During Thursday's edition of CNN's New Day, co-host Chris Cuomo played a tape of Wendy Vitter, one of President Trump's judicial nominees, failing to explicitly state whether or not she supported the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When discussing her exchange with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin went after Vitter's position on abortion, suggesting that her pro-life advocacy may disqualify her from serving on the bench.
President Trump has nominated Vitter to serve as a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Senator Blumenthal asked Vitter the ultimate gotcha question, “Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?” In the first part of her answer, Vitter took the bait: “Senator, I don’t mean to be coy but I think I get into a difficult...area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with.” This part of her answer gave the left ammunition in their efforts to stall her nomination.
Following that clip of the hearing, Cuomo then brought on CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin to discuss Vitter’s hearing. Toobin described Vitter’s answer as “ridiculous”, adding that “Brown v. Board of Education is not an ordinary Supreme Court case.” Toobin later stated that Blumenthal asked her that question to “see whether she’s part of the mainstream position,” adding that “it’s a mainstream position to support Brown v. Board of Education.”
Perhaps more importantly, Democrats believe that it’s a “mainstream position” to support Roe v. Wade. Toobin lamented that “President Trump has been enormously successful, mostly below the radar, in placing on the Federal Courts very conservative people.” He made sure to emphasize that “Wendy Vitter works for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, very outspokenly against abortion rights. That’s why she’s being considered for a judgeship.”
Cuomo then asked Toobin “When it comes to her position on Planned Parenthood, what is your concern for her being an arbiter of the law?” Toobin responded: “She has dedicated her career to Planned Parenthood, to denying women the rights that at least currently are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The question is in Louisiana, where she would be a district judge, how would she rule on cases that implicate abortion rights? Would she honor Roe v. Wade and all the subsequent decisions reaffirming a woman’s right to choose abortion or would she go out of her way to try to limit those rights?”
In other words, Toobin thinks that Vitter’s political opinions and positions may impact her ability to carry out the duties of her job. It’s strange that these same people mock conservatives for pointing out the partisan affiliation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team, arguing that their personal political opinions and partisan affiliations do not impact their ability to do their job.
Vitter needs to win the support of a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee before her nomination heads to the full Senate, where she needs 50 votes for confirmation. Toobin expressed optimism that a “no” vote from moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins and the absence of Senator John McCain will sink Vitter’s nomination.
A transcript is below. Click "expand" to read more:
CNN New Day
04/12/18
06:54 AM
CHRIS CUOMO: Another rough confirmation hearing for one of President Trump’s judicial nominees. Wendy Vitter is a nominee for a Federal Judgeship in the Eastern District of Louisiana. She refused to say if she supports the landmark Supreme Court ruling to desegregate America’s schools. Listen to this.
SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Ms. Vitter, do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?
WENDY VITTER: Senator, I don’t mean to be coy, but I think I get into a difficult, different, difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with. Again, my personal political or religious views I would set aside, that is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by it and of course I would uphold it.
BLUMENTHAL: Do you believe it was correctly decided?
VITTER: Again, I will respectfully not comment on what could be my boss’s ruling, the Supreme Court. I would be bound by it. And if I start commenting on I agree with this case or don’t agree with this case, I think we get into a slippery slope. I would be, if I’m honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by Supreme Court precedent, and that’s what I would follow, and Fifth Circuit precedent.
CUOMO: Does that answer bother you? Let’s discuss. CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. What is your answer sir?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: It’s ridiculous. You know, Brown v. Board of Education is not an ordinary Supreme Court case. Of course all district judges, which she wants to be, are bound by Supreme Court precedent. But Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, is a landmark, is part of the fabric of our country, not just an ordinary Supreme Court decision and her failure to acknowledge that, which most high school students know, much less, you know, would-be judges, I think is really scandalous.
CUOMO: What should she have said?
TOOBIN: Yes. Is, do you agree with Brown v. Board of Education? Yes. What’s your next question, Senator?
CUOMO: So you want judicial nominees giving their opinions on whether they like rulings or not?
TOOBIN: I think when the cases are like Brown v. Board of Education or Marbury v. Madison, you bet I do. I think it is important to acknowledge that that is part of the fabric of, of our law and you have to acknowledge that it’s the right thing to do. Should they go through one case at a time-Citizens United, Bush v. Gore...
CUOMO: Why did Blumenthal name that case and not Citizens v. United or Bush v. Gore?
TOOBIN: Because he wanted to see whether she’s part of the mainstream. You know, you know, it’s a mainstream position to support Brown v. Board of Education.
CUOMO: Well she did say she supports it. She said I would be bound by it like every other Supreme, Supreme Court precedent.
TOOBIN: That’s true but it’s not like every other Supreme Court precedent. And I think most people who are sophisticated enough to be considered for a Federal judgeship understand that Brown is in a separate category. And that’s what Blumenthal was doing. He was trying to see is she part of the mainstream? And I think one of the things we have learned is that President Trump has been enormously successful, mostly below the radar, in placing on the Federal Courts very conservative people. Wendy Vitter works for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, very outspokenly against abortion rights. That’s why she’s being considered for a judgeship.
CUOMO: Understood. Why didn’t he ask her about Roe v. Wade?
TOOBIN: He may well have, I think he may have. And I think she answered the same way.
CUOMO: Right. So that’s the point. Look, I, we were talking before this, you know I don’t agree. I don’t want to hear judicial nominees tell me what they think of cases. They should be bound by them but a lot of these confirmation hearings are subterfuge. They say one thing and then they get on there and they do something very different when they get on the bench. So her politics do become relevant.
TOOBIN: Highly.
CUOMO: And when it comes to her position on Planned Parenthood, what is your concern for her being an arbiter of the law?
TOOBIN: Well, I mean, you know, she has dedicated her career to defunding Planned Parenthood, to denying women the rights that at least currently are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The question is in Louisiana, where she would be a district judge, how would she rule on cases that implicate abortion rights? Would she honor Roe v. Wade and all the subsequent decisions reaffirming a woman’s right to choose abortion or would she go out of her way to try to limit those rights? You’re right, once you’re on the, once they’re on the Court, they’re going to do what they’re going to do. I mean, there’s no, there’s no process for, you know, holding them to account.
CUOMO: We haven’t seen a better example of that then the most recent Supreme Court nominee that got confirmed. The way he was in the hearing versus what happened when he got on the Court...
TOOBIN: Absolutely but this is a, but Neil Gorsuch has been a total success story for the conservative movement.
CUOMO: For the conservative moment, absolutely.
TOOBIN: And this has been, you know, through, true not just, I mean, people remember Gorsuch but Circuit Courts of Appeals, District Court, it’s been...
CUOMO: And do you think Vitter gets through?
TOOBIN: That’s a tough call at this point. I mean, every single one who has come up for a vote except one or two who withdrew, have gotten confirmed. But I’m thinking Susan Collins, you know...
CUOMO: We’ll see.
TOOBIN: With only 51 Republicans, no John McCain, I mean, it’s, it’s going to be close.
