Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: MSM Using Kavanaugh Sex Scandal to Distract You From Real Reason He Shouldn’t Be Appointed
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/m ... ason-he-shouldnt-be-appointed/
Published: Sep 27, 2018
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2018-09-28 09:11:05 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3110
Comments: 37
In July, President Donald Trump nominated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been numerous allegations of sexual misconduct levied toward the Justice to be. Whether or not he is guilty of these allegations is left to be determined. However it does serve as a great distraction from his actual constitution-hating and tyrannical tendencies. While Kavanaugh may be an ostensible supporter of the Second Amendment, his record indicates that he all but cannot stand the Fourth and he’s not that big a fan of the First either. While the allegations against Kavanaugh should certainly be investigated — no matter how they are being spun by the left and the right — he shouldn’t even be in this position based solely on his previous record. But no one is talking about this. Instead, the left and right are involved in a mudslinging orgy of victim shaming and kangaroo courts. According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life — without a warrant. On multiple occasions, Kavanaugh has been the lone voice when it comes supporting the state’s rights to warrantlessly spy on its citizens. As Reason points out, in 2010 he dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to rehear a case in which a three-judge panel had ruled that police violated a suspected drug dealer’s Fourth Amendment rights when they tracked his movements for a month by attaching a GPS device to his car without a warrant. Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person’s car without first obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn’t constitute a “search” as defined by the Fourth Amendment. To Kavanaugh, bypassing the courts and tracking an individual without their consent is “constitutional.” In this line of thinking, the Fourth Amendment is not violated even if police trespass on someone’s physical property, or track someone’s cell phone. Luckily, he was the only judge on the panel to think this. In June, the Supreme Court ruled specifically on this case noting that collecting such information actually does constitute a search and therefore requires a warrant. But it gets worse. In 2015, Kavanaugh issued a statement strongly defending the NSA’s phone metadata collection program, arguing that it is “entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” To Kavanaugh, sweeping programs that collect information from innocent citizens’ phones are not in conflict with having the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Seriously. According to Kavanaugh, the Fourth Amendment allows for searches “without individualized suspicion” when the government demonstrates a “special need” that “outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty.” Exactly what this “special need” is that can constitute a Gestapo like police state surveilling its own citizens is a moving target that has already been proven to be abused over and over again. “The sacrifice of our personal liberty for security is and will forever be a false choice,” Senator Rand Paul said of Kavanaugh’s views on the disposable nature of the constitution. Kavanaugh “has no qualms about applying decades-old case law to the digital age, and he has endorsed the idea of a “counterterrorism exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement,” said Liza Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. While the left is calling for Kavanaugh to be executed over the sex abuse allegations and the right is attacking the alleged victims, others in Congress who see through the facade and media distraction are trying to draw attention to the fact that Kavanaugh is a champion of the police and surveillance state and an enemy to privacy. Representative Justin Amash does not have a vote on whether or not Kavanaugh will be appointed. However, this hasn’t prevented him from becoming the only Republican to speak out against the real reasons he should not be appointed to Supreme Court. “Privacy advocates must fight,” Amash tweeted. “There are many potential nominees with a conservative record on abortion, guns, and regulations. The only question is will the Senate confirm one who is really bad on the #4thAmendment, when so much is at stake in upcoming digital privacy battles.” Indeed, as technology increases, so does the desire of the state to use it to spy on us. The cases headed to the supreme court in the future over what constitutes an unconstitutional search will undoubtedly be vast in number and detrimental in deciding how much freedom and privacy Americans get to keep. As for if Kavanaugh gets appointed, Amash has some harsh words to those who are blindly supporting him based on party lines: Below is a video taken at the Mises Institute of Judge Napolitano explaining the implications of this enemy of the Fourth amendment on the Supreme Court.
“When Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, undermining our #4thAmendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, it will be too late for others to join me.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#18. To: Deckard (#0)
The headline is something a retard would write. They are going to distract with a made up sex scandal to cover up for some other imagined wrong. Matt is borderline retarded and makes you look the same.
Oh, the irony! They are going to distract with a made up sex scandal to cover up for some other imagined wrong. That's EXACTLY what it is - a distraction, a badly scripted soap-opera designed to keep rubes like you outraged. I'll just add you to the list of surveillance state tools who don't give a damn about fed.gov spying on American citizens.
It is true that the fourth amendment doesn't protect against putting a device on someones car. Do you disagree with that? If so you have reading comprehension problems or you are a liar or just stupid. You may disagree with the policy. But an honest reading doesn't include devices put on cars. You want someone to add words to the constitution. You're just a chronic crybaby.
Actually, SCOTUS says it constitutes a search. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) Syllabus at 400-01; page references to Opinion of the Court (a) The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumerated in the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. Pp. 404–405. (b) This conclusion is consistent with this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which until the latter half of the 20th century was tied to common-law trespass. Later cases, which have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach, have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, which said that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” id., at 360. Here, the Court need not address the Government’s contention that Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34. Katz did not repudiate the understanding that the Fourth Amendment embodies a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas it enumerates. The Katz reasonable-expectation-ofprivacy test has been added to, but not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 176; Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 64. United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, and United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705—post-Katz cases rejecting Fourth Amendment challenges to “beepers,” electronic tracking devices representing another form of electronic monitoring—do not foreclose the conclusion that a search occurred here. New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, and Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, also do not support the Government’s position. Pp. 405–413 (c) The Government’s alternative argument—that if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was a reasonable one—is forfeited because it was not raised below. P. 413. 615 F. 3d 544, affirmed. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 413. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined, post, p. 418.
#36. To: nolu chan (#35)
I don't think they should be to put devices on your vehicle without a warrant. I agree with that. I just can see how someone can honestly read the text and say it is not a search. If they forbid it and say a warrant us ne3ded. I agree with the outcome.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMSM Using Kavanaugh Sex Scandal to Distract You From Real Reason He Shouldn’t Be Appointed
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
...something a retard would write.
#20. To: Deckard (#19)
Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person’s car without first obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn’t constitute a “search” as defined by the Fourth Amendment.
#35. To: A K A Stone, Deckard (#20)
It is true that the fourth amendment doesn't protect against putting a device on someones car.
Held: The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 404–413.
Replies to Comment # 35.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]