Senator Vitter doesn’t know if Loving was correctly decided.
Vitter graduated Tulane Law School in 1988. Loving v. Virginia, decided in 1967, was a unanimous Supreme Court decision that declared state anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws unconstitutional. It is one of the bedrock civil rights cases, right up there with Brown. It is simply not credible for any lawyer to claim ignorance when asked about Loving.
Anyway, this question did not come out of the blue. Several weeks ago, I invited Senator Vitter to condemn the racist Lousiana judge that refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. Vitter passed, simply smiling at me as the elevator doors closed on him.
When other reporters asked about it, his press shop put out a statement:
First, Sen. Vitter thinks that all judges should follow the law as written and not make it up as they go along. Second, it would be amazing for anyone to do a story based on this fringe, left-wing political hack’s blog — he’s been handcuffed and detained in the past over his guerrilla tactics.”
Still not one word of criticism for the racist judge! (And yes, the latter half of the quote referred to yours truly, but that’s another story for another day. For now, just note the absence of the word “arrested”.)
So I decided to concentrate on the first half of the question. I emailed Vitter’s Press Secretary and asked if Vitter believed Loving had been decided correctly or if it was a case of unwarranted judicial activism. I let them know that if they sent me back a clarification, I wouldn’t have to ask the Senator on camera. Of course, if I did see the Senator before I received their statement, hopefully he would be prepared to answer the question.
Almost a month had passed when I ran into the Senator yesterday.
Here is the result:
When you see train-wrecks like this, I think it is only natural to look for some sort of explanation. Well… I think I may have found one. In the next video, shot from outside Vitter’s office, look closely at what is on the television:
“[Stark has] been handcuffed and detained in the past over his guerrilla tactics.”
As was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Sir, I salute your indefatigability!
FGFM
18 Nov 09 at 4:21 pm
He’s focused on Captain Tax? That’s great! I for one support all of our troops.
Jon
18 Nov 09 at 4:47 pm
I confess I couldn’t tell who that was on TV.
I confess I THINK it was Jon Stewart.
And I confess that if it was Jon Stewart, then either I don’t understand you or the joke is going way over my head. Which happens.
Lex
18 Nov 09 at 4:49 pm
Oh man… I thought it was clear… that’s Glenn Beck.
Mike Stark
18 Nov 09 at 4:50 pm
Wow! Vitter is an idiot.
The Janitor
18 Nov 09 at 5:17 pm
Glad to see you exposing what an idiot David Vitter is. No surprise there. He is a national embarrassment. However, the Democrats are running an equally absurd candidate, Representative Melancon, against him. He is more conservative than the Republican Representatives from New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
Jay
18 Nov 09 at 5:32 pm
You’ll never know the good you do. Keep asking the hard questions and posting the video!
rewinn
18 Nov 09 at 6:23 pm
[...] Republicans wonder why people call them racist: Sen. David “Diapers” Vitter, R-La., says he doesn’t know whether Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case striking down ban…. (Yes, I know that, hypothetically, one could argue that the case was wrongly decided but that [...]
Odds and ends for 11/18 « Blog on the Run: Reloaded
18 Nov 09 at 7:30 pm
this man is an idiot., they even made a movie about this case. timothy hutton is in it.
ricky
18 Nov 09 at 8:25 pm
Christ on a crutch, I went to law school almost 20 years ago, and I still recall Loving> from Con Law. The simple answer is (and I am a bit of a “strict constructionist”) that the 14th Am means the case was correctly decided. This is, like, effing elementary.
He didn’t even know what that case was?!
Mona
19 Nov 09 at 1:54 am
I wonder who irons Vitter’s sheets. One must be very careful to get the eye holes just right and the crease to fit pointed heads.
john
19 Nov 09 at 11:53 am
I’m no fan of Vitter, but his response was ok from a legal standpoint. Remember, everyone, a morally correct decision is not the same thing as a legally correct decision.
For example, Rosa Parks’ decision on that fateful bus was obviously correct from a moral point of view, but it also was clearly incorrect from a legal point of view. This is often the case with unjust laws. Legal correctness deviates from moral correctness.
So asking a casual question like “was XYZ correctly decided?” leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Molybeenie
19 Nov 09 at 12:30 pm
He doesn’t know about Loving; he’d have to read the case.
And he’s a lawyer.
Sure, he hasn’t practiced law in many years, but it’s hard to believe he has no idea about Loving. I mean, hell, I remember that one from my paralegal training, back in another lifetime. It’s like having been a practicing mathematician who can’t even explain long division anymore.
low-tech cyclist
19 Nov 09 at 12:34 pm
Just plain sad, in 2009 this nation has a Senator with ideas and actions of David Vitter.
He keeps being re-elected.
By people who think the way he does.
Representitive Democracy for our lowest common denominator.
I take heart in knowing the chances of his point of view regaining a national majority are no longer viable.
Mike
19 Nov 09 at 12:48 pm
During Katrina, Senator Landrieu was the US Senator taking heat over any lack of Federal response. I wondered, there are two US Senators for each state, why is the other one not making themselves accountable. Where is this person. Not long after, we find out by virtue of prostitution charges and admissions by Senator Vitter. What a man!!!! And now we know the OTHER US Senator for Louisiana…..
Elmer Fudd
19 Nov 09 at 12:51 pm
As husband to a mixed race woman who was born before Loving v. Virginia was decided, I find Vitter’s lack of knowledge of the case to be alarming and troubling. This guy is a law school graduate and a former attorney, and he doesn’t know this case? Shameful!
Clemster
19 Nov 09 at 1:56 pm
(a) Vitter: Diaper Man
(b) “detained”: per the Supreme Court, if a police officer does so little as touching your sleeve, requires you to hand over your drivers’ license, or otherwise creates a situation in which you do not feel you are free to go, you have been “arrested,” and if it’s done without probable cause or within a narrow set of exigent circumstances, it is false arrest and a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. The word “detained” means exactly the same thing as “arrested,” but state actors frequently use it hoping that it sounds like “just sorta slowed down a little,” instead of fully and completely arrested.
raincrow
19 Nov 09 at 2:59 pm
He’s clearly an idiot, but he does come from a long line of idiots.
Another Tulane grad: http://abovethelaw.com/2008/04/i_try_not_to_read_that_many_ca.php
kathryn
19 Nov 09 at 3:48 pm
Why not ask him a REAL question – like, does he wear diapers when he’s with his wife like he does when he’s with whores?
me
19 Nov 09 at 10:34 pm
[...] I can say about this is that David Vitter should be target #1 for national Democrats in the Senate. This is absolutely unbelievable: Vitter graduated Tulane Law School in 1988. Loving v. Virginia, decided in 1967, was a unanimous [...]
Friday Open Thread : Delaware Liberal
20 Nov 09 at 12:01 pm
Every time I think that I’m clean out of ‘I can’t believe the level of idiots that are elected to the US Congress’, here comes another one.
How these people keep finding other people willing to agree with them, and continue to return them to office, year after year, is just beyond belief – but there they are, year after year after….. and when they finally retire to their mega-corporation, mega-salary private ‘reward’ job?
Another one, more right-wing than the last one, shows up just in time to take their place.
Gah….
Angie in WA State
20 Nov 09 at 9:51 pm
[...] out a statement saying that judges should follow the law and not make it up as they go along. So I followed up by asking the Senator if he thought the Supreme Court correctly decided Loving v. Virginia – [...]
Vitter, this time won’t say if Brown correctly decided at StarkReports.com
3 Dec 09 at 9:27 pm