The job of a judge is to render opinions. He asked her opinion on a case. If she wants to take a "pass" on offering opinions during her confirmation, she's going to have to deal with the consequences of that. A person who cannot/will not offer their opinion during their confirmation does not deserve to be a judge, this is a way of demonstrating that. What kind of softball "non-trap" questions would you prefer? What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?
Yes - judges issue a ruling on the matter at hand based on their interpretation of the law and after hearing all witnesses and all other evidence. Brown vs. Board was not a small, trivial court case and the evidence was reviewed by all the members of the Supreme Court who deliberated and discussed the case very thoroughly. This all occurred before Wendy Vitter was even born. As a judge, she didn't hear arguments, didn't see eviedence, and didn't interpret the law at that time. Sure, casually, she might have an opinion, but in an official capacity, as a judge, she probably shouldn't take a position without being closely involved in a case... especially if there's a possibility that the person asking the question may be trying to set a trap. That's quite a Moral Equivalence logical fallacy. Not constructive or objective. Vitter did nothing wrong. There's no story here. Don't empower the media to manufacture outrage.
Good post. This is the reason even for race relations it is so important to fight the whole trickle down neoliberalism thing that is shrinking the middle class.
All of the cases the Supreme Court hears are public record, are they not? Ms. Vitter is privvy to the same information as everyone else, including the judges who decided the case. If you consider it a "trap" to ask someone whose job it is to render an opinion on matters of law what their opinion is on a matter of law, then the logic problems are on your side of the plate. I'm not outraged in a sense of "OMG SHE IS RACIST". I'm outraged that a person answering a job interview question to be a United States federal judge essentially replied with "derp".
Except she did do something wrong. She refused to say she agreed with Brown vs. the Board of Education. That is wrong.
Race is the low hanging fruit to divide. When you're powerful but there's more them than you, you divide. Because of our fervor against Godless Communism and its lil bro Socialism, class conflict is more muted and low key. Republicanism isn't about being racist. Its more about preserving a social order that only makes sense for those in power or for groups who think they get a seat at the table. I wouldn't be surprised if 2nd-4th gen Mexican Americans take the seat of the boomers who are dropping off one by one. Looks notwithstanding, their Catholic driven hardworking culture is as much seeding ground for American Conservatism as it was a 100 years ago for the filthy unwashed masses in that era. That's also why Middle America desperately seized the last election. The music they dance to will stop if the machine keeps running as it is. Do you like salsa? Compared to Europe, our political battles are more about proxies to status or prestige rather than outright aggregations of wealth. You'll see this when the left leaning American party bite their tongues and roll their eyes to the "batshit diatribes" of Warren and Sanders... Which is fortunate for the filthy rich because of all the hidden privileges they receive and take for granted.
The supreme court has a ton of terrible decisions: Dred Scott Plessy v Ferguson The Japanese internment one Dred Scott just sped up the civil war. Lifetime appointment for judges like her is a big problem for me.
