I dont mean to be coy: Trump judicial nominee refuses to say whether she supports segregation

[still_one]

"A federal judicial nominee on Wednesday refused to say whether she agrees with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that ruled “separate but equal” schools are unconstitutional when grilled during her Senate confirmation hearing.
“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) asked Trump judicial nominee Wendy Vitter.

“Senator, I don’t mean to be coy,” Vitter responded, “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.”
“My personal, political or religious views I would set aside,” she continued, saying that if she were confirmed she would uphold the “binding” decision.
After Blumenthal once more asked the anti-abortion New Orleans lawyer if she agreed with the more than half a century old precedent, she continue to deflect.
“I would respectfully not comment on what could be my boss’ ruling,” Vitter said."


https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/dont-mean-coy-trump-judicial-nominee-refuses-say-whether-supports-segregation/


Gee, I guess there is a difference between republicans and Democrats

[Kirk Lover]

1. Ummmmm....WHAT???? Fucking disqualified...howsabout that.

[madaboutharry]

2. I would have asked her this question:

Does your husband still go to brothels in New Orleans?

I loathe these hypocrites.

[ProudLib72]

7. Oh damn, that was a good one!

[TheDebbieDee]

13. Yes! Ms Vitter should stay home and see to her freaky husband's diaper fetish!

[sprinkleeninow]

14. I'm bleery-eyed and first thot I read husband's diaper *rash*.

[dem4decades]

3. Did she ask if she could wear white robes on the bench?

[ryan_cats]

4. What does

What does that mean?

In her heart she supports segregation but since the Supreme Court rules against it she abides by the decision?

I can already see her spin, she meant to say, she supports the right of people to self segregate.

There go reproductive rights. She scares me.

[Grassy Knoll]

5. Next

[Blue_true]

6. A court system full of this type by the time democrats regain control insures dysfunctional

government and chaos. Susan Sarandon must be peeing her bloomers with happiness, but in the real world, people are being seriously hurt by assholes like that judge.

[Stallion]

8. She's Not Being asked a Hypothetical-Just Whether She accepts Binding Supreme Court Precedent

now she might have solid historical support for her position if the Senator asked her how she might rule with different facts

[RandySF]

10. If only Wendy Vitter had a good job.

She would have trouble supporting 50+ years of settled law.

[irisblue]

11. The Brown decision rests on the 14th Amendment Section 1

Equal protection clause.....

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the equal protection clause gets beat back by the far hard right....
From constutioncenter.org....only the ones post Brown decision listed here.

-Mapp v. Ohio (19 Jun 1961) ―"What happens when the police obtain evidence from an illegal search or seizure? "
-Gideon v. Wainwright (18 Mar 1963) ―" Prior to 1962, indigent Americans were not always guaranteed access to legal counsel despite the Sixth Amendment."
-Griswold v. Connecticut (07 Jun 1965) ―".....The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Constitution protected the right of married couples to privately engage in counseling regarding contraceptive use and procurement. Justice Douglas articulated that although not explicit, the penumbras of the Bill of Rights contained a fundamental “right to privacy” that was protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Griswold’s “right to privacy” has been applied to many other controversial decisions such as Eisenstadt and Roe v. Wade. It remains at the core of substantive due process debate today."----They really want this one gone.
-Loving v. Virginia (12 Jun 1967) ―"By 1967, 16 states had still not repealed their anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriages."-----& this one was part of the basis for
-Obergefel V. Hodges- Marriage Equality....."which recognized a national right to same=sex marriage, will likely join the list of notable 14th Amendment cases. In the Court's 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that "the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."


14th Amendment Section1 really really upsets conservative political thought & practice.
Nibbling at the edges of American (classical as in textbook)
liberal civil society.
W. Vitter has a long history of anti choice leadership as well.

[irisblue]

12. I didn't list the Bakke ruling, I don't feel the right wing has a problem with that application

[Javaman]

15. fuck this piece of shit. nt