https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-threaten-release-confidential-kavanaugh-documents/story?id=57643589
"I come from a long line, as all of us do, of Americans that understand what that kind of civil disobedience is and I understand the consequences," Booker said. "So I am, right now, before your process is finished, I am going to release the e-mail about racial profiling and I understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate. If Senator Cornyn believes I violate Senate rules, I openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that e-mail right now."
In a 2002 Kavanaugh email released by Booker's office, Kavanaugh with the subject line "racial profiling" about internal White House discussions on whether airport security and other law enforcement should strive for a "race-neutral" system after 9/11.
In one of the emails, Kavanaugh referenced a possible interim policy and wrote "the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral DO need to grapple - and grapple now -- with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is implemented."
Thank you Cory Booker.
Unless you've got some other text that I'm missing, this literally shows that Kavanaugh was against racial profiling, and for a racially neutral system to screen/flag for potential terrorists.
imo not a good move. The emails really just portray a man who does not want to racially profile people but also needs to come up with an immediate response to the worst terror attack in modern history before a followup strike occurs. The emails don't really show me anything to be upset about, and now Booker is at risk of being ejected from the Senate? Risking his seat for this email just seems like a waste, if anything its a detriment to the so called "blue wave" and hopes of having Democrats regain control of the government.
Kavanaugh referenced a possible interim policy and wrote "the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral DO need to grapple - and grapple now -- with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is implemented."
Point is, racial profiling should never be a thing a supreme court justice thinks of when maintaining order. This is the highest court, why should someone who even thought of it as a possible measure allowed in? Doesn't matter if the worst tragedy just occured, blind racial bias should never be allowed in the justice system.
Right, because people who do favor programs that use racial profiling have the easy answer of "use racial profiling". Those who don't want to use it, such as the people in the conversation, have to figure out what to do. Because the easiest answer, racial profiling, would not be acceptable.
It seems like this was a publicity stunt for Booker and the reality is these emails put Kavanaugh in a better light than what the narrative has become.
How is it blind racial bias to profile people coming from the Middle East after the worst terror attack in history just occurred, committed by Middle Easterners who are actively warning that they're preparing another attack? I agree that racial profiling is wrong but I guess I see it more as being regional discrimination which seems entirely reasonable given the circumstances, and given that he acknowledges its a temporary solution.
Emails
I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be looking for. I'm looking at the email this quote is from, and I guess this thread is about since its title doesn't match the article's, and I see nothing incriminating.
This just looks like mediocre ammunition to be used for showmanship ahead of the midterms, honestly. It's not particularly insightful outside of highlighting what is actually going on during these hearings, which is basically warfare.
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1037696613899284480
Regardless of what Booker's done Grassley is an ass.
My fear is, alongside this
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-leaked-documents.html?utm_source=nytimes&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=actiontw&utm_content=scotus0906
is that Kavanaugh could additionally have racial profiling ruled fairplay, under the constitution, using his seat in the Supreme Court.
Because thats not fair and equal justice for all ffs. Why should you be labeled as a suspected terrorist because you share the same nationality of a dickhead in your country. Doesn't matter if it was after 9/11, no judge should use a terror attack as justification to strip inalienable rights.
Senator Mazie Hirono is also releasing documents
https://twitter.com/maziehirono/status/1037721832043020289
Independent of either of those emails he should not be appointed because the president is under criminal investigation.
The part about abortion being "settled law" was 100% correct. Some scholars would say that NO ruling is "settled law" because the supreme court could reinterpret things on a whim. It has nothing to do with his views on abortion. It's a factual statement.
And your fear is unfounded. You have no reason to believe this from the documents released. In fact, documents released show the opposite.
Yeah but the point is that he said it was settled law in the past and in his confirmation hearing. These documents seem to indicate he doesn't actually believe that.
It doesn't. That line in the document has no bearing on his beliefs. It's a factual statement about others' beliefs, unless you're talking about a different part of the document.
Booker chose the wrong hill to die on.
So before his confirmation he says that it is not settled. During his confirmation he says it is settled. Which is true? If I'm a moderate Republican senator how do I vote if I'm worried about reproductive rights?
I've not seen where he says it's not settled. Can you show me?
I don't have a source off hand, but he has stated it is settled law. The flaw with the argument is that every law is settled law until the Supreme Court reverses it, so it effectively doesn't mean anything.
You already quoted it......
He says that some scholars say it's not settled law because no law is settled law. Where does HE say he believes it is not settled law?
Silence, I can't tell if you just can't connect the dots or are being purposefully obtuse (the fact that you ignored the latter half of my post tells me it's the latter) but the point here is that Kavanaugh clearly believes that Roe v Wade can be overruled and that prior precedent doesn't really mean anything. Now that he has to be confirmed to the Supreme Court and knows that to get that nomination he has to soothe the concerns of the two pro-choice Republicans who have to confirm him he is saying it's settled law. The worry here is that he is going to get appointed and then rule against Roe v Wade later down the road.
in the emails he states that the supreme court could revisit it and that there were 3 votes against roe already (given how seats have changed there are now 4 with his being a certain 5th)
There shouldnt even be doubt in a life time court position that can weigh in on rights and freedoms of the populace. Rs hiding information during the entire hearing is enough of a red flag to be worried.
So you have no real concrete proof, just "connecting the dots". Gotcha.
The odds are just as high as they are for any other person. The view that laws can be interpreted and reinterpreted to reverse rulings is not an exclusive thing to any political persuasion.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1037775963424280576
https://twitter.com/ericajanes/status/1037779258318512128
Looks like Brett knows as much about birth control as your average GOP guy.
Not an argument.
So the argument here is that a conservative justice wrote an op-ed defending a conservative president and agreeing that Roe vs Wade could be overturned but we are just going to assume he doesn't support that because he said so during a nomination hearing that requires him to convince two people that he needs to vote for him that he doesn't actually think it can be overturned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.