Her answer about Brown v. Board
Her answer about Brown v. Board
“I don’t mean to be coy,” she said, “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.”
Vitter said Brown was “binding” and that she would “uphold it” from the bench but also insisted that “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.”
Another judicial appointee, Andrew Oldham, did the same.
... insisted at his confirmation hearing that the canons of conduct precluded him from discussing the merits of Brown."
And then he quoted RBG to further validate himself.
Maybe I was just raised in a liberal, biased, public education system, but this is a) garbage, and b) an interview answer that would lead me not to hire anyone in any job, ever.
By example, a physician has to make judgment calls, too, but if you're hiring them, you do not want to hear, yeah, there's all these evidence based guidelines which I'll follow, but I can't comment on whether I agree or disagree because I can't talk about cases I might have to treat.
Anybody who says "correctly decided but I disagree with" had better have a detailed, thoughtful discussion of what technical legal or historical issues they mean. Otherwise, the only option is that they, in fact, do not think Brown was correctly decided. The people on the confirmation panels are going to need to come up with more incisive, revealing questions and treat this like an uncooperative interrogation if this is the garbage nominees are going to come up with.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-it-matters-that-trumps-judicial-nominees-refuse-to-answer-questions-about-brown-v-board.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-it-matters-that-trumps-judicial-nominees-refuse-to-answer-questions-about-brown-v-board.html
“I don’t mean to be coy,” she said, “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.”
Vitter said Brown was “binding” and that she would “uphold it” from the bench but also insisted that “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.”
Another judicial appointee, Andrew Oldham, did the same.
... insisted at his confirmation hearing that the canons of conduct precluded him from discussing the merits of Brown."
And then he quoted RBG to further validate himself.
Maybe I was just raised in a liberal, biased, public education system, but this is a) garbage, and b) an interview answer that would lead me not to hire anyone in any job, ever.
By example, a physician has to make judgment calls, too, but if you're hiring them, you do not want to hear, yeah, there's all these evidence based guidelines which I'll follow, but I can't comment on whether I agree or disagree because I can't talk about cases I might have to treat.
Anybody who says "correctly decided but I disagree with" had better have a detailed, thoughtful discussion of what technical legal or historical issues they mean. Otherwise, the only option is that they, in fact, do not think Brown was correctly decided. The people on the confirmation panels are going to need to come up with more incisive, revealing questions and treat this like an uncooperative interrogation if this is the garbage nominees are going to come up with.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-it-matters-that-trumps-judicial-nominees-refuse-to-answer-questions-about-brown-v-board.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-it-matters-that-trumps-judicial-nominees-refuse-to-answer-questions-about-brown-v-board.html
Comments
Post a Comment