Posted on 09/06/2018 8:53:34 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) on Thursday tweeted screenshots of documents from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White House that are stamped "committee confidential."
"These are the docs Rs don't want you to see—because they show that Judge Kavanaugh wrongly believes that Native Hawaiian programs are Constitutionally questionable. I defy anyone reading this to be able to conclude that it should be deemed confidential in any way, shape, or form," Hirono said in a tweet.
Hirono's tweet includes two pages of an email thread from 2002 about "Treasury testimony on Capital Investment in Indian Country."
"I think the testimony needs to make clear that any program targeting Native Hawaiins as a group is subject to strict scrutiny and of questionable validity under the constitution," Kavanaugh wrote in the email thread.
Though the documents released by Hiriono were stamped "committee confidential," they were released publicly minutes before Hirono's tweet by Sen. Chuck Grassley's office without the confidential markings.
Grassley's office released a new tranche of documents from Kavanaugh's work in the White House on Thursday morning.
The emails had previously been labeled "committee confidential," but Grassley noted his staff worked through Wednesday night to tackle "last-minute" requests from Democrats to release the documents publicly.
Hirono said at Kavanaugh's hearing that she saw no reason for the paper to be confidential.
“I would defy anyone reading this document to conclude this document should be deemed confidential in any way shape or form,” she said.
She is the second Democratic senator to release documents that were deemed "committee confidential," following Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) earlier on Thursday.
Eject from Senate.
Don’t know what “Native Hawaiian” set asides are but the very name suggests discrimination issues.
I’m gonna need more popcorn.
FWIW, I have no problem with his comments that the Hawaii programs are constitutionally questionable. Maybe they are. It’s not been tackled in the SCOTUS.
WWMCD
What
Would
Mc
Cain
Do?
I agree with Judge K on this. ANY program that gives partiality to one group over another is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, we have justices that seem to have no problem with that (i.e. Affirmative Action). Judge K would do well to remove that from jurisprudence.
In words, this Democrat’s objection is that Kavanaugh is Not a racist.
We’ve set a new standard that if you have brown skin an/or a vagina you can violate Senate rules with impunity.
Not good.
Sergeant-at-Arms, arrest these people.
“Eject from Senate.”
All expelled Senators were expelled for supporting rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_expelled_or_censured
Really think our “leaders” in the US Senate will do anything about it?
Has Mitch said anything in the last 48 hours?
If Pickles got a deep tan, she’d be even more invulnerable than she is now.
Obama and other Democrats supported Hawaiian secessionists (and even California cessionists) despite a history of hysteria about Alaska and Texas secessionist talk.
There MUST be consequences for breaking legislative rules. If these people are not held accountable...then there are no rules and this is total anarchy.
Wouldn’t Native Hawaiian just be Native Indians, period?
The problem is that ‘Rat Senators are now freely determining what should and should not be considered confidential/classified/secret.
As ClintonCo and FraudCo do.
In words, this Democrat’s objection is that Kavanaugh is Not a racist.
—————
Exactly right.
Not being racist is, to the Left, racist.
“We’ve set a new standard that if you have brown skin an/or a vagina you can violate Senate rules with impunity.
Not good.”
There should be a notable “exception” for male GOPe Senators who also “come equipped with vaginas.” My preemptive apologies to our female FReepers. Mitch McConnell is clearly “front hole” in his approach to leadership.
No maybe about it. Questionable means that it can reasonably be questioned. If it's not settled law and you can mount a facially valid constitutional argument against it, e.g. it appears to violate equal protection under the laws, then it is constitutionally questionable. How it gets settled after all arguments are heard is a different matter, but it is certainly questionable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.