How would Buck have voted on Brown V. Board of Education?
You may recall that last week’s BigMedia question of the week for reporters was, “Does Ken Buck support a ban on the use of morning-after pill, even for a woman who is raped by a family member?
The answer turns out to be yes, as reported by 9News in a story fact checking a Michael Bennet ad. Buck opposes all use of the morning after pill, because it could harm a fertilized egg, according the Buck spokesman Owen Loftus, who was cited by 9News. (More on this topic later this week.)
This week’s BigMedia question of the week for reporters is: If Ken Buck had been a member of the U.S. Supreme Court at the time, how would he have voted on Brown V. Board of Education.
The question arises after ColoradoPols posted a video of Buck last week, in which he is quoted as saying:
“In the 1950s, we had the best schools in the world. And the United States government decided to get more involved in federal education. Where are we now, after all those years of federal involvement, are we better or are we worse?”
The video got a bit of play nationally, but surprisingly the Colorado media has essentially ignored it.
The truth is, you really can’t conclude anything about Buck’s view on the topic from the video. But the fact that he specifically cites the 1950s does raise legitimate questions about his views on Brown V. Board of Education, especially in light of his general opposition to federal involvement in education.
So reporters should ask him about it. It’s definitely in the public interest to clarify what Buck thinks about one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in American history.
Like this story? Steal it! Feel free to republish it in part or in full, just please give credit to The Colorado Independent and add a link to the original.
SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
The Colorado Independent is happy to announce our participation in the News Match 2017 fundraising campaign. This is your chance to double your tax-deductible donation to our […]Read More
The Home Front: Longmont coughs up $200,000 for ‘warrantless police dog searches’ at a subsidized apartment
“Longmont on Tuesday announced that it has agreed to pay $210,000 to four tenants of The Suites and their ACLU attorneys as part of a […]Read More