Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller (Post 514191)

I have something of a history with former Senator David Vitter. He is vile, dishonest, and petty. Those are his good qualities. Imagine my surprise when I found out that his wife is more of a troll than he is.

She is up for a federal judgeship. She would not say whether the Supreme Court was right in 1954 to outlaw racially segregated public schools. She dodged the question when Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked during her Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday (April 11) whether she thinks Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., was correctly decided.

The exchange with the Senator:

"Senator, I don't mean to be coy, 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," said Vitter, who is married to former Sen. David Vitter, R-La. "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."

He asked a second time: "Do you believe it was correctly decided?"

"And again, I will respectfully not comment on what could be my bosses' ruling, the Supreme Court. I would be bound by it, and if I start commenting on I agree with this case or don't agree with this case, I think we get into a slippery slope. ... If I'm honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by Supreme Court precedent and would follow it, and 5th Circuit [Court of Appeals] precedent."

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller (Post 514191)

I have something of a history with former Senator David Vitter. He is vile, dishonest, and petty. Those are his good qualities. Imagine my surprise when I found out that his wife is more of a troll than he is.

She is up for a federal judgeship. She would not say whether the Supreme Court was right in 1954 to outlaw racially segregated public schools. She dodged the question when Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked during her Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday (April 11) whether she thinks Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., was correctly decided.

The exchange with the Senator:

"Senator, I don't mean to be coy, 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," said Vitter, who is married to former Sen. David Vitter, R-La. "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."

He asked a second time: "Do you believe it was correctly decided?"

"And again, I will respectfully not comment on what could be my bosses' ruling, the Supreme Court. I would be bound by it, and if I start commenting on I agree with this case or don't agree with this case, I think we get into a slippery slope. ... If I'm honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by Supreme Court precedent and would follow it, and 5th Circuit [Court of Appeals] precedent."

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 514192)

He should have asked about another precedent, say Citizen's, that "conservatives" like, and see if her answer was different. I'm not saying she isn't a snake, but the quoted answer isn't improper.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 514209)

Bullshit. If that's her position, then she could avoid the whole hearing by submitting a statement that read, "No matter my opinion, I will apply the law and strictly adhere to stare decisis at every opportunity."
___________
Also:

Vitter, who was given a unanimous "unqualified" rating by the American Bar Association, was also grilled by lawmakers over her staunch anti-abortion views.

The 56-year-old nominee once accused Planned Parenthood of "killing over 150,000 females a year," seemingly without any proof to back it up.

"Do you stand by that statement?" Blumenthal asked her.

Vitter avoided the question, only saying that she will "set aside" her religious and personal views as a federal judge.

"You said Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 females. Do you stand by that statement? It's a yes or no question," Blumenthal pressed.

"My pro-life stance has been made very clear," Vitter responded.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.3929024
_____________

This psycho is dangerous as fuck. she should not be on any bench, including one in a park I might visit.

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 514210)

A judge shouldn't express "feelings" about binding precedent. Most judges must have feelings about what came before that they must follow. They shouldn't allow that to impact decisions. The whole "how do you feel about X" grew out of Roe. I doubt it came up before the 80s.

I don't disagree she probably believes whites and blacks shouldn't be in school together, but without the "how do you feel about Citizen's" question the answer appears okay. If one of Pony's associates came back with this as a dep transcript, he'd fire the guy. Ask the money question, not just the one that causes your base to post quotes of your question on social media.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 514210)

A judge shouldn't express "feelings" about binding precedent. Most judges must have feelings about what came before that they must follow. They shouldn't allow that to impact decisions. The whole "how do you feel about X" grew out of Roe. I doubt it came up before the 80s.

I don't disagree she probably believes whites and blacks shouldn't be in school together, but without the "how do you feel about Citizen's" question the answer appears okay. If one of Pony's associates came back with this as a dep transcript, he'd fire the guy. Ask the money question, not just the one that causes your base to post quotes of your question on social media.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 514212)

By the way, a quick google came up with this page, featuring hearings from S.Ct. nominees going back to 1971. A quick look at the oldest one, for Powell, showed a rather interesting discussion of the Miranda case between Powell, a lawyer who had not practiced criminal law and professed to not have strongly developed views, but who had still spoken out against the case, and a Senator who seemed to know much more about the applicable caselaw than Powell. The discussion was frank, open, and had an odd tone of humility.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 514210)

A judge shouldn't express "feelings" about binding precedent. Most judges must have feelings about what came before that they must follow. They shouldn't allow that to impact decisions. The whole "how do you feel about X" grew out of Roe. I doubt it came up before the 80s.

I don't disagree she probably believes whites and blacks shouldn't be in school together, but without the "how do you feel about Citizen's" question the answer appears okay. If one of Pony's associates came back with this as a dep transcript, he'd fire the guy. Ask the money question, not just the one that causes your base to post quotes of your question on social media.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 514192)

He should have asked about another precedent, say Citizen's, that "conservatives" like, and see if her answer was different. I'm not saying she isn't a snake, but the quoted answer isn't improper.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 514214)

I don't really want to continue this. I don't disagree with you when it comes to judges who are qualified for the positions they are being nominated for. However, the ABA graded her as unqualified. If she is unqualified, there is only one reason why she is being nominated to the bench and that's her ideology. If she refuses to answer questions about even basic positions she's taken publicly (and I think the headline should have been more about her positions on abortion) and declines to answer questions about where she stands on settled law, then she should be deemed a danger to our system of justice and not allowed anywhere near a bench.

TM

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 514242)

So when you go on the tv and say "I did a crime for the guy, he didn't even know about it" and then the guy goes on the tv and says "I didn't even know about it" it turns out that makes it hard to claim that anything about it is really privileged, ya know?

Just an fyi for y'all to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 514268)

There’s an older woman at the gym who scrubs every bike she gets on like she’s prepping for surgery. When I get off my bike (which I wipe like a normal person) she gets right on.

Is she hitting on me?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 514269)

Yes.

Please let us know as things develop.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 514268)

There’s an older woman at the gym who scrubs every bike she gets on like she’s prepping for surgery. When I get off my bike (which I wipe like a normal person) she gets right on.

Is she hitting on me?