We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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."

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.

I think Griswold was a great result, but I think the logic was for shit. I believe in a right of privacy, but it doesn't seem to be in the constitution, as least as Griswold was written. If I were nominated and asked the same question about Griswold, I'd probably answer how she did.