The first Trump nominee to face this question was Wendy Vitter, who Trump nominated to a federal district court in Louisiana. She responded by saying she didn't want to be coy but couldn't answer the question of whether Brown was correctly decided. The Senate confirmed her 52-45
-
-
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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.
Näytä tämä ketju -
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.
Näytä tämä ketju -
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 …Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.