|
"The Addled Activist Mind"
"Don’t Stop with Harvard"
"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"
"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"
"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"
Freepers Still Love war
Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump
"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"
"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"
"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"
"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"
"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands
"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"
"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"
KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel
"Trade should work for America, not rule it"
"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"
"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"
‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’
Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"
"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"
"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"
"Ending EPA Overreach"
Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built
Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew
The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!
Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!
Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?
Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)
"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"
Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent
"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"
Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly
"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"
ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby
Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!
"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"
7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith
Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening
Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas
Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel
Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?
What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked
Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225
EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza
New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets
Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?
"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"
test
"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
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: 3199
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. By now, no one is a stranger to the claims of sexual assault that have been levied against Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, the entire country has been so wrapped up in this case, it is hard to determine what is fact and what is simply partisan politics rearing its ugly head. And between Cory Booker’s lengthy monologue that sounded more like a campaign stump speech than anything else and Lindsey Graham’s unexpected passionate rant, it is clear that both sides are putting way too much stake on the outcome of these hearings. To be sure, claims of sexual misconduct should certainly be brought to the public’s attention, especially when they involve a nominee for a position as powerful as a Supreme Court Justice. And in the #metoo era, failing to take these allegations seriously would be most unwise. But losing ourselves in this political circus and the subsequent media frenzy surrounding Kavanaugh’s sexual past glosses over another aspect of his professional career that should concern every single individual: his promotion of the national security state. The PATRIOT Act The years of 2001-2003 were confusing for Americans as many tried to grapple with the fact that living in the greatest country on earth did not make us immune to large-scale terrorist attacks. These were also the years that Brett Kavanaugh served as associate White House Counsel for then-President George W. Bush. This fear gave birth to the monstrous national security state we live in today, where without just cause, civilians began being treated like criminals in our own country. In the aftermath of 9/11, many people began to believe that the government not only had a right to take drastic security measures against its own people but that our livelihoods actually depended on it. This fear gave birth to the monstrous national security state we live in today, where without just cause, civilians began being treated like criminals in our own country. One of the most egregious acts perpetrated against the American people at this time was the PATRIOT Act. And one of its greatest supporters was Brett Kavanaugh. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for Kavanaugh’s official government correspondence records from this era, the Supreme Court Justice nominee referred to the PATRIOT Act as a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach” in an email sent to a colleague. Anyone who knows anything about the PATRIOT Act knows that “constitutional” and “careful” are by no means accurate descriptions. The PATRIOT Act obliterated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to privacy and due process by giving the federal government sweeping new powers to conduct surveillance on the American people. If he is the constitutionalist he has claimed to be on several occasions, then he would know that the Constitution already prohibits the government from broad, warrantless searches of this nature. But his support of the legislation that signaled the downfall of American rule of law does not simply end with his favorable comments. Kavanaugh was also one of the individuals tasked with its drafting. He has been definitively credited with the line, “…the new law will update laws authorizing government surveillance.” And just this one line is rather problematic in itself. If he is the constitutionalist he has claimed to be on several occasions, then he would know that the Constitution already prohibits the government from broad, warrantless searches of this nature. This is not a protection that can simply be “updated.” And yet, his nonchalance over abolishing certain constitutional protections without a discussion of adopting an actual amendment is disconcerting. The Torture Memos The public’s discovery of the “torture memos” was a dark time in modern American history. We had been riding our moral high horse during the early years of the War on Terror, pretending that America was the global beacon of moral and ethical treatment. But when the memos, which were originally composed while Kavanaugh served the Bush Administration, were released in 2004, the entire world caught a glimpse of just how ugly military interventions really were. The memos told a story of members of the Bush Administration attempting to broadly expand the legal definition of torture to justify such horrific acts as waterboarding and sleep deprivation as permissible. They also told of the administration’s quest to seek the authority to label anyone of their choosing an “enemy combatant,” thus, subjecting them to the possibility of indefinite detention in awful facilities like Guantanamo Bay. Their publication also added fuel to the already growing fire of animosity against George W. Bush who, at the time of the memo’s creation, was the employer of Judge Kavanaugh. In 2006, when Judge Kavanaugh was being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee as he waited to be confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he went on the record stating that he knew nothing of these memos before their public release. At several points during his hearing, he denied having anything to do with these memos specifically stating that he was “not involved” in any conversations regarding the rules governing the detention of combatants He also denied ever having seen the correspondence at all. He even told Senator Leahy: I think with respect to the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees, I was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memos that subsequently came out. This was not part of my docket, either in the counsel’s office or as staff secretary. The reason this has raised red flags for those already skeptical about Kavanaugh is that his position at the time dictated that memos and other written correspondence would have passed by his desk at some point before reaching their end recipient. Enemy Combatants Additionally, a year after the 2006 hearing, the Washington Post reported on a contentious meeting that had occurred in the White House in 2002. The conversation was centered on speculation as to whether or not the Supreme Court would accept the Bush Administration’s assertion that they could label an American citizen an “enemy combatant” at their discretion, allowing the person in question to be locked up for an indefinite amount of time. As per the Washington Post’s reporting, Judge Kavanaugh was not only present at this meeting but was specifically summoned to weigh in on the matter since he was himself a former clerk for swing vote judge, Justice Kennedy. At the meeting, he voiced his concerns that Justice Kennedy and other swing voters on the Supreme Court would never side with the administration’s controversial decision. This meeting was brought up again just a couple of weeks ago, addressing the concerns some Senators still have over Kavanaugh’s insistence that he had no role in such conversations when it appears that he did. As the New Yorker points out: First, attending this meeting or even just contributing a reading of Justice Kennedy’s likely view would seem to constitute taking part in a discussion on detention policies, and thus to contradict Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony. Senator Durbin, who sat on the Senate Judicial committee in 2006 sent Kavanaugh a letter in which he states, “it appears that you misled me,” but he never received a response, even after he followed up with Kavanaugh recently after he had received the Supreme Court nomination. Metadata: Due Process for Me, Not for Thee The 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. Congressman Amash expressed his concerns with Kavanaugh’s ruling, tweeting: Future decisions on the constitutionality of government surveillance of Americans will be huge. We can’t afford a rubber stamp for the executive branch. This mass surveillance of the American people not only violated the specific statutes in the Fourth Amendment that specified how individuals could be searched by the state, but it also violated the right of due process— the same due process that Kavanaugh has asked be upheld while he undergoes the confirmation process. If the government would like to gain access to the private communications of American citizens, it must do so by going to a judge and obtaining a warrant. Due process is a staple of our American legal system. And while the allegations made by victims of sexual assault should be listened to and investigated, there is more to due process than allowing Judge Kavanaugh to have his day in court. If the government would like to gain access to the private communications of American citizens, it must do so by going to a judge and obtaining a warrant. This warrant must specifically state what property is being searched and what is being searched for, as is specified by the Fourth Amendment. Requiring law enforcement to go through the proper channels to secure a warrant before violating the privacy of American citizens is part of due process. You cannot support “some” due process while blatantly abolishing certain safeguards that guarantee this right to Americans. To be sure, accusers of sexual assault deserve to be heard, but before we pass judgment, due process needs to occur. But due process is not meant for one class of people; it is meant for every American citizen whether they are nominated for the Supreme Court like Kavanaugh, or happen to have a radicalized parent like sixteen-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was targeted and killed by the U.S. Military without any semblance of due process. What’s at Stake But even if the allegations prove to be false, there are still serious concerns surrounding Kavanaugh’s confirmation on the Supreme Court that should not be ignored. Currently, the entire country is obsessed with focusing on one very narrow aspect of Judge Kavanaugh’s life. True, if these claims turn out to be correct, there is a legitimate cause for alarm. But even if the allegations prove to be false, there are still serious concerns surrounding Kavanaugh’s confirmation on the Supreme Court that should not be ignored. Most of our lives are now digital, which makes our information extremely vulnerable to hackers both private and government-sanctioned. We cannot afford to put ourselves at risk by empowering judicial candidates who have a proven record of trampling on Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, if there is ever a day when it is possible for Edward Snowden to return to the U.S. and receive a fair trial before the Supreme Court, it is hoped that our justices will be up to the task. And given Kavanaugh’s record of upholding the surveillance state in favor of national security, that future is highly unlikely.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#8. To: Deckard (#0)
[Brittany Hunter/Foundation For Economic Education] Metadata: Due Process for Me, Not for Thee The 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). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scribd.com/document/389796661/Klayman-v-Obama-15-5307-DC-Cir-20-Nov-2015-Kavanaugh-Pen-Register - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scribd.com/document/389796720/Smith-v-Maryland-4442-US-735-1979-Pen-Register-Data-Collection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 developments In 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 Remand Although 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.
Replies to Comment # 8.
#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.
#20. To: nolu chan (#8)
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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
|
