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: 3949
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 # 29.
#10. To: Deckard, misterwhite, Justified (#0)
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.” Put down the yellow rag and read the court opinions. Kavanaugh's opinion was in 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. 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). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's a damn lie. He's required to follow the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution above all else.
That's a damn lie. He's required to follow the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution above all else. You are the damned liar. When the U.S. Supreme Court issues an interpretation of the Constitution, the inferior courts do not ignore or overrule it. Roe or Obergefell are not overruled because a lower court judge just disagrees. Where the legal issue before the lower court is indistinguishable, it is decided by the existing Supreme Court precedent. Your being an asshole does not change the existing legal system. Deal with it.
Binding precedent is not the law of the land, the US Constitution is, you despicable lying Clinton/Bush butt kisser. The supreme court itself has, on more than one occasion, overturned it's own rullings/binding precedent. Judge Kavanaugh swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but he lied and did what the Clinton's, Bush's, Obama's and Trump's told him to. He's swamp scum, unworthy to clean the SCOTUS toilets.
When the U.S. Supreme Court issues an interpretation of the Constitution, the inferior courts do not ignore or overrule it. Roe or Obergefell are not overruled because a lower court judge just disagrees. Where the legal issue before the lower court is indistinguishable, it is decided by the existing Supreme Court precedent. Your being an asshole does not change the existing legal system. Deal with it. You legal moron, a precedential opinion only binds inferior courts. There is no such thing as a precedent which is binding upon the U.S. Supreme Court. When you do not know what the hell you are talking about, the best course is not to keep talking inanities and drive that point home. Judge Kavanaugh wrote: 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. You may not like it, but the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue. The decision to conform to precedent was unanimous and included Chief Judge Merrick GARLAND. It is you and your piece of shit article that lie. You seem to be a big fan of the ultra LIEberal 9th Circuit way of ignoring precedent and getting overruled, and having their case remanded to them with a mandate to issue another opinion not inconsistent with the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. Is your hero Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters?
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. It is you and your piece of shit article that lie. Sotomayor the wise latina, and Merrick F'n Garland? Who cares what your scofflaws leftist loon activist judges say? God is the only judge with the correct ruling 100% of the time. One doesn't need to be a judge to ignore bad law, and bad court decisions. it's called civil disobedience. The Militia did it on Lexington Green, fired the shot heard around the world and took out a few Nolu Redcoats. This nation was founded on disrespect for bad law, and authoritarian aholes like you, Kavanaugh, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, King George, and Donnell. Another Nolu lie, I didn't post the fine article at the top, Deckard did.
God is the only judge with the correct ruling 100% of the time. If you do not care what SCOTUS says, and all inferiior courts are free to ignore SCOTUS opinions, why do you care if Kavanaugh gets appointed or not? What are you hyperventilating about? God does not issue rulings interpreting the Constitution. We have courts of law, not ecclesiastical courts. Ignoring God's commandments is not a crime. It may be wrong, it may send you to eternal damnation, but if your conduct does not violate a criminal law, it is not a crime. The Bible is not binding precedent in courts of law. You are free to disagree with the law. You are even free to violate the law. You may not remain free for long, but your argument that you disagree with the law should elicit lots of sympathy at the crossbar hotel.
There are no replies to Comment # 29. End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest [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.
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.
#11. To: nolu chan, liar (#10)
Being required to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
#12. To: hondo68, damned liar, lyjng liberal (#11)
Being required to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
#13. To: nolu chan, NWO Soros Adelson shill (#12)
#14. To: hondo68, adoring fan of Maxine Waters (#13)
Binding precedent is not the law of the land, the US Constitution is, you despicable lying Clinton/Bush butt kisser.
The supreme court itself has, on more than one occasion, overturned it's own rullings/binding precedent.
Judge Kavanaugh swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but he lied and did what the Clinton's, Bush's, Obama's and Trump's told him to. He's swamp scum, unworthy to clean the SCOTUS toilets.
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.
#15. To: nolu chan, Deckard, Sotomayer, Merrick Garland, absolute vertical stare decisis, horizontal bop, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#14)
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.
#29. To: hondo68, Deckard, Thousand yard state, kenny loggins, absurd anarchist (#15)
Sotomayor the wise latina, and Merrick F'n Garland? Who cares what your scofflaws leftist loon activist judges say?
Replies to Comment # 29.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]