Modern Racism: Wendy Vitter confirmed as a Federal Judge

[OldLady]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

 

[BULLDOG]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

She refused to say she agreed with it. That is a pretty strong indication of her beliefs.

 

[Camp]

Is this the wife of the diaper sex former Senator who got caught paying prostitutes for his weird fetish?

 

[OldLady]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

She refused to say she agreed with it. That is a pretty strong indication of her beliefs.

Don't all the judges say that? I know Barr did, but I think I remember a similar discussion involving Kavanaugh and I definitely recall the HUGE STINK when Justice Ginsburg gave her personal opinion on Trump. Oh my!

 

[Pogo]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

This is the first time I've seen this story. And I'm shocked that Wendy Vitter of all creatures is on a bench somewhere, given that she's married to a complete sleazeball who pays call girls to dress him up in diapers and then just stood there beside him through that. Kind of a challenge to respect somebody who has no respect for herself and it indicates she has no principles.

That said, no I think she gives exactly the right response to the question, saying she would be bound by the law, which is exactly the right attitude. I'm more concerned about the next part, where she evaded the question of whether she still believes in provably fake facts. That's FAR more problematic.

 

[Pogo]

Is this the wife of the diaper sex former Senator who got caught paying prostitutes for his weird fetish?

Yep.

​

 

[BULLDOG]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

She refused to say she agreed with it. That is a pretty strong indication of her beliefs.

Don't all the judges say that? I know Barr did, but I think I remember a similar discussion involving Kavanaugh and I definitely recall the HUGE STINK when Justice Ginsburg gave her personal opinion on Trump. Oh my!

They usually don't give their preconceived thoughts on any upcoming case they might be required to rule on, but this settled law. The precedent is already set. It's not like "separate but equal" is some new idea that must be decided.

 

[OldLady]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

She refused to say she agreed with it. That is a pretty strong indication of her beliefs.

Don't all the judges say that? I know Barr did, but I think I remember a similar discussion involving Kavanaugh and I definitely recall the HUGE STINK when Justice Ginsburg gave her personal opinion on Trump. Oh my!

They usually don't give their preconceived thoughts on any upcoming case they might be required to rule on, but this settled law. The precedent is already set. It's not like "separate but equal" is some new idea that must be decided.

Okay. I'm thinking on it. Not because it is settled law; I still think she has a point there. However, perhaps if it is standard to ask judges how they feel about important cases like Roe or Brown, she was dodging the question.

 

[OldLady]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

This is the first time I've seen this story. And I'm shocked that Wendy Vitter of all creatures is on a bench somewhere, given that she's married to a complete sleazeball who pays call girls to dress him up in diapers and then just stood there beside him through that. Kind of a challenge to respect somebody who has no respect for herself and it indicates she has no principles.

That said, no I think she gives exactly the right response to the question, saying she would be bound by the law, which is exactly the right attitude. I'm more concerned about the next part, where she evaded the question of whether she still believes in provably fake facts. That's FAR more problematic.

Thanks; it's a relief to know at least one person heard what I did.

Did you ever think that perhaps her "principles" are to make her marriage work, even if he does have a fetish that he indulges with a paid sex worker? Maybe he asked his wife to do it and she said hell no. Does that indicate a lack of self respect to you? Do you think he is the only guy out there with a fetish, Pogo? You think she should have flounced off in a huff and never spoken to him again? It wasn't as if he was raping infants; he wasn't hurting anyone. Pretty humiliating for both of them, I'm sure. But I don't see how it keeps her from being a judge.
That other thing--about provably fake facts--I don't know what you're referring to.

 

[OldLady]

This article was from 2012--apparently this kind of thing has been going on for awhile. I've just never heard about it before.
The Unfortunate Politicization of Judicial Confirmation Hearings

I'm not for or against Vittner--I don't know a thing about her and I've pretty much accepted that we are going to have a lot more conservative leaning judges on the federal courts. Elections have consequences, dammit. I just don't like to see anyone unfairly judged for the actual purpose of keeping a conservative off the court. Or a liberal. It doesn't matter which.

From the articles I saw, the Dems were more worried about her views on Roe v Wade.

 

[bodecea]

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

IN what way did Brown v Board of Ed destroy black education?

 

[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.

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

IN what way did Brown v Board of Ed destroy black education?

He can't give you a logical answer.

 

[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

IN what way did Brown v Board of Ed destroy black education?

He can't give you a logical answer.

I was Affected by it

 

[Pogo]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

This is the first time I've seen this story. And I'm shocked that Wendy Vitter of all creatures is on a bench somewhere, given that she's married to a complete sleazeball who pays call girls to dress him up in diapers and then just stood there beside him through that. Kind of a challenge to respect somebody who has no respect for herself and it indicates she has no principles.

That said, no I think she gives exactly the right response to the question, saying she would be bound by the law, which is exactly the right attitude. I'm more concerned about the next part, where she evaded the question of whether she still believes in provably fake facts. That's FAR more problematic.

Thanks; it's a relief to know at least one person heard what I did.

Did you ever think that perhaps her "principles" are to make her marriage work, even if he does have a fetish that he indulges with a paid sex worker? Maybe he asked his wife to do it and she said hell no. Does that indicate a lack of self respect to you? Do you think he is the only guy out there with a fetish, Pogo? You think she should have flounced off in a huff and never spoken to him again? It wasn't as if he was raping infants; he wasn't hurting anyone. Pretty humiliating for both of them, I'm sure. But I don't see how it keeps her from being a judge.
That other thing--about provably fake facts--I don't know what you're referring to.

It has nothing to do with judging. It has much to do with character. And yes I think anybody who would hang around after that has no self-respect if they're willing to be a laughingstock. And no I'm not willing to entertain the speculation that he asked her to do it and she said no. I think he crept around on the sly, and in so doing grossly insulted her, and she stood there and took it.

"Fake facts" refers to the part immediately after that in the same article where she was asked if she still believes in some debunked fake-fact stat and she wouldn't answer it. I have a YUGE problem with those who think they can just shut their eyes to reality and invent their own. I didn't see these two as related but ------ maybe they are.

 

[OldLady]

Pogo
Can you explain where her words in any way indicate that she is racist? Or that she does not agree with Brown v. Board of Education?

This is the first time I've seen this story. And I'm shocked that Wendy Vitter of all creatures is on a bench somewhere, given that she's married to a complete sleazeball who pays call girls to dress him up in diapers and then just stood there beside him through that. Kind of a challenge to respect somebody who has no respect for herself and it indicates she has no principles.

That said, no I think she gives exactly the right response to the question, saying she would be bound by the law, which is exactly the right attitude. I'm more concerned about the next part, where she evaded the question of whether she still believes in provably fake facts. That's FAR more problematic.

Thanks; it's a relief to know at least one person heard what I did.

Did you ever think that perhaps her "principles" are to make her marriage work, even if he does have a fetish that he indulges with a paid sex worker? Maybe he asked his wife to do it and she said hell no. Does that indicate a lack of self respect to you? Do you think he is the only guy out there with a fetish, Pogo? You think she should have flounced off in a huff and never spoken to him again? It wasn't as if he was raping infants; he wasn't hurting anyone. Pretty humiliating for both of them, I'm sure. But I don't see how it keeps her from being a judge.
That other thing--about provably fake facts--I don't know what you're referring to.

It has nothing to do with judging. It has much to do with character. And yes I think anybody who would hang around after that has no self-respect if they're willing to be a laughingstock. And no I'm not willing to entertain the speculation that he asked her to do it and she said no. I think he crept around on the sly, and in so doing grossly insulted her, and she stood there and took it.

"Fake facts" refers to the part immediately after that in the same article where she was asked if she still believes in some debunked fake-fact stat and she wouldn't answer it. I have a YUGE problem with those who think they can just shut their eyes to reality and invent their own. I didn't see these two as related but ------ maybe they are.

Okay.
I do appreciate you stopping by to help me out with that question before.