+
Sign up for
The Upworthiest
Our top stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox.
upworthy

legal system

More

Trump judicial nominee Wendy Vitter won't say if segregated schools are bad.

Asked whether she agreed with the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, federal judicial nominee Wendy Vitter hesitated.

During her confirmation hearing on Wednesday, April 11, Vitter, a nominee for a post in the Eastern District of Louisiana, was asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) whether or not she agreed with the landmark civil rights case that effectively ended legal segregation in schools.

"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," Vitter responded. "Again, my personal, political, or religious views I would set aside."

Pressed on the matter, Vitter refused to clarify whether or not she believed this was a decision the court got right or whether she agreed with it, but she did say she'd uphold precedents set by higher courts if confirmed. The answer quickly drew the shock and ire of the Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization founded in 1950.

Vitter's history as an anti-abortion activist played a role in her hearing as well, when she was asked about Roe v. Wade.

At an anti-abortion rally in 2013, Vitter reportedly said, "Planned Parenthood says they promote women’s health. It is the saddest of ironies that they kill over 150,000 females a year. The first step in promoting women’s health is to let them live."

When asked by Blumenthal whether or not she still believes her past statement, Vitter refused to answer, simply saying that she is "pro-life" but would set aside personal and religious views if confirmed. At another point, Vitter was asked about past efforts to get brochures into doctors offices that falsely claimed abortions cause breast cancer and made a dubious connection between women taking birth control and being murdered.

Vitter and family attend her husband David's swearing in ceremony to the U.S. Senate. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Vitter is just one of many controversial Trump judicial nominees who would receive a lifetime appointment if confirmed.

From Your Site Articles
More

This viral letter from a public defender is a must-read about American justice.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. Everyone.

And one of the most important parts of a fair trial is having access to an attorney who actually knows what they are doing — someone who's willing to devote the proper time and energy to defending your innocence.

In fact, it's stated in both the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights that courts have an obligation to provide an attorney to those who can't secure their own. (Hey, did you know that lawyers can be expensive?!)

This is why public defenders — defense attorneys provided and paid for by public funds — are a thing.

But what happens when a state government decides it's tired of spending so much money on public defenders?

In Missouri, recent budget cuts to the public defender program have been frequent and severe. So the department director decided to do something pretty drastic.

Director of the Missouri public defender program, Michael Barrett. Image via ABC 17/YouTube

In a scathing letter to Governor Jay Nixon, director Michael Barrett pointed out all the ways that the budget cuts are undermining the integrity of our legal system.

He said his attorneys' caseloads are way too high and the governor has refused to do anything about it.

"Seven years ago, your office vetoed [a Senate Bill] ... which would have provided caseload relief to an overburdened public defender system. In denying that relief, you acknowledged that MSPD was operating 'under significant stresses' and committed to working ... to fix the problem, but never did."

He explained that the cuts are affecting, most of all, poor minorities — ensuring they don't get a fair shake in our legal system.

"This action comes even after the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice found that poor black children are being systematically deprived of the rights in Missouri due in large part to the lack of public defenders. Choosing in the wake of that report to further debilitate the very organization that ensures an equal system of justice only adds to the escalating sentiment that the poor and disenfranchised do not receive a fair shake in Missouri's criminal justice system."

Finally, Barrett said he only has one extreme option left if he wants his meager budget to last through the year:

"As of yet, I have not utilized this provision because it is my sincere belief that it is wrong to reassign an obligation placed on the state by the 6th and 14th Amendments to private attorneys who have in no way contributed to the current crisis. However, given the extraordinary circumstances that compel me to entertain any and all avenues for relief, it strikes me that I should begin with the one attorney in the state who not only created this problem, but is in a unique position to address it."

Then, in an absolutely epic mic drop moment, Barrett ended the letter by exercising his authority to appoint the governor himself as counsel in an upcoming case.

Yeah, he can do that.

Missouri governor Jay Nixon. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"Therefore, pursuant to Section 600.042.5 and as Director of the Missouri State Public Defender System tasked with carrying out the State's obligation to ensure that poor people who face incarceration are afforded competent counsel in their defense, I hereby appoint you, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Bar No. 29603, to enter your appearance as counsel of record in the attached case," Barrett wrote.

In other words: "You don't want to give me the resources I need to do my job? Fine. You do it then."

A representative of the governor's office said in an email that Barrett's claims are off base and that the public defender has "seen a 15 percent increase in funding."

Meanwhile, Barrett's office has "filed a lawsuit over what it calls Gov. Jay Nixon's unconstitutional decision to withhold $3.5 million in funds for defending indigent people," according to KY3.

They can sort out the exact numbers in court. And it's doubtful the governor will actually have to show up in court and argue a case.

But in the meantime, we have to applaud Michael Barrett, whose letter has gone viral for bringing some much needed attention to the issue of fair trials for all.

It's refreshing to see a public official willing to go to the mat for the people he's sworn to protect.

You can read the full letter here.

Heroes

Meet the teens leading an unprecedented lawsuit against the U.S. government.

'We are the ones we've been waiting for.'

Out of all the things teenagers are known to do, suing the U.S. government isn't one of them.

Go ahead and add it to the list.

15-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez and 20 other young people ages 8 to 20 have sued the government for its inaction on climate change — and so far they've been successful. This is, needless to say, unprecedented.

Two of the plaintiffs, Xiuhtezcatl and Victoria, react to the judge's decision.

"Judge Coffin decided our Complaint will move forward and put climate science squarely in front of the federal courts," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Philip Gregory.

The 21 young plaintiffs argue that this case is about their constitutional right to life, liberty, and property and that the government hasknown for decades that carbon dioxide pollution has been causing catastrophic climate change. Even with that knowledge, the government has failed to take action and do something about it to help future generations. In fact, the youths' complaint alleges the government has taken definite actions to make climate change worse.

They are having none of that.

When you hear Xiuhtezcatl talk, you realize it was only a matter of time.

All photos used with permission.

Xiuhtezcatl (pronounced "shu-TEZ-cuht") has been leading a youth movement to save the planet since he was ordering from the kids menu at the age of 6. He has assembled a global army of young people over the years with his organization Earth Guardians (which just keeps growing bigger!) to demand sustainable policy from world leaders. The Colorado-based organization has over 1,800 crews on six continents — and counting, partially thanks to social media.

In 2014, Xiuhtezcatl founded Rising Youth for Sustainable Environment (RYSE), a youth council that helps to plan, train, and execute an agenda to help combat climate change. Between the council's role in this federal lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of them by Our Children’s Trust, and the lawsuits they have on the way in other sates, it's clear they are onto something.

Not only does the lawsuit put pressure on world leaders, but the fossil fuel industry must also take it — and young people — seriously. Boom.

"When those in power stand alongside thevery industries that threaten the future of my generation instead of standing with the people, it is areminder that they are not our leaders," said Xiuhtezcatl. "The real leaders are the twenty youth standing with me in court todemand justice for my generation and justice for all youth."

Earth Guardians at Pittsburgh Power Shift in 2015.

For now, the plaintiffs have only been granted permission to argue the case in federal court. But hey, you have to start somewhere.

"Never before in the history of our laws have we seen a coordinated set of legal actions on this scale," said University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood.

It's inspiring to see these young people stand up for their generation and those that will follow. But when you talk to Xiuhtezcatl, you're reminded that they've been forced into this situation. Leaders have failed to act on climate change, so it's up to them to do something about it.

As he puts it, "We are the ones we've been waiting for."

So they'll do it themselves.

More

3 reasons the GOP should be open to swiping right on Obama's SCOTUS nominee.

Let's not waste time arguing about politics on this one, OK?

President Barack Obama's list of traits he wants from a new Supreme Court justice reads a bit like a dating profile, and maybe that's not the worst thing in the world.

Over at SCOTUSblog, the president wrote a guest editorial about the current Supreme Court vacancy, outlining what he's looking for in a nominee. Among the qualifications listed, he writes that he's looking for somebody with "an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity."

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

Also making the list: somebody with "a mastery of the law" who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role" and "judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to facts at hand."

Whether you'd swipe right on the president or not, we can all agree that this is a pretty solid-looking profile for a potential addition to the Supreme Court.

Sadly, news out of the Senate Judiciary Committee seems to suggest it has deleted this particular match-making app from their phones.

Here are three reasons the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to stop all the posturing and work with Obama instead of dragging out this nomination.

1. If we're interested in a truly independent thinker, the best time to have the debate about a new candidate is when the president comes from a different party than the one that controls Congress.

We can all agree that Supreme Court justices shouldn't be blatantly partisan, right? The best way to ensure a truly independent mind on the court? We need to find a candidate that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on, with both sides making a few ideological concessions here and there.

That's how we wound up with Justice Anthony Kennedy, and while you'll find a good number of liberal-minded people willing to say he's too conservative and vice versa, he's the de facto "swing vote."

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

If Democrats controlled both the Senate and White House, Republicans would be unhappy with the nominee. If Republicans controlled both the Senate and White House, Democrats would be unhappy with the nominee. Maybe that means now is the perfect time to have this debate.

For the good of the country, it's time we used the c-word — no, not that one: I'm talking about compromise!

Will any person who makes it through the confirmation hearings be the next Antonin Scalia? No, probably not. But they might be the next Kennedy, and honestly, that's probably better for the country. If we can find somebody who both Democrats and Republicans can agree on (they exist), even if neither side comes away perfectly happy, that's the person we want deciding our most important questions.

If we wait until after the election, there's the possibility that both the Senate and White House will be controlled by a single party, and we will again wind up in an awkward position.

2. "We, the people" know that, at the end of the day, politicians will say what they need to say to help their parties whether or not we agree with them.

Through the years, politicians have made a number of statements both for and against filling judicial vacancies. Unsurprisingly, it always seems to work that the party with the most to gain from filling the vacancy tends to find itself on the side of supporting just that while the party that doesn't, well, doesn't.

Check it out. Here's Republican President Ronald Reagan making the case that the Senate (which was controlled by Democrats at the time) should "join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our Constitutional obligation":

And here's Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) arguing in favor of confirming this nominee (Kennedy) during an election year:


Then there's Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), who in 2005 urged Democrats to stop obstructing President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

And on the other hand, here's then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 threatening to do exactly what he, as vice president, asked Republicans in the Judiciary Committee not to do in 2016:

So maybe it's not the politicians we should listen to? Here's what Scalia himself had to say about leaving the court with only eight justices:

Basically, "Fill that spot. It's your job." Which brings us to the last point...

3. Senate Judiciary Committee, you have one job. This is it.

Nobody says you need to like Obama's nominee. Nobody says you need to confirm the nominee. But you should at least hold hearings and go on record saying why you don't like the nominee. The argument that you just don't replace Supreme Court justices during election years is simply false.

This is politicizing the whole process, and that's something even the man you're charged with replacing was against.

Everybody involved in appointing our next Supreme Court justice is coming from a position of good faith and really does want the best for the country.

That's why it's so important that we come together, have this debate in public, and yes, compromise. To go back to the dating site analogy, you might not match with the very first person you're shown, but if you don't even bother to set up a profile, younever will.

So go on, Senate Judiciary Committee, be open to the idea of a match. You've got an important role to play in this process, and I believe you can do it.

Trending Stories