David Vitter doesn't know if Loving was decided correctly

After having very little to say beyond, "The Senator believes judges should follow the law and not legislate from the bench" when asked about the racist judge in Louisiana that refused to marry an interracial couple in the summer of 2009, I thought the next logical question would be to ask him if he thought Loving v. Virginia was good law.

I wish I could say his answer surprised me.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Senator David Vitter
• Loving v. Virginia
• racism

[technicschic]

Wtf? He went to law school and has never read Loving v. Virginia? That's a case EVERYONE reads in their first year of law school in their Con Law class. How did he ever graduate without reading such an important case that all 1st year students read? After graduating he was a lawyer and professor? Wtf? How did he even pass the bar? Loving transcends boundaries as well - it's important in Domestic Relations/family law and the gay marriage issue as well as Con Law. What is with this man.

[mistergarth]

Well, at least he's not on the Judiciary Committee. It does seem like all US Senaters should be familiar with the Loving case, though. Even if he's unfamiliar with the details of the case, he could make a blanket statement opposing anti-miscegenation laws... unless, of course, he doesn't want to upset his racist wingnut base in Louisiana.

[Soulthinker2007]

Not only he is a hypocrite but also a ignorant boob. Wished he resigned like Weiner.

[curunirofmanycolours]

Oh. My. God, I fucking hate the politicians in my state

[gomroughneck]

David Vitter was just re-elected in LOUISIANA by a landslide. Maybe we like our Senator.

[guyfroml]

@technicschic I didn't say the case wasn't mentioned, but it was not given the weight or emphasis of more important and "previous" landmark civil rights cases. Remember, by 1967, major civil rights cases were becoming old news - there were several landmark decisions that came before Loving that was the basis for the Loving ruling. There's likely two or three major civil rights rulings in most states. In a semester or two of Con Law you can't cover everything in depth.

[technicschic]

@guyfroml I don't know what you learned in Con Law, but it is a very important 14th Amendment/anti-discrimination case. It also leads towards discussion of 10th Amendment/"states rights" issues - Alabama even had a ban on interracial marriage on its books until less than a decade ago. If it wasn't for Loving and the 14th Amendment, Alabama could have continued to enforce their ban on interracial marriage. It is also important for family law and gay rights.

[guyfroml]

@humanisall Scumbag!

[guyfroml]

@NotsoNutso What an appropriate youtube name you chose for youself.

[guyfroml]

@technicschic Wrong..obviously not all schools cover it. Loving was not covered in my first year of law school at Loyola and my partner attended U. Texas and he says they didn't cover there either.

[Brainstrain]

That fool acted really foolishly. '

Also, he's racist.

[drawnhere]

David Vitter has no shame.

What kind of a MORON doesn't know Loving v. Virginia?

Just....stunning.