Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

They were already cleared to be released.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/cory-bookers-kavanaugh-document-release-not-as-defiant-as-it-seemed.html

Quote:In an email, William Burck, the Bush lawyer overseeing the production of Kavanaugh's documents, said that he had approved Booker's request to release the documents Wednesday night.
[url=https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/2017/05/08/buffett-you-do-not-want-to-give-jeff-bezos-a-seven-year-head-start.html?__source=BXdesktop|IA|keywordcore|Clip][/url]
"Yes, we cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker's staff asked us to," Burck said. "I was surprised to learn about Senator Booker's histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said his staff worked through the night to make "public every committee confidential document the minority has requested, including a request after midnight."

Booker himself acknowledged the discrepancy, telling reporters that he wanted to make a "technical clarification."
According to Booker, he did, in fact, break Senate rules as he claimed — but not on Thursday.

The New Jersey Democrat told reporters that he broke the rules by bringing up the "committee confidential" emails during his questioning on Wednesday night, when he grilled Kavanaugh on the contents of the emails before they had been approved for release.

"So when I violated the rules, I violated them yesterday," Booker said. "So I broke those rules yesterday."

In a statement, Booker's office said that his actions Wednesday night were able to "shame" the committee into releasing the documents.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 04:03 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Not “anyone” but elected officials that serve their constituents, I’m okay with them making that decision. Then their constituents get to decide, in the next election, if it was the right thing to do.

Does that being OK extend all the way to the White House?

Personally, I just cannot get onboard.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 04:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: They were already cleared to be released.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/cory-bookers-kavanaugh-document-release-not-as-defiant-as-it-seemed.html

Yes, pat already covered that. Corey was just grandstanding for 2020 votes. But the proposed action and the potential harm does not change

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 04:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, pat already covered that. Corey was just grandstanding for 2020 votes.

I believe the word of the day for this is "disdain".

(09-06-2018, 04:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the proposed action and the potential harm does not change

Actually it completely changes as he broke no rule releasing them.

[Yojimbo]

(09-06-2018, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that being OK extend all the way to the White House?

Personally, I just cannot get onboard.

I’m just talking about my own opinion, but yes it would extend to any elected official all the way up to the Whithouse.

[ballsofsteel]

Ted Cruz was grandstanding big time. Must be nervous about getting re-elected in November.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2018, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you have no problem with any Senator releasing confidential documents they have been instructed not to release if he/she deems them OK to release?

Gotta say, I can't roll with that regardless the content; however, I have admitted numerous times that we don't always need to see behind the curtain

Benton answered the first question you posed to me and I agree with it. Senators set their own rules and enforce them. Booker broke the rules and declared he accepts the consequences. It's up to the Senate to determine if it warrants a consequence.

I think it ties into your next question here: is it ok? Well, I'd say that's on a case to case basis. They were barred from releasing the emails they did for "national security" purposes. There appears to be no national security implication to them. In this case, I'd support it. 

This is not to say I do not think the Senate should consider a consequence as rules are rules until they are changed. Admirable civil disobedience still warrants a consequence.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 05:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Benton answered the first question you posed to me and I agree with it. Senators set their own rules and enforce them. Booker broke the rules and declared he accepts the consequences. It's up to the Senate to determine if it warrants a consequence.

I think it ties into your next question here: is it ok? Well, I'd say that's on a case to case basis. They were barred from releasing the emails they did for "national security" purposes. There appears to be no national security implication to them. In this case, I'd support it. 

This is not to say I do not think the Senate should consider a consequence as rules are rules until they are changed. Admirable civil disobedience still warrants a consequence.

You actually answered both my original questions as this response answered the one I posed: Is it only OK if we agree with it?

To me it establishes a slippery slope that I don't care to go down. As has already been documented Booker knew these were OK to release, but only grandstanded to feed a base. Apparently one that is Ok with breaking established rules; as long as they don't like the rule.

Perhaps, it's my background, but rules are rules and should be followed. This position has led me to be on the opposite end of many debates around here.

I've got a strange feeling the next rule Trump breaks folks will have a different view of the matter. I can say I will not.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2018, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You actually answered both my original questions as this response answered the one I posed: Is it only OK if we agree with it?

To me it establishes a slippery slope that I don't care to go down. As has already been documented Booker knew these were OK to release, but only grandstanded to feed a base. Apparently one that is Ok with breaking established rules; as long as they don't like the rule.

Perhaps, it's my background, but rules are rules and should be followed. This position has led me to be on the opposite end of many debates around here.

I've got a strange feeling the next rule Trump breaks folks will have a different view of the matter. I can say I will not.

We have a long history of using civil disobedience in this country and "breaking the rules". It's case by case. I wouldn't have agreed with this if there truly were national security implications, no matter the goal of the rule breaker. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-06-2018, 08:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We have a long history of using civil disobedience in this country and "breaking the rules". It's case by case. I wouldn't have agreed with this if there truly were national security implications, no matter the goal of the rule breaker. 

This is very true. Rules are rules, but our society is based upon the idea that unjust rules should be broken. Were it not, we'd still be a British colony.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is very true. Rules are rules, but our society is based upon the idea that unjust rules should be broken. Were it not, we'd still be a British colony.

Is the senate rule unjust?

[*bfine32*]

First of all I must say I am surprised at the folks that are OK with a political member breaking established rules if it suits his/her level of OK. I know we say this often, but I am truly surprised with the folks that are OK with this.

Secondly, more to this specific case. Booker knew the emails he released were already ok'd to be released; but he chose to grandstand and get those that were looking for a hero to say "we've found our hero".

Folks can bring up the Revolution all they want; but that happened before we were an independent Nation, we were a colony of another Nation.

As to me I have sworn to support and defend. I know everyone has not.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2018, 08:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Is the senate rule unjust?

I would say marking things "committee confidential" when they should not be for the sole purpose of just delaying the ability to use that document is "wrong". 

[*michaelsean*]

(09-06-2018, 08:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would say marking things "committee confidential" when they should not be for the sole purpose of just delaying the ability to use that document is "wrong". 

Well now we know that at least in the years 2013-2016 this never occurred as I am sure Senator Booker would have had no choice but to make a stand.

Or we can quit trying to pretend this was an act of civil disobedience.

[Belsnickel]

(09-06-2018, 08:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all I must say I am surprised at the folks that are OK with a political member breaking established rules if it suits his/her level of OK. I know we say this often, but I am truly surprised with the folks that are OK with this.

Secondly, more to this specific case. Booker knew the emails he released were already ok'd to be released; but he chose to grandstand and get those that were looking for a hero to say "we've found our hero".

Folks can bring up the Revolution all they want; but that happened before we were an independent Nation, we were a colony of another Nation.

As to me I have sworn to support and defend. I know everyone has not.

The reason I invoked the American Revolution is because it shows that it is the premise of our society. This has continued to be a theme throughout our history to present day. People have violated laws they have found to be unjust. Even if I don't agree with someone's cause I can understand the idea of civil disobedience. I'm not advocating they go without punishment, but if you see something wrong, then do what you need to in order to bring attention to it. It is the power some people have. I have an ancestor, possibly more than one but one for sure, that lost his life for standing up for his convictions in this manner and breaking the law during the Civil War. I side with movements like those of MLK and others that broke the law to bring attention to injustices.

And I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not the same one you have, but as an appointed official I have been sworn in with such an oath. That doesn't mean anything to this conversation because this isn't a constitutional issue.

(09-06-2018, 08:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Is the senate rule unjust?

(09-06-2018, 08:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would say marking things "committee confidential" when they should not be for the sole purpose of just delaying the ability to use that document is "wrong". 

I would add to this that rules intended to protect national security being used in a partisan manner other than intended is an unjust application of the rule.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The reason I invoked the American Revolution is because it shows that it is the premise of our society. This has continued to be a theme throughout our history to present day. People have violated laws they have found to be unjust. Even if I don't agree with someone's cause I can understand the idea of civil disobedience. I'm not advocating they go without punishment, but if you see something wrong, then do what you need to in order to bring attention to it. It is the power some people have. I have an ancestor, possibly more than one but one for sure, that lost his life for standing up for his convictions in this manner and breaking the law during the Civil War. I side with movements like those of MLK and others that broke the law to bring attention to injustices.

And I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not the same one you have, but as an appointed official I have been sworn in with such an oath. That doesn't mean anything to this conversation because this isn't a constitutional issue.

Meh, I thought it was covered in Article 1.

As the MLK, his was true civil disobedience. I just find a private citizen standing up to injustice being a little different than a Senator knowingly (of course we know what he knew, but more what he wanted to convey) breaking rules and protocol of a judiciary committee. IMO it kind of cheapens those you has compared this action to.

[Belsnickel]

(09-06-2018, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, I thought it was covered in Article 1.

In what way? If someone breaks the rules and they are punished, bringing the attention to something they see as wrong, what part of Article I pertains to this?

(09-06-2018, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As the MLK, his was true civil disobedience. I just find a private citizen standing up to injustice being a little different than a Senator knowingly (of course we know what he knew, but more what he wanted to convey) breaking rules and protocol of a judiciary committee. IMO it kind of cheapens those you has compared this action to.

Ah, so you are the one that is only okay with civil disobedience you agree with. I got it, now.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2018, 08:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. In what way? If someone breaks the rules and they are punished, bringing the attention to something they see as wrong, what part of Article I pertains to this?


2. Ah, so you are the one that is only okay with civil disobedience you agree with. I got it, now.

1, Because he knowingly (we know) broke the rules and subjected himself to penalty. So yes it is a Constitutional Issue.

2, Dino-style response aside. Yes, I do consider the action of a government official against that government to be held to a different standard than a private citizen. It's easier to erode from within than from the outside.

[Vlad]

(09-06-2018, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is very true. Rules are rules, but our society is based upon the idea that unjust rules should be broken. Were it not, we'd still be a British colony.

The biggest cop out false equivalency excuse ever to defend a vile democRAT .

By all means democRATS, break any rule you feel is unjust...but if you are a Republican they'll be hell to pay.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 08:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dino-style response aside.