Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Booker Confidential 4 - Kavanaugh Hearing

    Uploaded by

    Senator Cory Booker
    6 additional Kavanaugh "committee confidential" documents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Booker Confidential 4 - Kavanaugh Hearing

    Uploaded by

    Senator Cory Booker
    4K views11 pages
    6 additional Kavanaugh "committee confidential" documents.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    6 additional Kavanaugh "committee confidential" documents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    4K views11 pages

    Booker Confidential 4 - Kavanaugh Hearing

    Uploaded by

    Senator Cory Booker
    6 additional Kavanaugh "committee confidential" documents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 11
    ‘CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO | O'Brien, Pat bryant, dan :thorsen, carl ;Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] 14/19/2001 3:07:16 PM Subject: : Re: Senate Judiciary hearing ###HH# Begin Original ARMS Header #HA### RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CRRATOR:Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHo/O=ROP [ WHO | } CREATION DATE/TIME:19-NOV-2001 20:07:16. 00 SUBJECT:: Ret Senate Judiciary hearing T0:"0'Brien, Pat" "O'Brien, Pat" [ uniavoun ]) READ: UNKNOWN cc:"bryant, dan" | "bryant, dan" [ UNKNOWN } READ: UNKNOWN cc:"thorsen, car! unevown |) READ: UNKNOMMI CCrBradford A. Berenson ( CNsBradford A. Berenson/OU=WHO/| READ? UNKNOWN ###HH8 End Original ARMS Header #HHHH# ( "thorsen, carl" [ BOP@EOP [ WHO 1) prad Berenson will handle the tribunals issue. I am happy to assist generally and on a-c privilege in particular. Let us know vo'Beien, Pat" 11/19/2001 05:32:32 PM Record Type: Record To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHo/EOPGEOP ce: "Bryant, Dan" (Receipt Notification Requested (IeM Return Requested), "Thorsen, Carl" (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Rettrn Requested} Subject: Senate Judiciary hearing Senate Judiciary will hold a hearing on Dec. 6th on post 9/11 actions by the Justice Department. High on the list of topics to be explored are military tribunals, monitoring of atty/client conversations, racial profiling, etc. We would very mich like the participation of wH Counsel in the prepartion of the AG ~~ especially on military tribunals. We expect there to be significant prep time with the AG on Dec. 4 and 5. More will follow, but for scheduling puropses, we wanted to give you this heads up. Thanks, Pat ‘CN=Jay P. Lefkowitz/OUSOPD/O=EOP@Exchange [ OPD | Brett M. Kavanaugh\WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] 1/15/2003 4:14:01 AM : pls read this and call me -- thanks ~- I have not cleared k yet. ###HH# Begin Original ARMS Header Hatt? RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) CREATOR: Jay P. Lefkowitz { cN=Jay P. Lefkowitz/ot CREATION DATE/TIME: 15-JAN-2003 08:14:01.0 SUBJECT:: pls read this and call me -- thanks -- I have not cleared it yet. To:Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=#HO/O=BOP@EOP [ WHO ] ) READ: UNKNOWI ###H8# End Original ARMS Header HAdH## PD/ OP@Exchange [ OFD ] } DRAFT ‘The Honorable Paul Clement Principal Deputy Solicitor General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, 9.¢. 20830 44 Rers i437 Grutter v. Bollinger, No. saaaeasesasasansisantasssssaay 02-241 (3. Ct.) Gratz v. Bollinger, Wo. 02-516 (s. ct.) : Dear Paul: On behalf of the United States Department of Education, I recommend that the United states file an amicus curiae brief with the United states Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger in support of the challengers of the admissions practices in question at the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (sMichigans) ‘These cases present an extraordinarily digficult issue for the education comminity and for our society at large.; To be sure, diversity, in our view, has positive value for our educational institutions and schools and for our Nation as a whole.; Tt manifests an American value that we learn and live together as one people.; Our postsecondary institutions and our Glementary and secondary schools need to have an array of tools to be able to foster the natural diversity that flows from truly equal opportunity.; At the elementary and secondary levels, that is in large part what the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is about’) breaking down barriers to achievement for students of all races and ethnicities, and ultimately breaking down isolation by race and national origin in our schools and other institutions.; The issue in these cases is whether racial and ethnic preferences are a legitimate tool to those ends.; Based on even more fundamental American values ) equality of opportunity and non-discrimination based on race and national crigin } we believe they are not. We find the evidence-based research relied upon by Michigan indicating that student diversity significantly advances educational outcomes sufficiently to support the constitutionality of its admissions practices, at best, a matter of debate.; The research evidence for a number of the educational benefits claimed by Michigan shovs only small gains inadequate to be of educational significance, and is in some cases difficult to understand or based on a flawed analysis.; Ultimately, moreover, the competing claims of social scientists on both sides of the litigation underscore the vagary of relying on such studies to defend the constitutionality of an admissions system, supported by taxpayer dollars, that substantially affixes a student,s likelihood of admission to his or her race or national origin.; Social science findings often shift with time; constitutional principle does not.; Accordingly, Nichigan,s reliance on opinion-based and other surveys to defend its use of race and national origin in its admissions systems concerns and fails to persuade us Even if student diversity is ultimately deemed by the Court to be a constitutionally permissible interest for using race and national origin in admissions, the admissions practices in question mist be snarrowly tailored? to achieve that interest.; Courts generally examine several factors to determine whether racial and ethnic classifications are narrowly tailored, including the planned duration of the polley, che flexibility of the policy, the burden on innocent third parties, and the efficacy of alternative race- and ethnic-neutral policies.; We believe that each of these factors weighs in favor of the view that Michigan, = practices are not narrowly tailored.; In particular, we believe the very recent experience of other public institutions demonstrates that Michigan can implement race~ and ethnic-neutral policies and obtain the incidental benefit of racial and ethnic diversity.; For example, the States of Texas, Florida, and California have all adopted race- and ethnic-neutral policies for their public universities that have had success in attaining some measure of racial and ethnic diversity.; These States guarantee admissions at their undergraduate institutions te a certain percentage of each high school,s graduating class and take other race- and ethnic-neutral measures, such as expanding the number of Advanced Placement courses being taught at traditionally low-performing schools and requiring selective institutions to enter into partnerships with traditionally low-performing schools te focus on tutoring, mentoring, advising about college, and helping to find educational experiences outside of the classroom that would be beneficial.; ‘These experiences show that when States are prohibited from using racial. and ethnic preferences in admissions at institutions of higher education, they become better motivated to adopt innovative programs designed to assist students from traditionally lew-performing schools ) programs that have the effect of widening the pool of competitive applicants to institutions of higher education.; These innovative, race- and ethnic-neutral programs further the goals and objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 because they (1) reject the soft bigotry of low expectations for some students because of their social or economic circumstances, and (2) push the educational system to do a better job of educating all young people, particularly those from traditionally low-performing schools.ii5 Make no mistake that it will take time, creativity, and constant attention by university and state authorities to pursue effective race- and ethnic-neutral policies.; However, that challenge is no greater than our challenge to ensure that every child at the elementary and secondary level achieves academically and is prepared for the competition of higher education admissions. ; 44 Sincerely, iy Brian W. Jones Noe_J._Francisco@who.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN ] Jay P. LetkowitziOPD/EOP@EOP [ OPD ] ;Brett M. KavanaughWHO JEOP@EOP [ WHO ] Kristen Silverberg WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] 14/11/2002 1:22:20 PM possible signing statement ###HHe Begin Original ARMS Header ##H#HE RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL| CREATOR: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP ( WHO ] } CREATION DATE/TIME:11-NOV-2002 18:22:20. 00 SUBJECT:: possible signing statement To:Matthew Kirk ( CN=Matthew Kirk/OUSWHO/O=EOP@EOP [ HHO] ) READ: UNKNOWN TO:Brian © READ: UNKNOWN TO:Kristen Silverberg ( CN READ: UNKNOWN ###HH# End Original ARMS Header #AtHad Conklin ( CN=Brian C, Conklin/OU=MHo/o=BOP@EOP [ WHO ] } risten Silverberg/OU=WH0/O=BOP@EOP [ WHO] ) If the bill is enacted, I believe there should be a signing statement that would contain: (i) direction to Secretary of Treasury regarding approval-of- settlements issue; and (ii) direction to the AG and Secretary regarding being prepared to intervene to state views on punitive damages in terrorism cases. If you all agree, I will work quietly with OLC on preparing a draft. ‘CNEBrett M. KavanaughOU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] To: Alberto R, Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ;Timothy E, FlaniganWHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] :Bradford A. Berenson’ WHO JEOP@EOP [ WHO } :Helgard C, Walker/WHOIEOP@EOP [ WHO | ;Courtney S. EWood/WHOEOP@EOP [ WHO } Stuart W. Bowen WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ;H. Christopher Bartolomucci WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] :Rachel L, Brand/WHO_ JEOP@EOP [ WHO ] ;Noel J. Francisco/WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ] ;Robert W. Cobb/WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO | ser 6/27/2001 3:20:01 PM Subject: Faith based bill changes ###H8# Begin Original ARMS Header ##agte RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MATL) CREATOR: Brett M. Kavanaugh ( CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OUSWHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1 CREATION DATE/TIME:27-dUN-2001 19:20:01. 00 SUBJECT:: Faith based bill changes Os To:Alberto R. Gonzales ( CN=Alberto R. Gonzales /OUiiHl0/O=EOPGEOP [ al READ: UNKNOWN > READ: UNKNOWN 4 TorTimathy £. Flanigan ( CN=Timothy £. Flanigan/Oll=WHO/O-EOPGEOR [ wo) To:Bradford A. Berenson ( cl alert WHO] ) radford A. Berenson/ot esp: nici Tornelgaed C. walker ( cNeHelgard C. wal /ovao/o-soe dhe ftom Mi Toscoureney 8. wood (ct fesps stent Posstuast fe Bowen (ct feabstniom Tork. christopher BartoLomect ( cit TorRachel Le Brand ( cNsRachel L. Beand/ovsui@haabbresoe { wo 1 ) feabs stem Tosti! J. Franctsco ( © seas uate Tojtebash Heath ( olabert Hon READ: UNKNOWN HFEF End Origine ARHS Hoaden gh assuming the Aa trl Tews escaret is correct: earenez 8: Elacot/ oven ge need (WHO 1) stuart W. Bowen/OU=% =O get nga? WHO] pYtolomucei /OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO] } crisfopher joel J. Feancifb/p sOR@EOP [ WHO] } 1HOd| Time to vent ES oe Sd faitiebaved Bill Se cade Npehotetionsy apparently aa a renxli of Sersenbramer's\objeplatyy hse teaule (OF cess changes, oases sech ae eon challangengptécn eee Shetrtsen Cerchinge co earl ug cee ony wea OMe ettai sate auspranstcracivee iar canine tea keeping in, aye this is a news story and thus may be wildly ieee eeate oN au rageineaty cual comeessyacoonasnen tree ea dnd ""bEing LM Line with the Guaekiiutten;'' doha ®eldguland, dixector Scho igsde House Toneseic Policy Council, said Wednesday. To opine eared Nae eke eka cane OCS uy cr Temmereea coos earn Idee ores clef pac cleaierl yiaculinatioeeea tease] eet are sassy esa rasseiott at teaueee And this Administration should never be arguing, T would not think, that the Constitution actually prohibits a neutral funding scheme just because it may happen to fund religiously oriented programe az well as secular programs. On the contrary, the whole idea of the Constitution, as the SG will be arguing in the vouchers case, is non-discrimination. That is, a religious drug treatment center should be no better —- but also no worse ~~ in the eyes of the government than a non-religious drug reatment center. If anything, therefore, today's changes to the bill -- by incorporating discrimination against religiously oriented drug and alcohol treatment ~~ may well now raise a constitutional problem because the bill would deny funde to a group such as Teen Challenge solely because that group uses a religious approach to drug treatment rather than a secular approach. See Rosenberger, Good News, etc. Four Justices would definitely so hold [Rehngiist, sealia, Thomas, and Kennedy], although I concede that O'Connor's concurrences in Rosenberger and Mitchell v. Helms also suggest some discomfort at the government giving monies directly to the veligious orgenization for religious activities. Of course, her middle ground is why I thought the bill would incorporate vouchers rather than direct funding, which would satisfy her objections > (CN=Brett M. Kavanaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO | Joel D. Kaplan WHO/EOP@EOP [ WHO ]

    You might also like