Wendy Vitter in black outfit
Posted on 04/12/2018 8:30:01 AM PDT by BBell
Can a federal judge with rock-ribbed pro-life views set aside her personal tenets and uphold the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion? If she failed to tell Congress during her confirmation process about some of her pro-life statements, including promoting the dubious hypothesis that abortions cause breast cancer, should she even be a federal judge?
Those were among the sharp questions that Wendy Vitter faced Wednesday (April 11) during testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republican President Donald Trump has picked Vitter, general counsel to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and wife of former Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to be judge of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans.
She's won praise from Louisiana's two senators, Republicans Bill Cassidy, who introduced her to the committee, and John Kennedy, who presided over the panel's meeting in the absence of Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Both cited, among other plaudits, her backing by New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, a Democrat.
With both home-state senators in her corner and the GOP holding an 11-10 majority on the committee, Vitter's chances for winning the panel's endorsement would appear to be good. Still, she faced tough questioning from Democratic senators when she appeared on a panel with three other judicial nominees.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked whether Vitter recognizes Roe v. Wade as a "binding precedent, and will you commit to upholding it if you are confirmed as a federal judge?"
Said Vitter: "The short answer, senator, is yes, absolutely, I will be bound by precedent, including Roe versus Wade."
"Just to put into context, I would be a district court judge. I would be bound by both 5th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. I do not consider it the role of a district court judge to either question the precedent or in any way
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Mitch Landrieu backs her and he's a flaming libtard.
Why uphold roe v wade? It was a bad ruling.
Dresd scott was wrong. Dresd scott was overturned.
They really have no right to ask her about future rulings, especially based on personal views, as if only conservatives have them.
Yes, there’s no such thing as “settled law.” Precedents can be undone the same way they were done.
and John Kennedy, who presided over the panel’s meeting in the absence of Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Both cited
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grassley must have been too busy trying to impeach President Trump .
I doubt that she ever said that abortions CAUSE breast cancer. She may have said that there seems to be (might be) a correlation between history of having had an abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.
“. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Hell, babyRuth Ginsberg has shown that logic and the law have nothing to do with her rulings on the Supreme Court. And, of course we have another legal giant, aka the “wise Latino” further torpedoing any claims that progressives have any claim to actual logic, legal or otherwise.
...including promoting the dubious hypothesis that abortions cause breast cancer...
I’m sure they would be asking equally fierce questions if Hillary had won and some lib was being confirmed.
Reverse everything would the GOP “grill” a pro abort judge like this? The question is rhetorical.
Somebody in Minnesota needs to make an ad replacing the words “Roe vs. Wade” with “Dred Scott Decision” in this quote and play it on a loop in Klobuchar’s election. Exposes the tyranny of robedom that is her political philosophy.
“Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked whether Vitter recognizes DRED SCOTT as a “binding precedent, and will you commit to upholding it if you are confirmed as a federal judge?”
So, ... a ‘precedent’ can never be overturned? Even if its wrong?
Senator, Have you ever asked a liberal nominee to set their baby killing bias aside?
Abortion dramatically disrupts the normal hormone levels of early pregnancy. The problem is not that abortion "causes" breast cancer. but that it accelerates cancer growth in women with hormone receptor-positive (ER-positive and/or PR-positive) breast cancers.
And that's not a proper question to throw into a judicial hearing. It's irrelevant to judge selection. They're just throwing anything in there, anything at all, to derail Vitter.
If she’s gonna be bound by precedent rather than the law, there’s absolutely no point in confirming her.
Your second paragraph cuts to the point. And you nail it.
FWIW, there is no history of cancer in my mother’s or father’s family. That said, my sister had an abortion in her 20’s, and had breast cancer in her 40’s. Sure, it’s anecdotal, but still...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.