RSN Fundraising Banner
Leaked Email Shows Kavanaugh Questioned Whether Roe Was "Settled Law"
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38548"><span class="small">Mark Joseph Stern, Slate</span></a>   
Thursday, 06 September 2018 12:59

Stern writes: "The documents reveal Kavanaugh's skepticism toward the description of Roe v. Wade as 'settled law' - even though the nominee said on Wednesday that Roe was 'settled as precedent.'"

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the second day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty)
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the second day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty)


Leaked Email Shows Kavanaugh Questioned Whether Roe Was "Settled Law"

By Mark Joseph Stern, Slate

06 September 18

 

n a dramatic moment on Thursday morning, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker announced that he would release previously secret documents from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s office under George W. Bush. The documents reveal Kavanaugh’s skepticism toward the description of Roe v. Wade as “settled law”—even though the nominee said on Wednesday that Roe was “settled as precedent.” They also indicate Kavanaugh’s hostility toward affirmative action programs, condemning a race-conscious federal regulation as a “naked racial set-aside.”

Under Senate rules, Booker is not permitted to release the documents, which are marked “committee confidential,” to the full chamber or the public. They received that designation from William Burck, a Republican attorney who previously worked for Kavanaugh and now represents current White House Counsel Don McGahn. Because Republicans rushed these hearings before the National Archives could complete its review, Burck has been tasked with choosing which documents from Kavanaugh’s White House tenure may be disclosed. But Booker flouted Burck’s restrictions on Thursday, with the support of his Democratic colleagues, daring Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican, to “expel him.”

Moments after Booker’s revelation, the New York Times published several emails that Kavanaugh wrote during his years in the White House Counsel’s office involving abortion, affirmative action, warrantless surveillance, and campaign finance laws. In one email, written in March 2003, Kavanaugh proposed deleting a line from a draft op-ed which stated that “it is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land.”

Kavanaugh disagreed with that line. “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level,” he wrote, “since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.” (At the time, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, had expressed a clear desire to reverse Roe.)

As a factual matter, this statement is certainly correct. But it casts doubt on the candor of Kavanaugh’s earlier testimony before the committee. When Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Kavanaugh about Roe on Wednesday, he told her: “It’s settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” That, too, is true—but clearly Kavanaugh has more nuanced thoughts about just how “settled” it is, and how much “respect” it deserves. He failed to mention these qualms to the committee. Moreover, Feinstein asked Kavanaugh if his “views about whether Roe is settled precedent changed” since he was “in the Bush White House.” Kavanaugh responded cagily: “I’m not sure what [you’re] referring to about the Bush White House.” Again, the nominee declined to delve into his rather more sophisticated thoughts on Roe as settled law when he worked for a White House dedicated to overturning it.

Elsewhere in the email, Kavanaugh complained about the op-ed’s comparison of a Bush nominee to Justice David Souter, a Republican appointee who drifted left. The piece should not “imply that she is another Souter,” Kavanaugh wrote, using common shorthand for Republican judicial nominees who refuse to cleave to the GOP platform.

In another leaked email from 2001, Kavanaugh corresponded with a Justice Department attorney about the constitutionality of the warrantless surveillance of phone and email conversation of non-citizens in the United States. Yet he testified in 2006 that he had never seen or heard anything about the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program until it leaked to the press. In a 2001 email, Kavanaugh harshly criticized proposed Department of Transportation regulations that would benefit minority-owned businesses, dismissing them as “a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what is a naked racial set-aside.” And in a 2003 email, Kavanaugh condemned a lower court for upholding a law that barred corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to pay for ads attacking or supporting a candidate for federal office.

The decision, Kavanaugh wrote, was “both strange and dangerous.” He hoped the Supreme Court would “not care” and reverse it, expecting either Rehnquist or Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to be the swing vote. In the end, O’Connor did cast the fifth vote to uphold the limitations. But the Supreme Court reversed her decision after Justice Samuel Alito replaced her.

In the end, these documents don’t tell us anything we don’t already know about Kavanaugh. If confirmed, he will vote to overturn Roe, abolish affirmative action, uphold mass digital surveillance, and scrap what’s left of campaign finance limits. It remains an open question whether Democrats were wise to fixate on the suppression of these documents rather than zero in on Kavanaugh’s contentious conservative views, most of which are already on record. But at a minimum, the leaked emails further confirm what senators like Susan Collins are attempting to deny: Kavanaugh is a locked-in vote to effectuate the GOP agenda on day one.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+2 # wilhelmscream 2018-09-06 15:38
Total contradiction of what he said to Senator Collins; he would also try 2 have minimum wage repealed witch means an increase in sweatshops and slaves.
 
 
+1 # nice2bgreat 2018-09-06 17:54
.
Good for Cory Booker, stumbling and stammering his way into doing something interesting and right.

It's interesting because it reveals how Senate rules are designed to allow the wool to be pulled over the eyes of its' citizenry; and how, apparently, elected officials usually go along with the farce without cluing in the public.

How is it that this bullshit is considered worthy of maintaining "confidentialit y"? Kavanaugh even wants true intentions explicitly understood, but only "by certain people".

I don't doubt that these sophists manufacture high and mighty bases for expanding Congressional rules for confidentiality /secrecy in ways that ought not be applied -- which encourage insiders like Brett Kavanaugh to knowingly deceive the public.

What better way for Kavanaugh to both make himself clear to those whom he wants to be clear in private, and still allows himself to present himself differently, publicly, yet not be called out for it.

But hiding reasons for humiliation and shame -- even disqualificatio n -- are just preferences, not imperatives.

Kavanaugh's ascendence is the imperative, and it will be forced through, no matter what.

Democratic #resistance will be tolerated as only the appearance of it.

Booker's defiance, even if not preferred, are just politics. His presidential ambitions are sputtering, and this clumsy effort was his big play. And since it does nothing to derail the nomination, all's fair as long as progressives lose on issues.
.
 
 
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-09-07 07:16
"Kavanaugh is a locked-in vote to effectuate the GOP agenda on day one."


Yes, I think this is true. He's a Bush republican, the worst sort. He also does not seem very intelligent so the chances of his growing and learning on the job are not very promising.

The trick is, however, in the cases that people select and prepare to bring to the supreme court. Why have democrats or liberals allowed the right-wingers to become so much better at crafting legal cases to present to the court? In many ways, the case presented traps the court into making the decisions desired by the groups who support the appeal.

I don't think the court will reverse Roe v. Wade. I can't imagine a case that would lead to this decision. And the backlash would be so great that it would clearly set back the right wing for a very long time. A majority of American support reproductive rights in a very broad sense. Roe v. Wade works just fine right now as a fund-raising and organizing issue for the right wing. They are able to restrict access to abortion at the state level just fine. That mobilizes a lot of people.

I have a small hope that Kavanaugh will fail. He's just so unimpressive. His responses to the Senate don't show a keen legal mind. This sort of person should not be on the supreme court.
 
 
0 # Texas Aggie 2018-09-07 22:36
Everything about this guy is a put off. He pretends to be such a regular guy, but then he yanks his hand back when meeting the father of one of the Parkland victims who tries to shake his hand and then he tells security to remove the guy. He sputters and dances around questions, even lying about his reasons for not answering by claiming that Justice Ginsberg did the same thing when she actually did just the opposite. The guy is slime on a slug.
 
 
0 # Texas Aggie 2018-09-07 22:37
Also, experience has shown that in a LOT of cases the only reason for classifying some document is for someone to CYA. Rarely are documents classified for legitimate reasons.