There’s a video flying around lefty circles of U.S. District court nominee Wendy Vitter, wife of former Louisiana Senator David Vitter, refusing to answer a question on Brown v. Board of Education. Have a watch:
WATCH: During her confirmation hearing this morning (yes, this morning – in 2018), judicial nominee Wendy Vitter refused to say whether she agreed with the result in Brown v. Board of Education. #UnfitToJudge pic.twitter.com/RWroh0XUIC
— The Leadership Conference (@civilrightsorg) April 11, 2018
According to libs, she’s unfit to serve because of it:
#SCOTUS' unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education compelled our country to reckon with its history & confront the unfulfilled promise of equality first articulated in our founding documents.
If a judicial nominee can't say she agrees with the ruling, she's #UnfitToJudge https://t.co/dbNkxUHD8O
— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) April 11, 2018
But as folks are pointing out, this is total spin. Judicial nominees refuse to comment on SCOTUS rulings all the time:
https://twitter.com/simonhedlin/status/984203871282221057
Popehat weighed in as well, calling Vitter’s answer a “fairly standard approach to” answering questions like this:
One of the challenges of this era is to avoid seeing routine things as new. It’s ok to see them as outrageous so long as we don’t pretend they are new and outrageous.
This is a fairly standard approach to “do you agree with this case.” https://t.co/Tuj0Ad34aG
— YourFiveHatsAreUp (@Popehat) April 12, 2018
Yes, the case is a shocking example, but “a significant number of nominees take this stance about cases”:
Recommended
What makes the example seem shocking is the identity of the case. But a significant number of nominees take this stance about cases.
This smacks of deceit.
— YourFiveHatsAreUp (@Popehat) April 12, 2018
This is nothing new, at all:
Here’s the Dems on this issue previously. https://t.co/XaJZxp41xH
— YourFiveHatsAreUp (@Popehat) April 12, 2018
And here is a fairly scholarly examination of the phenomenon recently. Note the discussion of commenting on the wisdom of past decisions. https://t.co/Iv6clKGTCG
— YourFiveHatsAreUp (@Popehat) April 12, 2018
Attention libs: “You are likely getting played”:
In short, I think that if your reaction to this is “OMG what a racist,” you are likely getting played.
— YourFiveHatsAreUp (@Popehat) April 12, 2018
And it’s “intentionally dishonest” of those spinning it:
Intentionally dishonest attempt to spin a standard answer into something nefarious by relying on the ignorance of audience.
Judicial nominees often take the position that they will not comment on specific SCOTUS rulings. This nominee specifically says she is bound by precedent. https://t.co/PQI5UvzW7p
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) April 12, 2018
The only reason anyone is outraged by this is by the specific case being cited, but the whole point here is this nominee doesn't want to comment on ANY cases because that opens the door to giving her personal opinion which is contrary to her job of upholding SCOTUS precedent.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) April 12, 2018
If you search that tweet, you will see an outrage mob consisting of a whose who of the political left. Everyone from @Lawrence to Brian Fallon either displaying their ignorance or intentionally misleading their audience into believing she was admitting opposition BvB.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) April 12, 2018
Yep. Here are just a few of the tweets from the mob:
"What's your position on segregation?" is not a trick question.https://t.co/T4ttLQqrWM
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) April 11, 2018
Failing answers in law school get passing grades in Senate confirmation hearings. https://t.co/EVG2DLmGwe
— Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) April 11, 2018
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) April 11, 2018
Appalling. The follow-up question should be: Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson was correctly decided? https://t.co/Q40qy5dTZY
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF) April 11, 2018
This ignorant b*tch. https://t.co/w2rQsoj6CK
— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) April 12, 2018
And if you don’t believe us, how about The Daily Beast? Jay Michaelson writes that the attack is “not really fair”:
Did one of Trump’s judicial nominees really say that Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court case ending segregated schools, may have been wrongly decided?
Sort of – but only to hide her extreme views on abortion.
So far, every one of the pro-life judges that Trump has nominated has followed the same script on abortion: refuse to answer whether Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, but say that you’ll put aside your personal views and follow Supreme Court precedent.
Wendy Vitter, nominated to the federal bench in the Eastern District of Louisiana, was following that script Wednesday when Senator Richard Blumenthal said, well, okay, what about Brown?
“I get into a difficult area,” Vitter replied, “when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions ― which are correctly decided, which I disagree with. Again, my personal, political or religious views, I would set aside.”
Oops.
So, now there are headlines like “Trump federal judicial nominee refuses to say whether she supports racial segregation in schools.”
That’s not really fair, but it’s hard to feel much sympathy for Vitter, whose anti-science, anti-choice comments have been so extreme that she failed to disclose them in her judicial questionnaire. That’s the real scandal.
So it’s “not really fair” but, ABORTION! Fire away, libs!
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member