vague accusations of implied racism sell like greasy finger food after the bars let out. Nom nom nom....it's so delicious....it reinforces my view of the world...nom nom nom #JimGaffigan
"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.
(#1) I read that differently and in a non-sinister way:
"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(because I agree with them)and which I may disagree with(because they were incorrectly decided)."
(#2) Although I can understand her not wanting to get into a series of questioning to get trapped on finite points of various cases...she botched this horrifically and fell into a trap of her own making. People are reasonable to oppose her if she can't simply come out and agree with the premise of Brown v. Board and reject the premise of Plessy v. Fergusson.
Who cares? I hope that this woman gets swiftly confirmed and that leftists stop asking irrelevant questions.
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.
Nom nom nom....it's so delicious....it reinforces my view of the world...nom nom nom #JimGaffigan
