"Was Loving versus Virgina decided correctly by the United States Supreme Court?"Vitter's answer: "What's Loving versus Virginia?"
Loving v. Virginia, as lots and lots and LOTS of people who aren't lawyers or senators know, was a unanimous Supreme Court decision (1967) that declared state anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. It's a landmark civil rights case that those of us who are over 40 learned in high school, and those of us under 40 learned on Law & Order reruns. So, there's absolutely no reason to believe that VItter, a Tulane Law School graduate by the way, never heard of the case. In fact, there's no reason to believe he doesn't know the details of the case. What's uncomfortably easy to believe, however, is that he didn't know how to answer the question.
Needless to say, the answer is a no-brainer for anyone who isn't a racist: Yes.
But maybe I shouldn't be so hard on the senator. Perhaps he thought it was a trick question, like, you know, What's two plus two?
I am pretty sure that if I did an informal survey of my friends -- the lot of which are working in nonprofit advocacy in the U.S. and who'd consider themselves progressive -- most would also not know Loving v Virginia. That's because they haven't had to know: yes, so-called mixed race marriages were forbidden, but they are in their 30s and 40s, so remembering the name of the specific case... Nope. I'd bet they don't know. And I wouldn't hold that against them, even after they've worked for years on progressive campaigns.
And if I had to ask my own black mother if she could name the case, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't know. She's over 60 and grew up in the South. Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967, when Vitter was 6 years old.
"Gotchas" like these are too simple: someone shoves a microphone in anyone's face and it is best, yes, to actually read what is talking about then trust that the person isn't asking you to comment on something that isn't as they described or speaking authoritatively on something you don't *really* know. He did what politicians are trained by media people to do: fell back on core bullet points that he *wanted* to talk about.
Posted by: Tammi L. Coles | November 19, 2009 at 02:26 AM
Tammi, I wouldn't hold it against your friends for not knowing what L v. V was about, and that's because your friends aren't lawyers or senators. L v. V is not some obscure case. There's really no excuse for Vitter not having an answer. My feeling, as I think I made clear, isn't that Vitter isn't familiar with the case, but that he didn't know HOW to answer. HUGE difference.
Posted by: Kim | November 19, 2009 at 06:13 AM