-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Judicial Nominee, Wendy Vitter, commenting on Brown vs. Board
- Thread starter LionPride
- Start date
- Status
Did she say she personally disagreed with the decision or is the quote in the tweet wrong? Cause she didn't say that I the clip (even though it's clear that's what she meant).
She doesn't say she's anti in that video. But her response heavily heavily implies she a segregationist
A whole lot of words to say she's a fucking racist.
She never said she didn't agree with Brown, but that she wouldn't comment on whether any Supreme Court case was correctly decided. Take from that what you will.
She never said she didn't agree with Brown, but that she wouldn't comment on whether any Supreme Court case was correctly decided. Take from that what you will.
Oh great! Good to hear she's a proponent of state's rights. So logically she supports sanctuary cities too!
Otherwise she's just a racist!
What the heck is going on with the tweet and thread title? She doesn't say that at all, she does that bullshit thing (VERY common in supreme court justice hearings as well) where she won't say yes or no on any question, just that she'd do her job whatever her personal views are.
She should definitely be castigated for her insane views on abortion but this is literally just lying about what she said. I guess if you want her to just fly through hearings then go ahead and lie about what she says so now the entire news cycle will be about whether she actually said something or not, rather than the public record on stuff she has said about birth control and abortion.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/6013...ator-faces-thorny-hearing-to-be-federal-judge
She should definitely be castigated for her insane views on abortion but this is literally just lying about what she said. I guess if you want her to just fly through hearings then go ahead and lie about what she says so now the entire news cycle will be about whether she actually said something or not, rather than the public record on stuff she has said about birth control and abortion.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/6013...ator-faces-thorny-hearing-to-be-federal-judge
This woman personally believes in segregation. The republican party is really regressing. Next time Trump is gonna nominate someone who personally believes in Jim Crow and slavery and that is not a joke. Trump sure does want to make america great again.
Wait, she never specifically said Brown? Where did that tweet get its info?
She's a garbage nominee all around:
NPR:
NPR:
Wendy Vitter, nominated by President Trump for a federal judgeship, tried Wednesday to walk back several controversial comments she made about abortion and birth control.
Questioned by skeptical Democrats at her confirmation hearing, she maintained she could "put aside" her long-held "pro-life" advocacy, and as a judge enforce the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.
In particular, Vitter sought to distance herself from a brochure she had appeared to endorse while leading a panel at a pro-life conference in 2013. The panel was called "Abortion Hurts Women," and the brochure promoted a variety of unsubstantiated claims linking birth control pills to breast cancer, cervical and liver cancers, and "violent death."
On this last point — violent death — the brochure alleged that women who take oral contraceptives prefer men with similar DNA, and that women in these partnerships have fewer sexual relations, leading to more adultery, and "understandably ... violence."
All of these claims have been debunked by leading medical and scientific organizations, as Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii observed.
"You urged the audience to distribute the materials making these dangerous claims. ... Do you believe the claims that Dr. Lanfranchi makes that abortion causes breast cancer and that birth control causes women to be assaulted and murdered?" she asked.
Vitter asserted she had "no background," was "not a medical professional" and "had never heard those opinions before."
"You called them facts," Hirono countered.
"I did say 'facts,' and then I stopped myself and said 'brochure,' " replied Vitter.
In fact, what she said was, "Go to Dr. Angela's website, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, download it, and at your next physical, you walk into your pro-life doctor and say, 'Have you thought about putting these facts or this brochure in your waiting room?' Each one of you can be the pro-life advocate to take that next step. That's what you do with it."
Hirono persisted: "Judges have to apply common sense. Does it even make sense to you that people who use birth control pills would be more likely to be assaulted or murdered?"
After a pause, Vitter conceded that it did not make sense.
Questioned by skeptical Democrats at her confirmation hearing, she maintained she could "put aside" her long-held "pro-life" advocacy, and as a judge enforce the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.
In particular, Vitter sought to distance herself from a brochure she had appeared to endorse while leading a panel at a pro-life conference in 2013. The panel was called "Abortion Hurts Women," and the brochure promoted a variety of unsubstantiated claims linking birth control pills to breast cancer, cervical and liver cancers, and "violent death."
On this last point — violent death — the brochure alleged that women who take oral contraceptives prefer men with similar DNA, and that women in these partnerships have fewer sexual relations, leading to more adultery, and "understandably ... violence."
All of these claims have been debunked by leading medical and scientific organizations, as Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii observed.
"You urged the audience to distribute the materials making these dangerous claims. ... Do you believe the claims that Dr. Lanfranchi makes that abortion causes breast cancer and that birth control causes women to be assaulted and murdered?" she asked.
Vitter asserted she had "no background," was "not a medical professional" and "had never heard those opinions before."
"You called them facts," Hirono countered.
"I did say 'facts,' and then I stopped myself and said 'brochure,' " replied Vitter.
In fact, what she said was, "Go to Dr. Angela's website, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, download it, and at your next physical, you walk into your pro-life doctor and say, 'Have you thought about putting these facts or this brochure in your waiting room?' Each one of you can be the pro-life advocate to take that next step. That's what you do with it."
Hirono persisted: "Judges have to apply common sense. Does it even make sense to you that people who use birth control pills would be more likely to be assaulted or murdered?"
After a pause, Vitter conceded that it did not make sense.
No, she was asked specifically about Brown, she refused to state whether she agreed with the decision or not.
Oh man, Hirono was doing some of the questioning?
I can just see her making this face after each response.
(Hirono is pretty awesome, from what I understand)
I can just see her making this face after each response.
(Hirono is pretty awesome, from what I understand)
If there was any justice, she would be defeated (every Democrat + Collins should do the trick if McCain is out of town), or else slither away before the vote and take herself out of consideration. I can't say I'm terribly optimistic, though.
This is why it's imperative for Democrats to win back the Senate. Winning the House is fine for blocking legislation as well as conducting investigations, but Trump can still wreak plenty of havoc in the judiciary branch with a GOP Senate. Hell, he already has.
This is why it's imperative for Democrats to win back the Senate. Winning the House is fine for blocking legislation as well as conducting investigations, but Trump can still wreak plenty of havoc in the judiciary branch with a GOP Senate. Hell, he already has.
When I listen to that answer I get the sense that she actually has no idea about what brown v board is. Did she answer all questions about specific cases in the same manner? I think she's trying to avoid the pitfalls some other flunkees failes and ends up sounding as a complete moron racist instead.
The quote from the tweet in the OP isn't in the clip. Gotta assume it doesn't exist.
Basically assuming she was disagreeing with the ruling since she refused to say if she supported the ruling or not.
Yeah that Twitter post is pretty misleading there. Unnecessarily so when the refusal to acknowledge the importance of brown is sufficiently shocking that you don't need fake quotes.
While the tweet in the OP mischaracterizes what she actually said when she dodged that opinion, saying that fucking Brown v. Board was correctly decided isn't a goddamn gotcha moment unless she really does believe in segregation and she was trying damn hard to not talk ahead of thinking
"No comment" doesn't mean "assume I believe the worst possible result." Pretending that it does is at best disingenuous, but I'd say it's flat-out dishonest.
If she's been consistent in not commenting on Supreme Court decisions, this is bullshit. If she hasn't, I'd love to see an article talking about which cases she commented on (and what she said about them) and which she didn't.
Now, apparently she's a shitty person, which is understandable considering she's a Trump nominee, but that's no excuse to make up lies about her as well.
If she's been consistent in not commenting on Supreme Court decisions, this is bullshit. If she hasn't, I'd love to see an article talking about which cases she commented on (and what she said about them) and which she didn't.
Now, apparently she's a shitty person, which is understandable considering she's a Trump nominee, but that's no excuse to make up lies about her as well.
To be fair, isn't this par for the course? Meaning, nominees have directly done this type of shit int he past? They do not comment on whether they agree/disagree with cases.
The rest of the world knows that this Is not a mistake, we know that this was a deliverate choice made by people that stayed home ir voted for Trump, we know that his presidency and everything that came after was transparent after minimal scrutiny and had the implicit or open support of a majority.
This includes segregation.
This includes segregation.
Brown v Board is literally a case nobody would ever "no comment" on unless they disagreed with it
- Status