Discussion: Rosen: Not 'Productive' To Say If Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board Correctly Decided

2 Likes

Do these people get paid to be hateful douche bags? I guess the answer indirectly at least is yes.

25 Likes

“I have views about lots of Supreme Court cases,” Rosen said, “but I’m not being nominated for this position to be the Solicitor General nor a judge and I think in this context the point I’m trying to make is that, whatever the law is, whether it’s a decision I would favor or disfavor, I see it as the role of the Department of Justice to uphold the law such as it is, unless Congress or the courts change it.”

Wow, that’s actually a reasonable and proper position to take. Now, whether or not he really believes that is another question entirely…

13 Likes

When asked if he believes it should be ok to murder and eat people he went on to say that its not his place to make such a decision, that if the law passed saying that the first born child was to be sacrificed to the FSM then that is what he will defend, unless its Obamacare.

23 Likes

That’s a “no”…he does not believe they were correctly decided and is just another white Christian nationalist out to abuse power in an attempt to save the white Christian hegemony from demographic shifts. Anyone who believes the answer is “yes” would just fucking say so.

Frankly, the most honest answer he could have given would have been “Sir, I’m not interested in those opinions. I’m being hired to help defend voter suppression, gerrymandering and the dismantling of the VRA. We’re not even planning on getting to Roe and Brown until AFTER we’re structured our elections laws and processes to guarantee white Christian nationalist conservative minority-rule by the GOP.”

29 Likes

I guess we’re reduced to hoping that these contortions are to avoid the rhetorical trap of having to answer the Roe question and not that he’s unwilling to pay even lip service to Brown. But with the kind of freaks they’ve been nominating it’s hard to know.

17 Likes

Why?

Prosecutors have large leeway in what laws they choose for prosecution and how aggressive they are, etc.

Knowing if he’d enforce Roe protections with vigor or dragging his feet is relevant.

Same with Brown.

19 Likes

So does he disagree with DOJ not defending Obamacare?

14 Likes

Not productive for him.

2 Likes

To be fair, it’s the one thing Republicans are willing to do on a voluntary basis.

16 Likes

You know what they say

7 Likes

This is the best answer he could give because until he’s confronted with the two landmark cases he won’t know what the direction the wind is blowing.

It’s the common cop out of nominees who are political rather than in service to America.

3 Likes

Ask him about Plessy v. Ferguson. I bet he’d be happy to hold forth on that one and proclaim it correctly decided.

10 Likes

Well I dunno Rosen…it’s pretty fking simple to agree/disagree with the laws of the land…you know those laws you’ll be asked to uphold…

3 Likes

I can understand waffling on Roe, given that he’s been nominated by a crazy, vengeful, misogynist. But Brown? If Brown isn’t settled law then there is no such thing.

10 Likes

And yet Trump’s DOJ is not defending the ACA in court. If a statement is made by a Republican, you can be sure it’s either hypocritical or it’s a lie.

4 Likes

I love it that judicial nominees duck hard questions because they might have to rule on them and this guy ducks hard questions because he won’t have to rule on them. Might as well just drop this whole “confirmation” idea completely.

11 Likes

What about Dred Scott? Are you willing to take a position on that?!?!

11 Likes

Or Marbury v. Madison.

10 Likes

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but since Roe v Wade was based upon the presumption of the right to privacy, then can someone tell me why Amazon, Google, et al have their collective heads up my ass mining for data they can sell someone, anyone? Did I waive my right to privacy in the EULA? Who reads that? And since a fundamental of contract law is that an agreement can’t be so one-sided it violates the inherent rights of the other party, how can the EULA withstand judicial scrutiny?

Asking for a friend…