Modern Racism: Wendy Vitter confirmed as a Federal Judge

[IM2]

Do you even know what B v BoE was about?

Yep, the Topeka BoE wanted to make seperate, great schools for everybody but SCOTUS said no, you will integrate your schools so they will be crappy for everybody.

They didn't want to make separate schools. They were already separate, and there wasn't anything great about them. Separate is inherently unequal.

What is unequal?

25 classrooms - 25 classrooms
25 teachers - 25 teachers
500 books - 500 books
etc - etc

That's not exactly how things went.

Doesn't matter. He's a crazy right winger The truth quit mattering to them a while back.

That's true. Very true.

 

[IM2]

Do you even know what B v BoE was about?

Yep, the Topeka BoE wanted to make seperate, great schools for everybody but SCOTUS said no, you will integrate your schools so they will be crappy for everybody.

They didn't want to make separate schools. They were already separate, and there wasn't anything great about them. Separate is inherently unequal.

What is unequal?

25 classrooms - 25 classrooms
25 teachers - 25 teachers
500 books - 500 books
etc - etc

That's not exactly how things went.

No. That's how it could have gone without interference from SCOTUS.

It had not gone that way for about 180 years, so no it would not have.

 

[Crepitus]

When you have a problem answering a question about your support of a ruling that ended racial discrimination, you kinda give yourself away. But Trump puts her up for a federal judge seat and the colorblind, non racist, anti slavery, republicans in the senate confirmed her.

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked.

“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. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.”

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

She does not agree with the decision made in Brown v. Board.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ad71c329008c

I went to these schools, it was a horrible idea, it’s destroyed black education

I'm black and it didn't destroy anything.

Really why has education gone down hill in the black community since the 1970’s?

Only in areas where conservatives have cut the budget to nothing.

Like Kansas.

 

[Jitss617]

When you have a problem answering a question about your support of a ruling that ended racial discrimination, you kinda give yourself away. But Trump puts her up for a federal judge seat and the colorblind, non racist, anti slavery, republicans in the senate confirmed her.

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked.

“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. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.”

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

She does not agree with the decision made in Brown v. Board.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ad71c329008c

I went to these schools, it was a horrible idea, it’s destroyed black education

I'm black and it didn't destroy anything.

Really why has education gone down hill in the black community since the 1970’s?

Only in areas where conservatives have cut the budget to nothing.

Like Kansas.

Soo they need more money like Baltimore Chicago New York , Detroit where blacks can barely speak proper English after graduating public schools but are given thousands.. yes that money works lol haha

 

[Crepitus]

When you have a problem answering a question about your support of a ruling that ended racial discrimination, you kinda give yourself away. But Trump puts her up for a federal judge seat and the colorblind, non racist, anti slavery, republicans in the senate confirmed her.

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked.

“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. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.”

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

She does not agree with the decision made in Brown v. Board.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ad71c329008c

I went to these schools, it was a horrible idea, it’s destroyed black education

I'm black and it didn't destroy anything.

Really why has education gone down hill in the black community since the 1970’s?

Only in areas where conservatives have cut the budget to nothing.

Like Kansas.

Soo they need more money like Baltimore Chicago New York , Detroit where blacks can barely speak proper English after graduating public schools but are given thousands.. yes that money works lol haha

Given thousands of what? Money? Can you back that shit up?

 

[IM2]

I went to these schools, it was a horrible idea, it’s destroyed black education

I'm black and it didn't destroy anything.

Really why has education gone down hill in the black community since the 1970’s?

Only in areas where conservatives have cut the budget to nothing.

Like Kansas.

Soo they need more money like Baltimore Chicago New York , Detroit where blacks can barely speak proper English after graduating public schools but are given thousands.. yes that money works lol haha

Given thousands of what? Money? Can you back that shit up?

He can't back that up. And it's funny how it is always blacks. This is done because blacks won't shut up like people such as these types want. Nothing he says is true.

 

[IM2]

It hasn't.

Not what the black unemployment rate says lol

The black unemployment rate shows that a white man with a high school education will get hired before a black with a college education.

There is nothing like chewing up dumb whites in debates.

Not true.. any evidence??

What you said was not true and you presented no evidence. So KMBA!

KMBA?
Kill My Black Ass?

Not exactly.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I believe it is customary for judges NOT to offer their personal opinions during these confirmation hearings because they are not supposed to have any bearing on a judge's decision. Whatever senator asked her that question no doubt knew that and went with the most racially loaded question he could think of. Quite a "gotcha" question. Who the hell doesn't support Brown v. Board of Education except for maybe David Duke?

I'm not sure this is actually a personal opinion or rather even if it is, the Supreme Court decisions establishes legal precedent with which all other courts must comply, even when the ruling is absolutley abhorrent such as in the case of Dred Scot v Sanford.

In other words I believe what they were attempting to ascertain is how she would rule in a case that contradicts established SCOTUS case law. Since she doesn't agree with that particular Supreme Court ruling that would tend to make one believe that her rulings will tend to be adverse to the interest of racial equality. You yourself stated "who doesn't support the Brown decision except David Duke, but apparently she doesn't agree with it and that doesn't bode well for African Americans who may have to appear before her.

 

[Jitss617]

I went to these schools, it was a horrible idea, it’s destroyed black education

I'm black and it didn't destroy anything.

Really why has education gone down hill in the black community since the 1970’s?

Only in areas where conservatives have cut the budget to nothing.

Like Kansas.

Soo they need more money like Baltimore Chicago New York , Detroit where blacks can barely speak proper English after graduating public schools but are given thousands.. yes that money works lol haha

Given thousands of what? Money? Can you back that shit up?

Yes it’s pretty well known Baltimore students are budgeted the highest amount and is one of the worst education programs in America. Money isn’t not the issue

 

[Jitss617]

I'm black and it didn't destroy anything.

Really why has education gone down hill in the black community since the 1970’s?

Only in areas where conservatives have cut the budget to nothing.

Like Kansas.

Soo they need more money like Baltimore Chicago New York , Detroit where blacks can barely speak proper English after graduating public schools but are given thousands.. yes that money works lol haha

Given thousands of what? Money? Can you back that shit up?

He can't back that up. And it's funny how it is always blacks. This is done because blacks won't shut up like people such as these types want. Nothing he says is true.

You are fighting facts

 

[IM2]

When you have a problem answering a question about your support of a ruling that ended racial discrimination, you kinda give yourself away. But Trump puts her up for a federal judge seat and the colorblind, non racist, anti slavery, republicans in the senate confirmed her.

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked.

“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. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.”

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

She does not agree with the decision made in Brown v. Board.

Senate confirms Wendy Vitter as federal judge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ad71c329008c

I don't see anything racist in her remarks at all. I couldn't read your wapo article, but I found another on the topic at CNN. All she did was refuse to comment on prior SC cases. Don't I recall Kavanaugh doing the same? Maybe not.

Anyway, in a written follow up response, Judge Vitter said this:
In follow-up written questions submitted after the hearing, Vitter would expand upon her answer, saying, "I do not believe that racial segregation in schools is constitutional," and that she abhorred racism.

Senate confirms Wendy Vitter, judicial nominee who refused to say if 'Brown v Board of Education' was correctly decided - CNNPolitics

So let me explain the obvious. She was asked a simple question. All she had to do was say it was a correct decision. She had no problems answering other questions and was able to cite supreme court decisions as precedent. But here she suddenly struggles. So after the hearing and after being told she needs to correct her statement if she wants to be a federal judge, she turns in this expanded answer.

The Kavanaugh hearing was a sham. They were going to force him in no matter what it took.

She had no problems answering other questions and was able to cite supreme court decisions as precedent. But here she suddenly struggles.
I've been looking for the record of that hearing, but can't seem to find it. I do not want to listen to several long videos. That question was asked in 2018. I can't find a transcript of it. However, if she actually did give her personal opinion on other Supreme Court decisions, you are certainly right. I just don't think she did that.

There is nothing at all "obvious" about the question or her reply. She was asked a question she felt it was inappropriate to answer, and I believe it is customary for judges NOT to offer their personal opinions during these confirmation hearings because they are not supposed to have any bearing on a judge's decision. Whatever senator asked her that question no doubt knew that and went with the most racially loaded question he could think of. Quite a "gotcha" question. Who the hell doesn't support Brown v. Board of Education except for maybe David Duke?

Sorry, you haven't convinced me yet. I can't read your OP article, so if there is something in there I need to see, please share it.

There have been times when such people have cited precedent but not given their personal opinion. And yes, the question was obvious. There are people out there other than Duke who disagree with the decision using the state rights argument.

Notice her ability to answer. She had no problems in the first 2 situations.

Wendy Vitter testifies on judicial precedent



Wendy Vitter on interpreting law and the intent of Congress



Trump Nominee Wendy Vitter Won't Say If She Supports Segregation



No disrespect intended because you're not a racist and I'm sure you can't see the subtle things done because it's not essential for you to do so. You would know how racism manifests itself in todays America if you were black. So I'll ask you this: "Do you think Kavanaugh was honest in his testimony?" "Did you think he would actually admit to rape while he is trying to get the biggest job of his life?"

She cannot overturn a supreme court decision but she can rule on cases determining racial discrimination. So she has the ability to rule non discrimination when it may exist.

 

[BULLDOG]

They didn't want to make separate schools. They were already separate, and there wasn't anything great about them. Separate is inherently unequal.

What is unequal?

25 classrooms - 25 classrooms
25 teachers - 25 teachers
500 books - 500 books
etc - etc

That's not exactly how things went.

No. That's how it could have gone without interference from SCOTUS.

That's just goofy. The schools were already separate, and no where near equal. What would make them equal without a SC ruling?

Regardless democrats have destroyed public schools .. they fight over race not match and science

Yep, you're still nuts.

 

[Jitss617]

What is unequal?

25 classrooms - 25 classrooms
25 teachers - 25 teachers
500 books - 500 books
etc - etc

That's not exactly how things went.

No. That's how it could have gone without interference from SCOTUS.

That's just goofy. The schools were already separate, and no where near equal. What would make them equal without a SC ruling?

Regardless democrats have destroyed public schools .. they fight over race not match and science

Yep, you're still nuts.

Democrats refuse to address the black fatherless rate, which hurts the community big time

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They didn't want to make separate schools. They were already separate, and there wasn't anything great about them. Separate is inherently unequal.

I don't disagree that separate means inherently unequal. I just disagree on WHY separate is unequal.



.

 

[OldLady]

I believe it is customary for judges NOT to offer their personal opinions during these confirmation hearings because they are not supposed to have any bearing on a judge's decision. Whatever senator asked her that question no doubt knew that and went with the most racially loaded question he could think of. Quite a "gotcha" question. Who the hell doesn't support Brown v. Board of Education except for maybe David Duke?

I'm not sure this is actually a personal opinion or rather even if it is, the Supreme Court decisions establishes legal precedent with which all other courts must comply, even when the ruling is absolutley abhorrent such as in the case of Dred Scot v Sanford.

In other words I believe what they were attempting to ascertain is how she would rule in a case that contradicts established SCOTUS case law. Since she doesn't agree with that particular Supreme Court ruling that would tend to make one believe that her rulings will tend to be adverse to the interest of racial equality. You yourself stated "who doesn't support the Brown decision except David Duke, but apparently she doesn't agree with it and that doesn't bode well for African Americans who may have to appear before her.

Where did you learn that she doesn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education? There must be a rumor of it out there somewhere (might explain that question from the Senator, too). You apparently have heard more scuttlebutt about this?

 

[OldLady]

When you have a problem answering a question about your support of a ruling that ended racial discrimination, you kinda give yourself away. But Trump puts her up for a federal judge seat and the colorblind, non racist, anti slavery, republicans in the senate confirmed her.

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked.

“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. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.”

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

She does not agree with the decision made in Brown v. Board.

Senate confirms Wendy Vitter as federal judge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ad71c329008c

I don't see anything racist in her remarks at all. I couldn't read your wapo article, but I found another on the topic at CNN. All she did was refuse to comment on prior SC cases. Don't I recall Kavanaugh doing the same? Maybe not.

Anyway, in a written follow up response, Judge Vitter said this:
In follow-up written questions submitted after the hearing, Vitter would expand upon her answer, saying, "I do not believe that racial segregation in schools is constitutional," and that she abhorred racism.

Senate confirms Wendy Vitter, judicial nominee who refused to say if 'Brown v Board of Education' was correctly decided - CNNPolitics

So let me explain the obvious. She was asked a simple question. All she had to do was say it was a correct decision. She had no problems answering other questions and was able to cite supreme court decisions as precedent. But here she suddenly struggles. So after the hearing and after being told she needs to correct her statement if she wants to be a federal judge, she turns in this expanded answer.

The Kavanaugh hearing was a sham. They were going to force him in no matter what it took.

She had no problems answering other questions and was able to cite supreme court decisions as precedent. But here she suddenly struggles.
I've been looking for the record of that hearing, but can't seem to find it. I do not want to listen to several long videos. That question was asked in 2018. I can't find a transcript of it. However, if she actually did give her personal opinion on other Supreme Court decisions, you are certainly right. I just don't think she did that.

There is nothing at all "obvious" about the question or her reply. She was asked a question she felt it was inappropriate to answer, and I believe it is customary for judges NOT to offer their personal opinions during these confirmation hearings because they are not supposed to have any bearing on a judge's decision. Whatever senator asked her that question no doubt knew that and went with the most racially loaded question he could think of. Quite a "gotcha" question. Who the hell doesn't support Brown v. Board of Education except for maybe David Duke?

Sorry, you haven't convinced me yet. I can't read your OP article, so if there is something in there I need to see, please share it.

There have been times when such people have cited precedent but not given their personal opinion. And yes, the question was obvious. There are people out there other than Duke who disagree with the decision using the state rights argument.

Notice her ability to answer. She had no problems in the first 2 situations.

Wendy Vitter testifies on judicial precedent



Wendy Vitter on interpreting law and the intent of Congress



Trump Nominee Wendy Vitter Won't Say If She Supports Segregation



No disrespect intended because you're not a racist and I'm sure you can't see the subtle things done because it's not essential for you to do so. You would know how racism manifests itself in todays America if you were black. So I'll ask you this: "Do you think Kavanaugh was honest in his testimony?" "Did you think he would actually admit to rape while he is trying to get the biggest job of his life?"

She cannot overturn a supreme court decision but she can rule on cases determining racial discrimination. So she has the ability to rule non discrimination when it may exist.

Thank you for the brief excerpts of her testimony that bear on this question. I listened to all three.
You seem to imply that I can't see her bias to discriminate because I'm white.
Since that is what you believe, I won't argue with you about it any further. You have seen what you were looking for.

She had no problems in the first 2 situations.
She consistently said that her personal opinion doesn't matter.

 

[BULLDOG]

They didn't want to make separate schools. They were already separate, and there wasn't anything great about them. Separate is inherently unequal.

I don't disagree that separate means inherently unequal. I just disagree on WHY separate is unequal.



.

Lots of reasons why separate is unequal. Does't matter if your list happens to be different than somebody else.

 

[harmonica]

Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside.

which the black judges/AGs/etc do not do
the BLACKS are the racists

 

[IM2]

When you have a problem answering a question about your support of a ruling that ended racial discrimination, you kinda give yourself away. But Trump puts her up for a federal judge seat and the colorblind, non racist, anti slavery, republicans in the senate confirmed her.

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked.

“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. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.”

Trump Judicial Nominee Won't Say If She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

She does not agree with the decision made in Brown v. Board.

Senate confirms Wendy Vitter as federal judge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.ad71c329008c

I don't see anything racist in her remarks at all. I couldn't read your wapo article, but I found another on the topic at CNN. All she did was refuse to comment on prior SC cases. Don't I recall Kavanaugh doing the same? Maybe not.

Anyway, in a written follow up response, Judge Vitter said this:
In follow-up written questions submitted after the hearing, Vitter would expand upon her answer, saying, "I do not believe that racial segregation in schools is constitutional," and that she abhorred racism.

Senate confirms Wendy Vitter, judicial nominee who refused to say if 'Brown v Board of Education' was correctly decided - CNNPolitics

So let me explain the obvious. She was asked a simple question. All she had to do was say it was a correct decision. She had no problems answering other questions and was able to cite supreme court decisions as precedent. But here she suddenly struggles. So after the hearing and after being told she needs to correct her statement if she wants to be a federal judge, she turns in this expanded answer.

The Kavanaugh hearing was a sham. They were going to force him in no matter what it took.

She had no problems answering other questions and was able to cite supreme court decisions as precedent. But here she suddenly struggles.
I've been looking for the record of that hearing, but can't seem to find it. I do not want to listen to several long videos. That question was asked in 2018. I can't find a transcript of it. However, if she actually did give her personal opinion on other Supreme Court decisions, you are certainly right. I just don't think she did that.

There is nothing at all "obvious" about the question or her reply. She was asked a question she felt it was inappropriate to answer, and I believe it is customary for judges NOT to offer their personal opinions during these confirmation hearings because they are not supposed to have any bearing on a judge's decision. Whatever senator asked her that question no doubt knew that and went with the most racially loaded question he could think of. Quite a "gotcha" question. Who the hell doesn't support Brown v. Board of Education except for maybe David Duke?

Sorry, you haven't convinced me yet. I can't read your OP article, so if there is something in there I need to see, please share it.

There have been times when such people have cited precedent but not given their personal opinion. And yes, the question was obvious. There are people out there other than Duke who disagree with the decision using the state rights argument.

Notice her ability to answer. She had no problems in the first 2 situations.

Wendy Vitter testifies on judicial precedent



Wendy Vitter on interpreting law and the intent of Congress



Trump Nominee Wendy Vitter Won't Say If She Supports Segregation



No disrespect intended because you're not a racist and I'm sure you can't see the subtle things done because it's not essential for you to do so. You would know how racism manifests itself in todays America if you were black. So I'll ask you this: "Do you think Kavanaugh was honest in his testimony?" "Did you think he would actually admit to rape while he is trying to get the biggest job of his life?"

She cannot overturn a supreme court decision but she can rule on cases determining racial discrimination. So she has the ability to rule non discrimination when it may exist.

Thank you for the brief excerpts of her testimony that bear on this question. I listened to all three.
You seem to imply that I can't see her bias to discriminate because I'm white.
Since that is what you believe, I won't argue with you about it any further. You have seen what you were looking for.

She had no problems in the first 2 situations.
She consistently said that her personal opinion doesn't matter.

I didn't see what I was looking for. I was looking for a potential judge who had the capacity to judge fairly on issues of race. She showed me she couldn't. And yes, there are things about racism you can't see because you're white just like there are subtleties I can't see about sexism because I am a man. Vitter has a problem with racism. You not seeing it or agreeing with me doesn't change that.

Understand that William Barr said the same thing about how his personal opinion didn't matter.

 

[IM2]

Where did you learn that she doesn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

She said it in her testimony.