now, the republican national committee, or the rnc, is opposing your nomination, publicly accusing you of being a partisan, of a partisan democrat. they argue you could not possibly be an impartial justice. but ironically, back in 2016 you presided over a case brought by the rnc against u.s.a.i.d. related to then presidential candidate clinton and you ruled in favor of the rnc. both the substance and the timing of the case are really quite striking. i did. the rnc made freedom of information act requests for certain e-mails involving the former secretary. and despite what the rnc would have us now believe, in this case you reinforced your deserved reputation for following the law, not a partisan agenda, because you ordered u.s.a.i.d. to produce thousands of pages of documents related to secretary clinton. do you recall when you issued that decision, that order?
Transcripts for CNN CNN Newsroom With Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell 20220322 19:36:15
archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
e-mails of former secretary of state hillary clinton. now, the republican national committee or the rnc is opposing your nomination publicly accusing you of being a partisan democrat. they argue you could not possibly be an impartial justice. in 2016, you presided over a case brought by the rnc and usaid related to then presidential candidate clinton and you ruled in favor of the rnc. both the substance and the timing of the case are quite striking. i did. the rnc made freedom of information act requests for certain e-mails involving the former secretary. despite what the rnc would have us leave, in this case you reinforced your deserved reputation for following the law, not a partisan agenda. you ordered usaid to produce thousands of pages of documents related to secretary clinton.
0 stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review and yours is entitled prevention versus punishment: towards a principled distinction in the restraint of released sex offenders. and in it you argue, and i quote, a recent spate of legislation purports to regulate released sex offenders by requiring them to register with local law enforcement officials, notify community members of their presence, undergo dna testing and submit to civil commitment for an indefinite term. at many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who have already been sanctioned for their crimes. under existing doctrine the constitutionality of sex offender statutes depends upon their characterization as essentially preventative rather than punitive. and what you go on to explain is if they
0 activism and advocacy as it concerns sexual predators that stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review prevention versus punishment toward a principled distinction in the restraint in it you argue and i quote a recent spate of legislation reports to release sex offenders by requiring them to notify local law enforcement and submit to civil commitment for indefinite term. many say it violates the rights of individuals that have been sanctioned for their crimes. the contusionalty of sex offender statutes depends on their characterization as essentially preventsive rather than punitive. you explain if they re viewed an punitive, they re unconstitutional. if they re preventative, they are not. throughout the course of your note, you argue they should be viewed as punitive and therefore unconstitutional. indeed in the second to last page you go through each of those for ca
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.