Current Events > Confidential Kavanaugh Documents leaked by booker (full text)

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

E: Summary from Booker's website+clarification he is source of this leak:

https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=846
---

*Removed
---

I skimmed the docs and really it doesn't seem like much on its face. I think the bigger issue here is that docs like this are being withheld. I can see people pointing to the e-mails about racial profiling for security in 2002 as being bad but to me it just reads like a really intelligent lawyer providing information to a client.

"This is the general law and here are the exceptions, I like this idea, and if followed it presents this type of problems."

My problem (and hopefully the Dem's) is his refusal to answer questions about these opinions/e-mails and what could be in the other 100k+ docs.
---

whitelytning posted...

I skimmed the docs and really it doesn't seem like much on its face. I think the bigger issue here is that docs like this are being withheld. I can see people pointing to the e-mails about racial profiling for security in 2002 as being bad but to me it just reads like a really intelligent lawyer providing information to a client.

"This is the general law and here are the exceptions, I like this idea, and if followed it presents this type of problems."

My problem (and hopefully the Dem's) is his refusal to answer questions about these opinions/e-mails and what could be in the other 100k+ docs.

Uuhhhh. Kavanaugh was advocating for racial discrimination. This is huge

Hawaiian_punch posted...

whitelytning posted...

I skimmed the docs and really it doesn't seem like much on its face. I think the bigger issue here is that docs like this are being withheld. I can see people pointing to the e-mails about racial profiling for security in 2002 as being bad but to me it just reads like a really intelligent lawyer providing information to a client.

"This is the general law and here are the exceptions, I like this idea, and if followed it presents this type of problems."

My problem (and hopefully the Dem's) is his refusal to answer questions about these opinions/e-mails and what could be in the other 100k+ docs.

Uuhhhh. Kavanaugh was advocating for racial discrimination. This is huge

Its not though because there is legal precedent that supports making non race neutral decisions and treating people differently based on their race.

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.
---

Why were these considered confidential?
---

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?
---

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?

I mean look at the guy's name...
---

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?

People on the right will justify anything. 45 didnt say theyre rapists, he said their rapists! Totally different! (About 45s speech about Mexicans). He didnt say he doesnt see how Russia would be the hackers, he meant he does see how Russia would be the hackers!, etc etc

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?

Sadly any roar that Dems make about this will be drowned out because a large portion of the GOP base is in favor of racial profiling. This isn't going to change how the members of the Senate vote and a large portion of their constituents will still support him. That's the sad reality of this.
---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

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?

Sadly any roar that Dems make about this will be drowned out because a large portion of the GOP base is in favor of racial profiling. This isn't going to change how the members of the Senate vote and a large portion of their constituents will still support him. That's the sad reality of this.

But it will piss people off and ensure a blue wave

CableZL posted...

Why were these considered confidential?

Because they make Republicans look bad.
---

Hawaiian_punch posted...

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

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?

Sadly any roar that Dems make about this will be drowned out because a large portion of the GOP base is in favor of racial profiling. This isn't going to change how the members of the Senate vote and a large portion of their constituents will still support him. That's the sad reality of this.

But it will piss people off and ensure a blue wave

I think the GOP are willing to risk a blue wave if it means locking up the court for at least the next 20 years.
---

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.
---

I don't actually read any of what he said in these emails as him supporting racism either. I skimmed through though after a while, it's all rather dry.
---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

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?

Sadly any roar that Dems make about this will be drowned out because a large portion of the GOP base is in favor of racial profiling. This isn't going to change how the members of the Senate vote and a large portion of their constituents will still support him. That's the sad reality of this.

But it will piss people off and ensure a blue wave

I think the GOP are willing to risk a blue wave if it means locking up the court for at least the next 20 years.

Yeah they will use their partisan stooges so 45 can pardon himself and limit citizenship to white people because thats the originalist interpretation of the constitution or some depraved shit like that

CableZL posted...

Why were these considered confidential?

because they make Kavanaugh look bad
---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

I think the GOP are willing to risk a blue wave if it means locking up the court for at least the next 20 years.

Kavanaugh has committed perjury multiple times in these hearings. He will not last once Dems take Congress. That should be disqualifying in the first place, but Republicans and red state Dems don't care about facts.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Kavanaugh has committed perjury multiple times in these hearings. He will not last once Dems take Congress.

If that's really true wouldn't his nomination be a good thing for the left?
---

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?

I didn't get that at all from him. He clearly has an issue here ad he said himself in the first post.
---

I told you guys yesterday, that woman who made the WP hand sign during the confirmation was up to something.

I told you guys, wait until you see his rulings and you will give me the reason. Then andel had a meltdown and I added him to ignore.

Turns out I was right, the guy hasnt even been confirmed yet and there is already a story about him advocating for racial discrimination!

shockthemonkey posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

I told you guys yesterday, that woman who made the WP hand sign during the confirmation was up to something.

I told you guys, wait until you see his rulings and you will give me the reason. Then andel had a meltdown and I added him to ignore.

Turns out I was right, the guy hasnt even been confirmed yet and there is already a story about him advocating for racial discrimination!

O_o