Senate poised to confirm 3 Trump judicial nominees who refuse to support landmark Brown VS Board of Education

So many executive orders, so much twitter. What to do? Well, discuss it here for one...

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15598
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Senate poised to confirm 3 Trump judicial nominees who refuse to support landmark Brown VS Board of Education

#1 Post by TrueTexan » Mon May 13, 2019 1:07 pm

The Republican-majority Senate this week is poised to confirm three Trump judicial nominees who refuse to say they support a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on which critical modern-day civil rights are based.

The case: 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, which essentially codified that “separate but equal” is not equal. Brown strengthened the 14th Amendment, allowing it to become a key tool for civil rights advocates.


Brown v. Board of Education led to the end of legal segregation, or, as the NAACP’s Sherrilyn Ifill in The Washington Post writes, “legal apartheid in this country.”

(Meanwhile, on Friday, Vox reported: “65 years after Brown v. Board of Education, school segregation is getting worse.)

Another landmark Supreme Court ruling, 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, which found that same-sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities to marriage as different-sex couples, is based in part of the 14th Amendment, strengthened by Brown v Board of Education.


So are many other civil rights cases.

And yet, the Trump administration, and its partner in advancing an extremist conservative agenda, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), are pushing through many judicial nominees who, as Ifill’s op-ed suggests, “don’t support the rule of law.”

“Since April 2018, more than two dozen executive and judicial nominees have declined to endorse the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education,” Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, writes.

“This week — one that marks the 65th anniversary of the landmark ruling that struck down legal apartheid in this country — the Senate is poised to confirm three of those judicial nominees to lifetime seats on the federal bench.” She adds, calling it “simply unacceptable.”

Ifill does not name the three nominees, but one appears to be Wendy Vitter, an anti-abortion and anti-contraception extremist who is currently serving as general counsel of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans. She has never served as a judge, but is nominated to become a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Vitter is also the spouse to former GOP Senator David Vitter.

The other two nominees appear to be Michael Truncale, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and Kenneth Lee, a nominee to the Ninth Circuit.

In the GOP-majority Senate, there is little expectation any Republican will vote against Trump’s judicial nominees.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/us-sen ... ghts-case/

Trump’s “Bitch” Mitch is determined to pack the courts with ultra right wing idealist so no matter what happens to Trump the Rightwing Reptillians will still have a final say in what happens to this country.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Stiff
Loquacious
Posts: 2931
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:43 am
Contact:

Re: Senate poised to confirm 3 Trump judicial nominees who refuse to support landmark Brown VS Board of Education

#2 Post by Stiff » Mon May 13, 2019 1:23 pm

Yeah, but caving in to a corporate Democrat is worse than risking the overturn of civil rights law. Besides, it only affects minorities and women.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Senate poised to confirm 3 Trump judicial nominees who refuse to support landmark Brown VS Board of Education

#3 Post by featureless » Mon May 13, 2019 1:36 pm

Stiff wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 1:23 pm
Yeah, but caving in to a corporate Democrat is worse than risking the overturn of civil rights law. Besides, it only affects minorities and women.
Sometimes ya'll forget that a little vision isn't a bad thing. I'm sure most of us will get in line and vote for the corporate dem when the time comes. Until then, I will exercise my right to hope for something better. ;)

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13360
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Senate poised to confirm 3 Trump judicial nominees who refuse to support landmark Brown VS Board of Education

#4 Post by highdesert » Mon May 13, 2019 2:03 pm

Remember then senator David Vitter's name showed up on a madam's list of clients. Somehow he survived that one and got reelected and his wife Wendy stood by him. LA is 27% Evangelical and 26% Catholic, different than most Southern states. Brown vs Board is settled law, Obergefell vs Hodges is more recent.
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... louisiana/

I'll take a corporate Dem over a corporate Rep any day.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15598
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Senate poised to confirm 3 Trump judicial nominees who refuse to support landmark Brown VS Board of Education

#5 Post by TrueTexan » Tue May 14, 2019 1:10 pm

One down and two to go.
Michael Truncale is proudly opposed to allowing women the right to choose an abortion, a right the U.S Supreme Court confirmed decades ago. He also refuses to say he supports another landmark Supreme Court civil rights decision: Brown v. Board of Education, which solidified the concept that “separate but equal” is not equal. Brown is a key ruling on which many modern U.S. civil rights are based, including same-sex marriage.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate have just voted to make Truncale a federal judge. He will be sworn in as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.

Truncale could not even get 50 Senate votes. He was confirmed 49-46.

That Truncale’s nomination to the federal bench is not in question. He is a longtime Texas GOP party official and volunteered for the Trump campaign. He’s also donated thousands to Republicans, including over $7000 to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), according to the nonpartisan website The Vetting Room. Cornyn sits on the Judiciary Committee and voted to confirm him.

Truncale has declared that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court later disagreed with his take.

He is opposed to immigration, and is accused of saying, “we must not continue to have the maggots coming in.” The DOJ, in defending Truncale’s nomination, claims Truncale used the word “magnets”:

“And, of course, we must…with regard to immigration…we must not continue to have the magnets coming in.”

Either way, it’s a dehumanizing statement.

Truncale is opposed to abortion, opposed to government funding of Planned Parenthood, and opposed to the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate, which he has called an “assault on the Catholic Church.”

People for the American Way took Truncale to task for his refusal to say he supports the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, along with his views on LGBT rights and reproductive rights.

“As we prepare to mark the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the GOP-led Senate is advancing the nomination of a narrow-minded elitist, Michael Truncale, who will not share with senators whether he believes Brown was correctly decided. Just to be clear: by refusing to give an answer on this question—a question Chief Justice John Roberts answered during one of his nomination hearings—Truncale is refusing to say that legal apartheid in this country will never return. This refusal is enough to disqualify him, but unfortunately it’s not the only disqualifying factor.”

Truncale has also demonstrated a dangerous willingness to make up facts to support an ideological agenda involving other people’s constitutional rights—as demonstrated by his evidence-free assertions that ‘voter fraud makes a mockery of our elections.’ Pressed for evidence of this threat to elections, Truncale could provide none, and that’s troubling given that we rely on district court judges to make basic findings of fact relied upon by higher courts.

His legal views are also hostile to LGBTQ+ equality, reproductive rights, and a federal government constitutionally empowered to impose reasonable regulations on powerful corporate interests.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/senate ... ral-judge/
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests