Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This practice wasn't limited to Trump judicial nominees. Jeffrey Rosen, who Trump nominated to the the Deputy Attorney General—the number two spot in the Department of Justice—refused to say that Brown v. Board was correctly decided. The Senate confirmed him by a vote of 52-45.
When this began happening, civil rights groups including @Sifill_LDF and the @NAACP_LDF pointed out how alarming it was that Trump nominees "refus[ed] to affirm the bedrock equality principles set forth in Brown v. Board of Education."https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-statement-deputy-attorney-general-nominee-jeffrey-rosen-refusing-endorse-supreme-courts-unanimous-decision-brown-v-board-education/ …
Even as major newspapers began noticing and commenting on Trump's nominee's refusal to endorse Brown v. Board, they kept giving the same non-committal answers. It was only when Sen. Tim Scott complained to Senate leadership that this began to change.https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-judicial-nominees-brown-v-board-education …
Why does this matter? It's not like any of these district or circuit court judges have the power to overturn Brown v. Board, and they aren't saying they disagree with it, just that they can't comment one way or the other. Still, it's something we should be concerned about.
Brown v. Board marked a turning point in constitutional law. It announced that the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the laws" was more than a dead letter. Stating that Brown was correctly decided should be the easiest hurdle to a judicial nominee to clear
When nominees refuse to endorse Brown it does not necessarily mean they want an immediate return to separate but equal but it is a sign that they view Brown as a contestable area of law. It means they see civil rights generally as an area of law to be rolled back at will.
In the same way that conservative jurists have spent four decades chipping away at Roe v. Wade, there is the ever present threat that the radical judges Trump and McConnell have packed the courts with may chip away not at the core holding of Brown but at the principle behind it.
As @Sifill_LDF puts it, Brown v. Board anchors our very conception of modern American democracy.
"Nominees either support Brown, the rule of law and equality under the law, or they do not. And if they do not, they put our very democracy at risk."https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-judicial-nominees-dont-support-brown-v-board-they-dont-support-the-rule-of-law/2019/05/12/d12c542a-734d-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html …
Salam, you can read it here: @AAPolicyForum: Do Trump judges believe Brown v. Board, the landmark case that ended “separate but equal,” was… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320420490192838664.html … Talk to you soon. 
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
