Red Mosquito

So much for private conversations between government officials.

Bi_3 wrote:So much for private conversations between government officials.

Oh no.

ABNorman wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So much for private conversations between government officials.

Oh no.

Laugh all you want, this is going to have serious long term effects on how officials communicate.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

ABNorman wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So much for private conversations between government officials.

Oh no.

Laugh all you want, this is going to have serious long term effects on how officials communicate.

hopefully it will also have effects on future SCJ confirmation processes

Since it's likely to drive these types on conversations onto unofficial or even classified/compartmented systems that will not be available (if even known) to the committee, it certainly will. This was a one time play.


Since I can't check from here, what was in these messages that was so crucial to get out?

Staffer 1: You know those records? The ones that would be released for any other Supreme Court nominee?

Staffer 2: Yeah?

Staffer 1: Over which no actual effort has been made to exert privilege?

Staffer 2: Sure.

Staffer 1: And for which no procedural reason otherwise exists for withholding from the public sphere?

Staffer 2: Yup.

Staffer 1: Someone released them.

Staffer 2: My god. I can never use e-mail again.

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

ABNorman wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So much for private conversations between government officials.

Oh no.

Laugh all you want, this is going to have serious long term effects on how officials communicate.

hopefully it will also have effects on future SCJ confirmation processes

Since it's likely to drive these types on conversations onto unofficial or even classified/compartmented systems that will not be available (if even known) to the committee, it certainly will. This was a one time play.


Since I can't check from here, what was in these messages that was so crucial to get out?

Whether racial profiling at airports was merited. From a 2002 email. Kavanaugh favored a race-neutral approach.

--- wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

ABNorman wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:So much for private conversations between government officials.

Oh no.

Laugh all you want, this is going to have serious long term effects on how officials communicate.

hopefully it will also have effects on future SCJ confirmation processes

Since it's likely to drive these types on conversations onto unofficial or even classified/compartmented systems that will not be available (if even known) to the committee, it certainly will. This was a one time play.


Since I can't check from here, what was in these messages that was so crucial to get out?

Whether racial profiling at airports was merited. From a 2002 email. Kavanaugh favored a race-neutral approach.

Really? Booker's "I am Spartacus" moment was over a race-neutral approach to post-9/11 profiling? What a time to be alive.

There were also discussions about how to use a non-neutral approach in some screenings (ie, find legal loopholes to institute racial profiling in practice).

--- wrote:There were also discussions about how to use a non-neutral approach in some screenings (ie, find legal loopholes to institute racial profiling in practice).

So something overwhelming supported by the public in 2002.

Bi_3 wrote:

--- wrote:There were also discussions about how to use a non-neutral approach in some screenings (ie, find legal loopholes to institute racial profiling in practice).

So something overwhelming supported by the public in 2002.

January 2002, to be specific.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 211591002/

At the time, Kavanaugh was part of the team of Bush lawyers working with the Justice Department on the legality of those searches. In some of the documents released by Booker, the lawyers are questioning whether they should create a “race-neutral system at all” or use race in some circumstances as a factor to decide who gets searched.

Kavanaugh writes in one email that he and others favor “effective security measures that are race neutral” but need to decide how to deal with such measures while searches are being conducted before comprehensive standards are determined.

Scandalous.

McParadigm wrote:

respecting precedence is important, but it doesn’t matter. This is a purely political process. Unless his secret rulings as a secret judge in some secret court are filled with racist language, it’s as good as done based on partisan makeup.

Less fantastical would be the existence of comments that indicate positions on topics like executive authority, abortion, or gay rights that are intentionally not made evident by his answers in these hearings. His statement that Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” which is evasive at best, is a great example.

<snip>

Fantastical, but apparently what they went for anyway.

I’m not clear what Booker’s intentions are. It’s possible that it’s less to do with the topic being directly discussed in that exchange, and more to do with some of Kavanaugh’s comments along the way (ie the part where he says that in his ideal unitary executive, the President would dictate constitutional conclusions to the Solicitor General). It’s possible that it was a message to the majority: “we are prepared to share what we find.” In which case I assume there would be some behind-doors “unless...” dealing going on (that seems more like Schumer’s bullshit than Booker’s). It could just be one big hilarious misstep.

Then again, it could just be about matching statements given under oath to evidence that demonstrates perjury...

So more drama while I've been gone.

So I'll go totally off topic and saying after reading up on it a bit, I find his 4th Amendment views problematic.

McParadigm wrote:I’m not clear what Booker’s intentions are. It’s possible that it’s less to do with the topic being directly discussed in that exchange, and more to do with some of Kavanaugh’s comments along the way (ie the part where he says that in his ideal unitary executive, the President would dictate constitutional conclusions to the Solicitor General). It’s possible that it was a message to the majority: “we are prepared to share what we find.” In which case I assume there would be some behind-doors “unless...” dealing going on (that seems more like Schumer’s bullshit than Booker’s). It could just be one big hilarious misstep.

Then again, it could just be about matching statements given under oath to evidence that demonstrates perjury...

That's a huge reach, and please stop making me sound like I want to defend this guy. I don't.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I’m not clear what Booker’s intentions are. It’s possible that it’s less to do with the topic being directly discussed in that exchange, and more to do with some of Kavanaugh’s comments along the way (ie the part where he says that in his ideal unitary executive, the President would dictate constitutional conclusions to the Solicitor General). It’s possible that it was a message to the majority: “we are prepared to share what we find.” In which case I assume there would be some behind-doors “unless...” dealing going on (that seems more like Schumer’s bullshit than Booker’s). It could just be one big hilarious misstep.

Then again, it could just be about matching statements given under oath to evidence that demonstrates perjury...

That's a huge reach, and please stop making me sound like I want to defend this guy. I don't.

maybe a little though?

I don’t know what your referring to. All of those are viable scenarios as far as I can tell, and none of that was meant sarcastically.

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I’m not clear what Booker’s intentions are. It’s possible that it’s less to do with the topic being directly discussed in that exchange, and more to do with some of Kavanaugh’s comments along the way (ie the part where he says that in his ideal unitary executive, the President would dictate constitutional conclusions to the Solicitor General). It’s possible that it was a message to the majority: “we are prepared to share what we find.” In which case I assume there would be some behind-doors “unless...” dealing going on (that seems more like Schumer’s bullshit than Booker’s). It could just be one big hilarious misstep.

Then again, it could just be about matching statements given under oath to evidence that demonstrates perjury...

That's a huge reach, and please stop making me sound like I want to defend this guy. I don't.

maybe a little though?

I defend respecting the institutions and policies and procedures they rely on. Sometimes that makes things a lot worse, but the illusion of democratic control is nothing without.

you may want to sit down for this, but:

Fox News wrote:“We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker’s staff asked us to,” said Bill Burck, a lawyer for Bush involved in the release of documents. “We were surprised to learn about Senator Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly."

"Apparently, some just wanted to break the rules and make a scene, but didn’t check their email," a spokesman for committee Republicans said in a statement. The committee posted the same documents.