STREAMING NOW: Watch Now

Brown v. Board takes center stage at hearing for Trump's judicial nominees

A landmark Supreme Court opinion that bans segregation in public schools took center stage at the Senate Judiciary Co...

Posted: May 18, 2018 4:11 AM
Updated: May 18, 2018 4:11 AM

A landmark Supreme Court opinion that bans segregation in public schools took center stage at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday as senators gathered to discuss two of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees who declined to say in their testimony whether the opinion was correctly decided.

The vote on the nominees is scheduled to occur before the close of business, and it happens to fall on the 64th anniversary of the release of the opinion, Brown v. Board of Education. Leaders of major civil rights organizations were in the audience as the senators debated - at times heatedly - what kinds of questions nominees could be "excused" from answering.

Democrats accused the President of pushing forward nominees who are outside of the mainstream. They pointed out that others - like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy - both testified in their own confirmation hearings that Brown was correctly decided.

"It's an easy question," ranking member Dianne Feinstein said.

"What does it say about a nominee" that could not say "clearly and unambiguously" that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided? she asked.

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

But Republicans suggested the Democrats are engaged in a ploy meant to smear the names of nominees who were simply following the rules of judicial ethics meant to ensure impartiality.

"I speak for all my colleagues when I say there is no question that this opinion was correctly decided," said Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who called it "very unfair and simply inaccurate" to suggest the nominees "somehow disagree with Brown."

Grassley said the nominees should not be forced to label Supreme Court decisions as "correct" or "incorrect" and jeopardize their impartiality.

His colleague Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, took the debate a step further saying that it is "disputed nowhere" that Brown is correct. He said to suggest otherwise is "absurd" and "preposterous" and "borders on accusing someone of racism."

Before adjourning without a vote, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois held firm.

"If we can't ask them basic questions about Supreme Court decisions, why are we here?" he asked.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California, said she found the testimony "deeply troubling." And Feinstein suggested Democrats are planning, in the future, to do more to push back on the President's nominees.

The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues to break records in the pace of confirming nominees, in order to fulfill the President's stated goal of reshaping the judiciary.

So far, the Senate has confirmed 39 judicial nominees: Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, 21 appeals court nominees and 17 district court judges.

One of the nominees, Wendy Vitter, is up for a seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

At her confirmation hearing in April, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, asked her about Brown v. Board of Education. Vitter said she didn't mean to be "coy" but that she would get into a "difficult, difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions -- which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with."

She went on to say that if she were confirmed, she would be "bound by Supreme Court precedent."

The answer outraged her critics, who noted that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch had both answered the question during their confirmation hearings.

Vitter serves as the general counsel of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and is married to Louisiana's former Republican Sen. David Vitter, who was implicated in the sex scandal concerning the so called "DC Madam" back in 2007.

Conservatives are crying foul, arguing Vitter declined to answer the Brown question because she believes that judges should maintain their impartiality by declining to put forward personal opinions on particular cases.

They point to Vitter's testimony later in the hearing, when Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, asked the question a different way.

"I am not asking about precedent," he said. "I just want to know about what you think about the social policy of having schools, Ms. Vitter, segregated by race, even if they are equal. Can we agree that is immoral?"

Vitter said, "Yes."

"As many nominees have done, Vitter simply took the position that it was improper for her to comment on the rightness or wrongness of any particular Supreme Court precedent," said conservative Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Whelan says Vitter was avoiding a "slippery slope" of judicial nominees commenting on precedent.

"Sen. Blumenthal has shown that he is eager to race down that slippery slope," Whelan said.

Andrew S. Oldham, who currently serves as general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, is a nominee up for a seat on the powerful 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. He told Blumenthal that "even the most universally accepted Supreme Court case is outside the bounds of a federal judge to comment on."

Oldham went on to say that Brown corrected "an egregious legal error" by overturning the legal policies established in Plessy v. Ferguson back in 1896 and it "abolished segregation in public schools."

But Blumenthal persisted on Brown, asking: "Was it correctly decided in terms of what you know?"

Oldham held firm and noted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also believed a nominee should not talk about precedent:

"The canons of conduct and the line that was articulated by Justice Ginsburg when she sat in this chair before this committee, where she said that her role as a nominee was to give 'no hints, no previews and no forecasts,' applies just as much to me."

"When inferior court judges come before this committee with a list of cases that they like and a list of cases that they don't, it turns the structure of Article III of the Constitution on its head," he said.

After a pause, Blumenthal responded, "I can't believe that you just gave me that answer."

Oldham's critics note that Ginsburg supplied the committee with thousands of pages of her writings as a law teacher and lawyer and opinions from her time on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"Oldham, on the other hand, has spent his comparatively short career fighting legal rights and protections for everyday Americans," said critic Nan Aron of the progressive Alliance for Justice.

At 39 years old, Oldham, a former clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, could serve on the bench for dozens and dozens of years.

Carrie Severino of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network believes the Democrats are lashing out in response to Trump's judicial success.

"Democrats know exactly what the standard is at confirmation hearings, that nominees can't comment on cases likely to come before them," she said.

"Justice Ginsburg famously refused to answer multiple questions, as did Justice Gorsuch, and even the late Justice Scalia refused to answer questions about the Marbury v. Madison decision that established judicial review, " she said.

Republicans like Severino praise Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for his role in pushing through judicial nominees.

The Kentucky Republican tweeted on Tuesday the Senate had confirmed the President's 21st appellate court nominee and called the action "a monumental achievement of unified Republican government."

Christopher Kang, who serves as chief counsel for a liberal group called Demand Justice, believes McConnell is changing the rules and traditions in the Senate and that all of Trump's nominees should be opposed. There has been a dispute, for instance, over whether nominations should go forward without the approval of both of the nominee's home state senators.

"These are lifetime appointees, and Democrats need to stop treating this as business as usual, "he said.

But Grassley -- the chair of the Judiciary Committee -- is showing no signs of slowing down.

In a recent interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Grassley outlined his plans for the coming months. He noted there are still about 30 district court judicial nominations he wants to push through.

"I have pleaded with McConnell to work nights, to work Saturdays and weekends, and put the pressure on the Democrats," Grassley said.

"We've got to have every Republican around and even cancel a recess so we can clear the calendar of these important nominees," he said.

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

(Widget updates once daily at 8 p.m. ET)

Confirmed Cases: 32078

Reported Deaths: 2004
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Marion9268539
Lake3320168
Cass15826
Allen130966
St. Joseph120534
Hendricks113067
Hamilton111592
Johnson1086104
Elkhart105728
Madison58258
Porter49021
Bartholomew48133
Clark46138
LaPorte41522
Tippecanoe3753
Jackson3671
Howard36519
Delaware35735
Hancock32127
Shelby31521
Floyd31438
Boone28835
Morgan26224
Vanderburgh2482
Montgomery23117
White2268
Decatur22431
Clinton2221
Grant19121
Noble18921
Harrison18721
Dubois1852
Greene16724
Warrick16426
Dearborn16421
Henry1619
Monroe16011
Vigo1477
Lawrence14423
Miami1391
Putnam1337
Jennings1274
Orange12422
Scott1183
Ripley1126
Franklin1068
Kosciusko941
Carroll922
Daviess8216
Steuben802
Marshall761
Newton7410
Wabash722
Wayne715
Fayette684
LaGrange602
Jasper581
Washington521
Fulton471
Rush452
Jay440
Randolph433
Jefferson411
Whitley402
Pulaski390
Clay391
Owen341
Brown331
Sullivan321
Starke313
DeKalb311
Perry260
Huntington262
Knox250
Tipton251
Benton250
Wells240
Crawford230
Blackford211
Switzerland190
Fountain182
Spencer171
Posey170
Parke170
Gibson142
Ohio130
Warren121
Adams121
Vermillion90
Martin90
Union80
Pike60
Unassigned0154

Illinois Coronavirus Cases

(Widget updates once daily at 7 p.m. CT)

Confirmed Cases: 113195

Reported Deaths: 4923
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Cook738193354
Lake7767250
DuPage7290340
Kane5866153
Will5238258
Winnebago199351
McHenry145268
St. Clair101773
Kankakee80242
Kendall72719
Rock Island63922
Champaign5697
Madison54056
Boone40716
Sangamon33226
DeKalb3313
Randolph2593
Jackson22810
McLean21210
Stephenson1952
Ogle1922
Macon18819
Peoria1858
Clinton17816
Out of IL1771
Union1417
LaSalle14013
Whiteside13310
Iroquois1314
Unassigned1200
Coles1159
Warren1140
Jefferson10116
Knox950
Monroe9211
Grundy892
McDonough835
Lee761
Tazewell683
Cass670
Henry670
Williamson541
Marion500
Jasper457
Adams441
Macoupin421
Perry410
Pulaski400
Montgomery391
Vermilion391
Morgan341
Christian334
Livingston312
Douglas280
Jo Daviess270
Fayette203
Ford201
Jersey201
Washington180
Woodford182
Mason170
Menard170
Shelby161
Bureau151
Hancock150
Mercer150
Carroll132
Franklin120
Piatt120
Crawford110
Fulton110
Bond101
Brown100
Clark100
Cumberland100
Logan100
Moultrie100
Schuyler100
Wayne91
Alexander80
Henderson80
Johnson70
Massac70
Saline70
Effingham61
Greene50
Marshall50
De Witt40
Lawrence40
Richland30
Stark30
Clay20
Edwards20
Gallatin20
Hamilton20
Wabash20
White20
Calhoun10
Hardin10
Pike10
Pope10
Putnam10
Edgar00
Terre Haute
Broken Clouds
67° wxIcon
Hi: 80° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 67°
Robinson
Clear
67° wxIcon
Hi: 76° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 67°
Indianapolis
Scattered Clouds
69° wxIcon
Hi: 79° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 69°
Rockville
Clear
62° wxIcon
Hi: 80° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 62°
Casey
Broken Clouds
68° wxIcon
Hi: 76° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 68°
Brazil
Broken Clouds
67° wxIcon
Hi: 80° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 67°
Marshall
Broken Clouds
67° wxIcon
Hi: 78° Lo: 65°
Feels Like: 67°
Showers Likely
WTHI Planner
WTHI Temps
WTHI Radar

WTHI Events