Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Constitutional Reasons to Oppose Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court
Source:
Foundation For Economic Education
URL Source: https://fee.org/articles/the-consti ... vanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/
Published: Oct 1, 2018
Author: Brittany Hunter
Post Date: 2018-10-04 07:40:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3182
Comments: 29
This is not the constitutionalist you're looking for.
After two days of political theater, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to delay the vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court for a week. In that time, the FBI will conduct an investigation surrounding the allegations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford.
And the real losers, unfortunately, are the American people, who are being diligently distracted from Kavanaugh’s actual policy record.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Put Kavanaugh on the Court or live in a socialist country for the rest of your life.
Those are the two choices. There is not a third.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
How many times are you going to post this?
You have to stop the train before you can turn it around.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Amen
#4. To: Justified (#2)
How many times are you going to post this?
Once - you clowns are being distracted by a laughable soap opera.
By clowns I mean both Dems and Reps.
After this staged carnival is over, Kavanaugh will still get the job because both parties want a Big Brother, surveillance State apologist on the SCOTUS.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#5. To: Deckard (#4)
After this staged carnival is over, Kavanaugh will still get the job because both parties want a Big Brother, surveillance State apologist on the SCOTUS.
Ok. If that's what we get, then that's what we get.
#6. To: Deckard (#4)
I’m sure someone has posted some versions of this in the last week or so. If I was at my computer I would look for it.
This all or nothing is getting old! It’s the reason libertarians don’t have any power.
#7. To: Justified (#6)
This all or nothing is getting old! It’s the reason libertarians don’t have any power.
It's also the reason that Democrats have so much more power than their numbers in the general population warrant.
Libertarians are all-or-nothing on principles that do not work to organize people, and that most people don't want or need or much care about.
Democrats are all-or-nothing on principles that appeal to a great number of people.
Republicans are secretly all-or-nothing on a small set of very unpopular principles, but to win they make a big tent of people they're willing to throw under the bus when expedient.
The Kavanaugh/2018 elections game is different, because it's a test of raw power. For the Republicans to survive, they actually have to compromise on part of their all-or-nothing set, which permanently weakens their traditional internal power hierarchy by abandoning a portion of its orthodoxy.
But if they won't compromise, they will lose the chance to seat a Supreme Court justice, then they will lose the election, and then they will lose everything.
#8. To: Deckard (#0)
[Brittany Hunter/Foundation For Economic Education]
Metadata: Due Process for Me, Not for TheeThe 2013 Edward Snowden leaks were arguably one of the most significant events to occur over the last decade. For those who thought the government wasn’t capable of this magnitude of corruption, the blindfold was removed and the government’s true intentions were revealed. For those already skeptical, the leaks had confirmed preexisting suspicions.
In many ways, the Snowden situation drew a line in the political sand. Those who stood for freedom believed in the people’s inherent right to privacy and in upholding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. But those who supported and sustained the government’s mass surveillance of its own people made their views on individual liberty very clear. And Judge Kavanaugh was not on the right side of history.
At the heart of the Snowden situation was the question of whether or not metadata counted as government surveillance. The government, frantically scrambling to justify its actions, insisted that it was not actually data collection, since metadata did not technically provide any raw data. But metadata still gives very specific information about the type of data collected and therefore is still a violation of constitutional protections.
Kavanaugh also later stated that “that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”
However, in a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh ruled that “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” He also later stated that “that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.” Again, a rather odd conclusion for a staunch “constitutionalist” to support.
This is but a retread of the Matt Agorist bullshit previously posted. My response to that steaming pantsload is just applicable to this steaming pantsload. Posting the same bullshit from a different source does not un-bullshit the mindless unsourced nonsense.
The gross distorting horsecrap of both authors when comparing the truncated quote used by both dishonest yellow typists, and comparing to what Judge Kavanaugh wrote in the uncited Klayman v. Obama, 15-5307 (20 Nov 2015):
The Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law.
From the prior thread:
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57366&Disp=0#C0
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/msm-using-kavanaugh-sex-scandal-to-distract-you-from-real-reason-he-shouldnt-be-appointed/
Published: Sep 27, 2018
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2018-09-28 09:11:05 by Deckard
[excerpt]
[Matt Agorist] 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.”
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57366&Disp=10#C10
nolu chan #10
Put down the yellow rag and read the court opinions.
Kavanaugh's opinion was in Klayman v. Obama, 15-5307 (20 Nov 2015).
KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I vote to deny plaintiffs’ emergency petition for rehearing en banc. I do so because, in my view, the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, and this Court was right to stay the District Court’s injunction against the Government’s program.The Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.
Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law.
Kavanaugh cited binding Supreme Court precedent from Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (20 Jun 1979). Being required to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Kavanaugh followed the binding precedent from 1979.
The binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent was a 1979 opinion by Blackmun, joined by Burger, White, Rehquist, and Stevens. (5-3).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And, as I wrote in my #30 that previous posting of this nonsense,
In Klayman v. Obama, the Circuit Court DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE RULING BY JUDGE LEON in the District Court. The Circuit Court three-judge panel found that the plaintiffs LACKED STANDING and therefore, THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION to hear and rule on the case. Each of the three judges wrote seperately to record their opinion that the plaintiffs LACKED STANDING.Yeah, Kavanaugh, for the D.C. Circuit Court, spent a page and a half writing a unanimous per curiam opinion citing the binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
He and the Circuit Court were not even deciding any issue before the Court other than a petition for a rehearing by the whole court where the three-judge panel had unanimously found the plantiffs to lack standing to proceed.
Subsequently, Judge Leon dismissed the lawsuit for LACK OF STANDING.
In 2013, the Judge Richard Leon for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary injunction.
Finding the Plaintiffs lacked standing, the Circuit Court vacated by a per curiam opinion. Each member of the three-judge panel wrote to record their opinion that the plaintiffs lacked standing, rendering the court without jurisdiction. The matter of was remanded back to Judge Leon at the D.C. District Court. Judge Leon Judge Richard Leon dismissed the suit against the government because Klayman had failed to establish that he or his client had standing
At the Circuit Court:
Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
Separate opinions filed by Circuit Judge BROWN and Senior Circuit Judge WILLIAMS.
Opinion dissenting in part filed by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE.
PER CURIAM:
[...]
The court reverses the judgment of the district court, and for the reasons stated in the opinions of Judge Brown and Judge Williams orders the case remanded to the district court. (Judge Sentelle dissents from the order of remand and would order the case dismissed.) The opinions of the judges appear below after a brief explanation of why the case is not moot.
Brown, Circuit Judge
In order to establish his standing to sue, a plaintiff must show he has suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.555, 560–61 (1992). In other words, plaintiffs here must show their own metadata was collected by the government. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty International, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1148 (2013) (“[R]espondents fail to offer any evidence that their communications have been monitored under § 1881a, a failure that substantially undermines their standing theory.”); ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644, 655 (6th Cir. 2007) (“If, for instance, a plaintiff could demonstrate that her privacy had actually been breached (i.e., that her communications had actually been wiretapped), then she would have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment cause of action for breach of privacy.”); Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977, 999–1000 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“[T]he absence of proof of actual acquisition of appellants’ communications is fatal to their watchlisting claims.”).[...]
However, plaintiffs are Verizon Wireless subscribers and not Verizon Business Network Services subscribers. Thus, the facts marshaled by plaintiffs do not fully establish that their own metadata was ever collected.
Williams, Senior Circuit Judge
Plaintiffs claim to suffer injury from government collection of records from their telecommunications provider relating to their calls. But plaintiffs are subscribers of Verizon Wireless, not of Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.—the sole provider that the government has acknowledged targeting for bulk collection. Gov’t’s Br. at 38; Appellees’ Br. at 26-28; see also Secondary Order, In re Application of FBI, No. BR 13-80 (FISC, Apr. 25, 2013) (Vinson, J.). Thus, unlike some others who have brought legal challenges to the bulk collection program, plaintiffs lack direct evidence that records involving their calls have actually been collected.Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting in part
As my colleagues recognize, in order to bring a cause within the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiffs must demonstrate, inter alia, that they have standing. “[T]o show standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an ‘injury in fact’ that is ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Williams Op. at 1 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). As Judge Williams goes on to note, “[p]laintiffs claim to suffer injury from government collection of records from their telecommunications provider relating to their calls.” Id. at 1; see also Brown Op. 2. However, plaintiffs never in any fashion demonstrate that the government is or has been collecting such records from their telecommunications provider, nor that it will do so. Briefly put, and discussed in more detail by Judge Williams, plaintiffs’ theory is that because it is a big collection and they use a big carrier, the government must be getting at their records. While this may be a better-than-usual conjecture, it is nonetheless no more than conjecture.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama
Case developmentsIn 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the injunction and held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened burden of proof regarding standing required for preliminary injunction. The case was remanded back to the district court. Later in 2015, the district court enjoined the NSA from collecting data about Klayman's client, a California lawyer who had recently been added to the lawsuit, but the D.C. Circuit court stayed enforcement of the injunction.
In November 2017, Judge Richard Leon dismissed the suit against the government because Klayman had failed to establish that he or his client had standing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4267780-42df8218-70d7-4c17-9b6e-2704fdb37315.html
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, D.C. District Court, 21 November 2017, MEMORANDUM OPINION
F. The Litigation on RemandAlthough I enjoined the NSA's surveillance program in December 2013, the Court of Appeals did not issue its opinion until August 28, 2015. When it finally did, it vacated my preliminary injunction on the ground that plaintiffs, as subscribers of Verizon, rather than VBNS-the sole provider the Government has acknowledged as participating in the surveillance program-had not shown a substantial likelihood of standing to pursue their claims. See Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559, 564 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Brown, J.); id. at 565, 568-69 (Williams, J.). As such, the Circuit did not address my ruling that the surveillance program likely constituted an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment.
[...]
CONCLUSION
While the zeal and vigilance with which plaintiffs have sought to protect our Constitutional rights is indeed laudable, this Court, in the final analysis, has no choice but to dismiss these cases for plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate the necessary jurisdiction to proceed. I do so today, however, well aware that I will not be the last District Judge who will be required to determine the appropriate balance between our national security and privacy interests during this never-ending war on terror.
#9. To: nolu chan, repeat the lies, maybe the rubes will beleive them, this time, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#8)
This is but a retread of the Matt Agorist bullshit previously posted
The truth is the truth, no matter who states it.
And Nolu's lies are lies, no matter how many times he quotes lying activist judges.
#10. To: hondo68, repeat the liies, more lies, nothing but lies (#9)
The truth is the truth, no matter who states it.And Nolu's lies are lies, no matter how many times he quotes lying activist judges.
My, that was a fact free rebuttal of the actual court documents. Typical bullshit.
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
Kavanaugh at the George W. Bush white hut.
#12. To: Deckard (#4) (Edited)
because both parties want a Big Brother, surveillance State apologist on the SCOTUS.
GO FUCK YOURSELF. If the Dems controlled shit, we’d get some man hating cunt that not only would allow big brother surveillance but tree hugging, gun hating... fag loving, shit.
If you can’t support this nomination while knowing your presidential choice CAN’T nominate SHIT... because your presidential choice IS A LITTLE PERSON, like you. Unimportant because UNVIABLE... then you need some smarts BEAT into you.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#13. To: hondo68 (#11)
Kavanaugh at the George W. Bush white hut.
I see that you are butthurt. Maybe you should put some ice on that. Keep up the good work in your pursuit of intellectual excellence and you may even get an internship at the Free From Thought Project.
What Judge Kavanaugh wrote in the uncited Klayman v. Obama, 15-5307 (20 Nov 2015). It gets better each time you read it.
The Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law.
#14. To: nolu chan, enemy of the 4th amedment (#13)
#15. To: hondo68, hondope, enemy of truth, enemy of logic, butthurt baby (#14)
#16. To: nolu chan, Slick Willies fixer (#15)
President Bill Clinton thanks Kavanaugh on Air Force One.
Thanks Brett, for covering up Hillary's murder of Vince Foster.
#17. To: hondo68, Slick Willie's Fluffer, Rape fixer, Bimbo Eruptin Control (#16)
This is what liberal Dem leaders look and sound like after seeing the FBI report. Criminals and trapped rats.
Feinswine looks like she ust came from the doctor's office where she was told her condition was terminal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqY-UsS2mr4
Body Language: FBI Report Dianne Feinstein & Chuck Schumer Press Conference
Body Language Ghost
Published on Oct 4, 2018
#18. To: Deckard, Susan Collins seal of approval, BobCeleste (#0)
@18:00 Upheld same gender marriages + bake the gay wedding cake
Senator Susan Collins will vote for Kavanaugh because, he upholds same sex marriage, and Masterpiece Cakeshop, BAKE THE GAY WEDDING CAKE!
#19. To: hondo68 (#18)
Senator Susan Collins will vote for Kavanaugh because, he upholds same sex marriage, and Masterpiece Cakeshop, BAKE THE GAY WEDDING CAKE!
Whack jobs will protest because Roe v. Wade and "defend abortion."
#20. To: nolu chan (#8) (Edited)
I remember reading up on Klayman's case against Obama and the administration for illegal NSA's illegal wiretappings on unsuspecting Americans. I have sat in on numerous federal cases of Larry's.
I am not so much caught up on the sexual misconduct cases against Kavanaugh. I really want to know more about where this guy stands on the issues concerning the Third and Fourth Amendments.
#21. To: nolu chan, Jameson (#19)
In the future. We will go after the people who supported murdering children. It will be worse then being a supporter of slavery.
We will go after the senators for murder. We will go after their staff too for accessory to murder. We will go after the janitor at planned parenthood because he gets blood money too.
That is where it is going. Especially after Ginsburg departs earth to hell. Jamesons future home for his role in the murders of American children.
#22. To: goldilucky (#20)
I am not so much caught up on the sexual misconduct cases against Kavanaugh. I really want to know more about where this guy stands on the issues concerning the Third and Fourth Amendments.
I'm not sure if you mistakenly cited the 3rd Amendment.
Amendment IIINo soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I don't know if there has ever been a case on the 3rd Amendment.
Judge Kavanaugh's record on the 4th Amendment is pretty thin as a lower court judge, which is typical as they generally follow existing Supreme Court precedent. ScotusBlog from before the insanity is a good source, but there just is not much to be had.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-fourth-amendment/
Orin Kerr Contributor
Scotus Blog
Posted Fri, July 20th, 2018 6:16 pmJudge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment
Orin S. Kerr is the Frances R. and John J. Duggan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s views of the Fourth Amendment have drawn significant interest following his recent nomination to the Supreme Court. This post takes a close look at Kavanaugh’s key Fourth Amendment opinions. It does so with an eye to guessing how he might rule in search and seizure cases if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a large Fourth Amendment docket. How might a Justice Kavanaugh approach those cases?
My analysis is tentative for two reasons. The first is probably obvious. Circuit judges are supposed to follow Supreme Court and circuit precedent, while Supreme Court justices have much more room to roam. Given that, translation is hard. You never know how much of a circuit judge’s rulings simply reflect a lower court judge’s commitment to stare decisis.
A second reason for caution is that Kavanaugh’s Fourth Amendment record is modest. A Westlaw search revealed around 35 cases in the subject area in which Kavanaugh sat on the panel or considered a rehearing petition en banc. Most of those were unanimous and pretty easy. I found only five Fourth Amendment decisions, and one recent speech, that I think might reveal something significant about his approach.
With those two important caveats, here’s my overall sense of things. In tough Fourth Amendment cases that divide the Supreme Court, a Justice Kavanaugh would likely be on the government’s side. He is wary of novel theories that would expand Fourth Amendment protection. And he often sees the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness as giving the government significant latitude. If we had to associate Kavanaugh with a familiar justice, the limited evidence suggests that his approach in Fourth Amendment cases is probably somewhere in the ballpark of Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice William Rehnquist. I’ll now run through the five key cases, and Kavanaugh’s recent speech, to explain why I think that’s the case.
1. The balancing cases: Askew and Vilsack
[...]
2. The flagging-for-SCOTUS cases: Wesby and Maynard
[...]
3. The Section 215 opinion in Klayman
The last Kavanaugh opinion to consider is the one that has drawn the most attention. In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Richard Leon had ruled for the district court that the National Security Agency’s Section 215 call-records program violated the Fourth Amendment. Under the program, the NSA was getting the numbers dialed (but not the contents) for millions of Americans’ phone calls. Leon ruled that the program was unconstitutional but then stayed any remedy while the appeal was pending. The D.C. Circuit sent the case back to the district court on procedural grounds. With the Section 215 program about to expire, Leon quickly handed down a new decision that the program was unlawful and refused to grant a stay. The next day, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay; plaintiff Larry Klayman then sought an emergency petition for rehearing en banc, which the full court denied.
Kavanaugh filed a two-page solo concurrence in the denial of rehearing. In his view, the Section 215 program was “entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” That was true for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court had held that collecting telephony metadata was not a search in Smith v. Maryland. Smith settled the Section 215 question, in Kavanaugh’s view: “That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.” Second, even if a future court adopted a different a view of what is a search, the Section 215 program was still reasonable under the balancing of interests of the “special needs” exception (see the discussion of Vilsack above). “[T]elephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote, citing the 2004 9/11 Commission Report. “[T]hat critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”
What to make of Kavanaugh’s Klayman concurrence? On one hand, his view that the program satisfied the Fourth Amendment under Smith was doctrinally correct, in my view, at least before Carpenter v. United States last month. It’s surprising that Kavanaugh didn’t develop the Smith argument more. He gave the whole point only two sentences. But the argument was sound, and it matched what several district courts had said at that point (one example being the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in 2013 in United States v. Moalin).
On the other hand, I’m less persuaded by Kavanaugh’s argument that Section 215 would fit the special-needs exception if call-records collection is a search. I would think the question is how much the program actually advances the interest in preventing terrorist attacks, not just the importance of its goal in the abstract. But note the echo of Kavanaugh’s Vilsack dissent. In both cases, Kavanaugh applied the special-needs exception in ways that construed the government interests as very weighty and the privacy interests as comparatively light.
[...]
4. Like Rehnquist, or perhaps like Kennedy?
[...]
Recommended Citation: Orin Kerr, Judge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 20, 2018, 6:16 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-fourth-amendment/
#23. To: nolu chan (#19)
Whack jobs will protest because Roe v. Wade and "defend abortion."
Whack Jobs gonna be Whack Jobs.
The optics as a result of this ongoing insanity will cost the Democrats dearly. I hope they keep on showcasing their insanity.
(Irony Alert: "Defend Abortion" mantra on that sign nearby a 6 year old girl)
#24. To: nolu chan, goldilucky (#22)
Thanks for breaking down Kav's 4A record a bit for us and possible future tendencies.
My impassioned support of Kavanaugh (and yours respectively I suspect as well) was less about ideology and far more about repelling this insane unanimous demand by the Democrat Party (and vast majority of the Left) to indict then convict based solely on the identity of both The Accuser and Accused.
It was a full frontal assault in Macy's front window in broad daylight and conspiracy to crush the US Constitution. The conspiracy *should* have been overwhelmingly crushed. Instead it was a relative squeaker. That bodes ill for the future of Late Great USA.
When interviewed by Laura Ingraham last evening, Mitch McConnell indicted he would refuse to take Senate coup leaders Feinstein and Schumer and the rest of the (D) conspirators to task -- despite their blatant mockery and affront to the process and potential constitutional rights violations against Judge Kav.
I suspect McConnell is blackmailed to push any harder as a result of his shipping/monkey business with the ChiComs, over which he and his wife, Elaine Chao share guilt. (In exchange for Trump NOT pressing the issue and for B-Slapping Flake, McConnell feigned outrage over the Hearings.)
Feinstein of course is also involved in her own ChiCom monkey business. We are told her driver has been a Chinese "spy" for 20 years (without her knowledge ;-)
Final Observation: We see exactly why McConnell (and other mercs like Ryan and anti-Trumpers) are compromised. They're filthy.
#25. To: Liberator (#23)
The optics as a result of this ongoing insanity will cost the Democrats dearly. I hope they keep on showcasing their insanity.
Spot on. I believe it will result in a GOP pickup of a few seats in the Senate. They can thank their own stupidity, with an assist from Creepy Porn Lawyer, for their frustration when Amy Coney Barrett is nominated to replace the Notorious RBG.
#26. To: Liberator (#24)
My impassioned support of Kavanaugh (and yours respectively I suspect as well) was less about ideology and far more about repelling this insane unanimous demand by the Democrat Party (and vast majority of the Left) to indict then convict based solely on the identity of both The Accuser and Accused.
I was originally lukewarm about Kavanaugh because of the Bush connection. I reject utterly the attempt at character assassination having nothing to do with qualifications. This actually outdid the Clarence Thomas fiasco. The protesters are either flat out nuts or paid protesters.
#27. To: Liberator (#24)
When interviewed by Laura Ingraham last evening, Mitch McConnell indicted he would refuse to take Senate coup leaders Feinstein and Schumer and the rest of the (D) conspirators to task -- despite their blatant mockery and affront to the process and potential constitutional rights violations against Judge Kav.
Not to worry. It is time for Turtle to step aside and let The Donald do his thing.
Jeanine Pirro telephone interview with President Donald Trump, 10/6/2018:
"Dianne Feinstein, who in my opinion leaked the paper."
- - - - - - - - - -
We are told her driver has been a Chinese "spy" for 20 years (without her knowledge ;-)
Just speculation, but have you considered that she may have been put under surveillance after the spy was discovered? In that case, there is no telling what advance confidential information the President was playing with.
#28. To: nolu chan (#22)
I'm not sure if you mistakenly cited the 3rd Amendment.
Nope, no mistake on my part. I intended to cite it because of its relevance to the 4th Amendment.
#29. To: goldilucky (#28)
[goldilucky #20] I really want to know more about where this guy stands on the issues concerning the Third and Fourth Amendments.
[goldilucky #28] Nope, no mistake on my part. I intended to cite it because of its relevance to the 4th Amendment.
Ok. I am fairly certain that, in Kavanaugh's lifetime, there has never been any instance, brought before the courts or not, where any soldier, in time of peace or war, was quartered in any house with or without the consent of the owner. I can assure you that no 3rd Amendment case has ever reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am unaware of any such case brought before any court in American history.
I am unaware of anybody ever expressing an opinion on the 3rd Amendment.
There is no way to know where anybody stands on the 3rd Amendment. I do not see anything there to take a position on.
If I had to conjecture on Brett Kavanaugh's position, I would suppose it to be, "no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Amendment IIINo soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]