LogFAQs > #908227749

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Confidential Kavanaugh Documents leaked by booker (full text)
whitelytning 09/06/18 1:13:22 PM #14:	solosnake posted... whitelytning posted... To me, it reads as more of him providing two methods to do something, one is race neutral, one isn't, but he recognizes that there is (some) legal support for both positions. And you think it is acceptable to have a lifetime appointee to our highest court that believes it is okay to use racial profiling because it has precedent in history? The better way to put it is that I don't have a problem with someone that can accurately identify the legal options available when considering an action. The Supreme Court has upheld non race neutral actions. That is a fact that has nothing to do with my political beliefs. I'm not on the right. I didn't vote for Trump and don't like the huge majority of what this administration does. I have a huge problem with Trump appointing a judge that has a written record of support a president in avoiding legal recourse for his actions while in office. I also have a huge problem with the GOP pushing this through in a hurry without letting people review his record. I don't have a problem with a lawyer accurately reporting the law in an e-mail. Stop jumping to conclusions just because I can read emails differently than you. --- ********************************************** https://imgur.com/iZdWIKJ <cite>whitelytning posted [p:908227749] in Confidenti... [t:76973506]...</cite> <quote><cite>solosnake posted...</cite> <quote><cite>whitelytning posted...</cite> <quote>To me, it reads as more of him providing two methods to do something, one is race neutral, one isn't, but he recognizes that there is (some) legal support for both positions.</quote> And you think it is acceptable to have a lifetime appointee to our highest court that believes it is okay to use racial profiling because it has precedent in history?</quote> The better way to put it is that I don't have a problem with someone that can accurately identify the legal options available when considering an action. The Supreme Court has upheld non race neutral actions. That is a fact that has nothing to do with my political beliefs. I'm not on the right. I didn't vote for Trump and don't like the huge majority of what this administration does. I have a huge problem with Trump appointing a judge that has a written record of support a president in avoiding legal recourse for his actions while in office. I also have a huge problem with the GOP pushing this through in a hurry without letting people review his record. I don't have a problem with a lawyer accurately reporting the law in an e-mail. Stop jumping to conclusions just because I can read emails differently than you. --- ********************************************** https://imgur.com/iZdWIKJ</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1