Trump judicial nominee refuses to say if landmark civil rights opinion was correctly decided

Wendy Vitter, one of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees, refused on Wednesday to say whether a landmark civil...

Posted: Apr 12, 2018 1:47 PM
Updated: Apr 12, 2018 1:47 PM

Wendy Vitter, one of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees, refused on Wednesday to say whether a landmark civil rights opinion was correctly decided, triggering outrage and renewed criticism of the President's efforts to reshape the judiciary.

At issue was Brown v. the Board of Education -- a seminal opinion that held that state laws requiring separate but equal schools violated the Constitution.

"I don't mean to be coy," Vitter, who is up for a seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, said at her confirmation hearing, "but I think I can get into a difficult, difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions -- which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with."

Vitter -- who is the General Counsel of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and is married to former Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter, who was implicated in the sex scandal concerning the so called "DC Madam" back in 2007 -- emphasized that, if confirmed, she'd set aside "personal, religious or political views" and she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent.

As the Twitterverse lit up with progressive fury, a few were quick to point out that Vitter, is not alone in the sentiment that nominees should not offer up their personal thoughts on decided cases.

But Brown v. Board of Education?

"It's a big deal if someone wants to be a judge, charged with dispensing equal justice for all, can't commit herself to the basic principle that the Constitution prohibits segregation designed to place a 'badge of inferiority' on an entire group of people based on the color of their skin," said Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

Kristine Lucius, of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called Vitter's testimony "shocking." Lucius is no fan of other aspects of Vitter's record -- including on the subject of abortion -- and has urged the Senate to reject the nomination.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who launched the inquiry, often poses similar questions during Senate Judiciary hearings. Nominees -- asked about Brown and other landmark cases -- don't always have stock answers.

At times, other nominees -- even for the Supreme Court -- have declined to comment out of a fear of infecting the judicial process.

As Vitter said, there is a fear of a "slippery slope " that impartiality will be questioned.

Just last month, for instance, John B. Nalbandian, up for a seat on the Sixth Circuit, told Blumenthal that he thought that Brown was correctly decided and said he felt comfortable commenting upon it because it was a "accepted" and a "longstanding" precedent.

But he wouldn't talk about Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court abortion opinion. And he said he thought it was "inappropriate" to go down a list of Supreme Court opinions and express his opinions on whether they were correctly decided.

"I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment," he said, but added that as a circuit court nominee, he would be faithful to precedent.

But others, like Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, didn't hesitate to say Brown was correctly decided.

Blumenthal asked the same question of Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing in 2017.

"Brown v. Board of Education," Gorsuch said, "was a correct application of law of precedent."

"There is no daylight," the future justice said.

In his own confirmation hearing, Roberts was happy to opine on Brown. "The genius of the decision was the recognition that the act of separating the students was where the violation was. And it rejected the defense -- certainly, just a theoretical one given the actual record -- that you could have equal facilities and equal treatment," he said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia would not even answer a question about Marbury v. Madison -- the very decision that asserted the power of judicial review -- back in 1986.

"Marbury v. Madison is one of the pillars of the Constitution," Scalia said. "To the extent that you think a nominee would be so foolish or so extreme as to kick over one of the pillars of the Constitution, I suppose you shouldn't confirm him," Scalia said.

"But I don't think I should answer questions regarding any specific Supreme Court opinion, even one as fundamental as Marbury v. Madison."

Scalia -- who would go on to become an outspoken conservative icon on the Supreme Court -- wasn't finished.

He told senators he "ought to be in trouble" if they were to uncover anything he'd written disregarding the opinion, "without you asking me specifically about my views."

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 613228

Reported Deaths: 9728
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion846851338
Lake45676687
Allen32980552
Hamilton29649315
St. Joseph27531382
Elkhart24478345
Vanderburgh19610250
Tippecanoe18108141
Johnson15191295
Porter14944169
Hendricks14485250
Madison11044222
Clark10811144
Vigo10795181
Monroe9458113
Delaware9170134
LaPorte9145164
Howard8292144
Kosciusko810183
Warrick680299
Hancock6782104
Bartholomew6640100
Floyd6507110
Wayne6177162
Grant6027116
Dubois558680
Boone556468
Morgan548695
Henry511464
Marshall506984
Cass486964
Dearborn486545
Noble475659
Jackson427747
Shelby420781
Lawrence393780
Clinton375044
Gibson374459
Harrison353045
DeKalb349864
Montgomery347654
Knox336239
Miami324544
Steuben315046
Whitley311126
Wabash305851
Adams302836
Ripley300546
Putnam298950
Huntington294860
Jasper291734
White275143
Daviess271774
Jefferson266238
Decatur249583
Fayette248648
Greene242262
Posey241028
Wells236951
LaGrange230062
Scott226839
Clay224332
Randolph215248
Jennings200636
Sullivan193533
Spencer193022
Washington188023
Fountain184927
Starke176444
Jay168623
Owen167637
Fulton164830
Orange160935
Carroll159715
Rush156318
Perry155929
Vermillion149734
Franklin149333
Tipton133133
Parke13088
Pike118526
Blackford111822
Pulaski97837
Newton92021
Brown88335
Benton87110
Crawford8099
Martin74913
Warren6857
Switzerland6695
Union6297
Ohio4977
Unassigned0376

Ohio Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 868656

Reported Deaths: 10768
CountyCasesDeaths
Franklin102154707
Cuyahoga865201153
Hamilton64744448
Montgomery43516419
Summit35250762
Lucas31663631
Butler31268232
Stark26096443
Warren19830142
Lorain19296229
Mahoning17471339
Lake16250154
Clermont16128112
Delaware1453680
Licking13326137
Fairfield1294981
Trumbull12920317
Greene12174141
Medina11732168
Clark11058265
Wood10457158
Allen9988127
Portage9454111
Miami924473
Richland9236118
Marion7486113
Tuscarawas7440183
Columbiana7409124
Pickaway732150
Wayne7111172
Muskingum710342
Erie6221130
Ross5558100
Hancock555292
Scioto542764
Geauga515955
Darke473492
Lawrence460658
Union456928
Ashtabula456473
Sandusky439562
Mercer435089
Seneca433866
Huron432841
Auglaize424164
Shelby422522
Jefferson422469
Belmont421145
Washington394240
Athens38389
Putnam378075
Madison358129
Knox356122
Ashland349038
Fulton340443
Defiance334486
Crawford325774
Preble322737
Brown315821
Logan312132
Ottawa296543
Clinton291543
Williams280367
Highland279018
Jackson265845
Guernsey257126
Champaign253428
Fayette239530
Morrow23464
Perry233718
Holmes226774
Henry221953
Hardin215533
Coshocton206922
Van Wert203445
Gallia199826
Wyandot196751
Pike178017
Adams177715
Hocking173224
Carroll157616
Paulding145321
Noble121040
Meigs109724
Monroe102232
Harrison89921
Morgan83931
Vinton71314
Unassigned00
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
31° wxIcon
Hi: 33° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 22°
Angola
Cloudy
27° wxIcon
Hi: 31° Lo: 26°
Feels Like: 16°
Huntington
Cloudy
30° wxIcon
Hi: 32° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 25°
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
31° wxIcon
Hi: 33° Lo: 30°
Feels Like: 22°
Lima
Cloudy
32° wxIcon
Hi: 33° Lo: 31°
Feels Like: 24°
More Clouds than Sun Wednesday
WFFT Radar
WFFT Temperatures
WFFT National

Community Events