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 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:
Quote:
In Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s, schools were segregated by race. Each day, Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-black elementary school. There was a school closer to the Brown's house, but it was only for white students. Linda Brown and her family believed that the segregated school system violated the Fourteenth Amendment and took their case to court. Federal district court decided that segregation in public education was harmful to black children, but because all-black schools and all-white schools had similar buildings, transportation, curricula, and teachers, the segregation was legal. The Browns appealed their case to Supreme Court stating that even if the facilities were similar, segregated schools could never be equal to one another. The Court decided that state laws requiring separate but equal schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
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:
Quote:
Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?" Blumenthal asked Vitter. "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. She added that the ruling was "binding" and that she would "of course" uphold it if confirmed to the bench.
Pressed again for an answer, Vitter said that "if I start commenting on 'I agree with this case' or don't agree with this case,' I think we get into a slippery slope."
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.
You now why she wouldn't come out---
There are still voters in LA who would love to tear that opinion out of the legal code...
And by LA I mean Louisiana
And if she has acted as legal counsel for the Archdiocese of New Orleans for any period of time, she likely has colluded in preventing pedophile priests from being investigated and tried...
You now why she wouldn't come out---
There are still voters in LA who would love to tear that opinion out of the legal code...
And by LA I mean Louisiana
Well, if that is truly the case, she has a decision to make. Pander to the bigots who want Jim Crow back, or stand up for what is right.
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.
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.
And over 60 years later, most schools are nearly all white or all black. So people voluntarily segregate themselves. Big Deal!
Actually, there are many people who do try to integrate. There are many who are still resistant to it. To say that people voluntarily segregate is not the whole picture.
Well, if that is truly the case, she has a decision to make. Pander to the bigots who want Jim Crow back, or stand up for what is right.
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...
Trump nominee for judgeship won’t say if she supports 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision
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.
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.
