United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kavanaugh confirmed to Supreme Court after bitter fight, securing rightward shift
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ka ... fight-securing-rightward-shift
Published: Oct 6, 2018
Author: Adam Shaw
Post Date: 2018-10-06 17:56:09 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 2390
Comments: 28
The Senate voted Saturday to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, marking the end to one of the most rancorous confirmation fights in modern times and securing a rightward shift on the nation’s highest court. The chamber voted 50-48 to confirm Kavanaugh, mostly along party lines, after a weeklong FBI probe helped settle concerns among most wavering senators about the sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed his nomination and led to a dramatic second hearing. Saturday’s roll call marked the tightest successful Supreme Court confirmation vote in over 100 years, closer than even that of Clarence Thomas who similarly faced sexual misconduct allegations. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the sole Democrat to vote “yes.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was a “no,” but voted “present” as a courtesy to Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who was attending his daughter’s wedding in Montana. Kavanaugh was scheduled to be sworn in as an associate justice of the court on Saturday night. Democrats reacted to the vote by urging supporters to turn out to the polls in November for the midterms. “The American people are raising their voices to a deafening roar today. We will not stop marching, we will not stop fighting, and we will vote on Election Day for leaders who share our values.” Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said in a statement. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was a "heartbreaking day for women, girls and families across America." She also announced she is filing a Freedom of Information Act request so the public can view documents connected to the FBI's background investigation into sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. “The conduct of the Senate Republican Majority did violence to the reputation of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Supreme Court. We must proceed in a judicious manner to set the record straight and ensure that this never happens again,” she said. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnnell, R-Ky., brushed off criticism from Democrats and said it was "a good day for America and an important day for the Senate." "We stood up for the presumption of innocence, we refused to be intimidated by the mob of people coming after Republican members at their homes and hallways," he said. "I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the United States Supreme Court," President Trump tweeted. "Later today, I will sign his Commission of Appointment, and he will be officially sworn in. Very exciting!" The result was all but secured Friday night when undecided Sens. Manchin and Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced they would vote to confirm Kavanaugh, along with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who threw a curveball into the process when he requested the supplemental background probe last week as a virtual condition for support. Collins, on the Senate floor Friday, dismissed claims that Kavanaugh would be an extremist judge, and said the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh failed to meet the “more likely than not” standard. The explosive battle over his seating as the ninth justice extended Saturday into the vote itself, with protesters shouting from the gallery and packing the Capitol and Supreme Court grounds – vowing to inflict payback against Republicans in November, and indicating Kavanaugh will be a lightning rod for years to come. “A vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh today is a vote to end this brief, dark chapter in the Senate’s history and turn the page toward a brighter tomorrow,” McConnell said ahead of the vote, over which Vice President Pence presided. While largely emerging from his formal confirmation hearing unscathed, Kavanaugh faced a late burst of sexual assault allegations from multiple women from when he was in high school and college. At the hastily convened second hearing that also featured accuser Christine Blasey Ford, he furiously and at-times emotionally denied the claims and attacked Democrats and left-wing activists for their handling of the allegations. Ford, though, maintained she was “100 percent” sure he groped her and tried to force himself on her at a high school party. Democrats said the claims were credible and called for further investigation, or even for Kavanaugh to withdraw. Ford’s account represented just one battleground. After she first came forward, prodded into the public eye by press leaks, another woman, Deborah Ramirez, said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were at Yale. Another still, Julie Swetnick, claimed he and his friend Mark Judge (also accused of being in the room during the Ford incident) were involved in or present at “gang” rapes. Kavanaugh and Judge adamantly denied it all. While Kavanaugh’s confirmation sometimes looked in doubt, particularly after the testimony of Ford, Republicans and the White House rallied to Kavanaugh’s side -- pointing to alleged inconsistencies and also a lack of corroborating evidence on the part of the accusers. They also slammed Democrats, accusing them of politicizing the accusations and trying to destroy Kavanaugh. “Boy y’all want power, God I hope you never get it, I hope the American people can see through this sham,” a visibly angry Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Democrats at last week’s hearing. Republicans conceded to the demand for a limited FBI investigation by Sen. Flake last Friday. Democrats had been demanding such an investigation into the assault claims, but criticized this one as not being thorough enough even before it had finished earlier this week. On the Senate floor Saturday, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said the investigation was not comprehensive, and was "a sham, a fig leaf for the Republicans to hide behind." Democrats expressed concern not only about the sexual assault allegations, but also his judicial record, arguing that he would overturn Roe v Wade and rule from the extreme right. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Kavanaugh’s views are “deeply at odds with the progress America has made in the last century of jurisprudence and at odds with what most Americans believe.” They also said they were troubled by his fiery attack on Democrats. “This behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence unbecoming of someone seeking to be elevated to the Supreme Court,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, said Friday. Protesters and activists had been a ubiquitous presence on Capitol Hill in recent days. On Saturday approximately 1,000 protesters marched to the Capitol steps, chanting “November is coming.” But Republicans said that the fight had motivated the conservative base ahead of the November midterms. McConnell meanwhile, told The Washington Post that the Democratic and left-wing opposition was a "great political gift for us." “I want to thank the mob, because they’ve done the one thing we were having trouble doing, which was energizing our base,” he said. Kavanaugh replaces Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired at the end of July and was known as the swing justice, although he often sided with the conservative side of the bench.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
She should be removed for all power positions. Not one dime of national gop money should be given to her upon her reelection bid. We do not need wishy washy backstabbing pubs! If the Pubs do not make people pay for this after the elections there will be no stopping the demonshits from breaking every law on the books!
In response to Murkowski's vote, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote on Twitter, "I can see 2022 from my house," in a tongue-in-cheek reference to "Saturday Night Live" actress Tina Fey's impersonation of her during the 2008 presidential election.
Blue wave, impeachment #1 priority for 2019. Blowback = President Pence.
So you are a demoncrat!
So you are a demoncrat! Says the Karl Rove bushbot, Hillary neocon.
There's Justice Brett Kavanaugh and six more years of the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump.
Blue Wave, priority #1 for 2019 impeach & remove Trump. Blowback = President Pence Pence has loser 2020 written all over him. The great Vice-President Mike Pence will get reelected just fine, along with the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump. Get your self ready for Justice Barrett.
Trump will probably get two more picks. Plus maybe Clarence Thomas's replacement.
Kavanaugh & Grasley head off to the swearing in keg party. Another passed out drunk like Ginsberg on SCOTUS.
Very possible.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/current_events/politics/prez_track_oct05 Friday, October 05, 2018 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove. The great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump and the American people never tire of winning. Keep up the good work and you and your fellow travelers can get his approval rate over 60%! The irrational liberal losers never tire of whining and bitching.
I really don't get this type of animosity toward her for taking the position she has. Not that I fault anyone for disagreeing with her. It's like this. There were dozens or more of democrats that tried to fry Kavanaugh in ways that don't need expounding on, whereas Murkowski did no such thing. She merely gave a thoughtful explanation as to her way of thinking and acted according to her conscience. I listened to her give most of her speech on her decision. I can respect her opinion without agreeing with it. So while dozens in the senate deserve a lashing for how they treated Kavanaugh (i.e Democrats) and who essentially refused to respect the system of government, some are expending effort to ensure that Murkowski is kicked out of the senate merely for not towing the R line in spite of the fact that she never accused the guy of being a drunken sex predator. I would much rather have an honest independent thinker in the senate that I disagree with from time to time than an air-head that does everything Republicans tell her too. Any efforts to kick people out of the senate over the Kavanaugh hearings should be directed to those who irresponsibly attacked him solely because of Trump.
You act as though the vote was 90-10 in favor and she was one of the no votes who simply "voted her conscience". She almost succeeded where dozens of Democrats failed. This could have easily gone the other way, and she would have caused it. And this wasn't the first time. She voted to block the repeal of Obamacare. You forgive her for that, too?
You feel the same way about Senate Democrats? Not one single fucking Democrat thought that Kavanaugh was qualified? (Manchin voted for his own re-election, not because he liked Kavanaugh.)
Lost in all the accusations is Kavanaugh's endorsement of the patriot act and the notion that it's okay for the US gov to spy on Americans. Word is he does not pay any mind to the 4th Amendment. Those were legit reasons to oppose him that I would agree with. That Trump nominated him or that he had fake sex assault accusations against him were not. I have no beef with anyone opposing Kavanaugh on legitimate grounds. The country certainly would have survived if Kavanaugh had failed to be confirmed.
I will add that, like many others, I did take personal satisfaction in seeing him win confirmation, not because I knew much at all about his legal principles, but because his confirmation was a vindication that he should not be punished unjustly or treated like crap just because he was a Trump nominee and a white man, which he was. But as satisfying as that was, that was not the right reason for him to win the seat in the USSC.
Lost in the recitation of "notions" and "word is" claims is the case citations or quotes of Kavanaugh saying a damn thing. I have already debunked the baseless 4th Amendment claim three times, and this will be the fourth. The D.C. Circuit court currently includes 16 judges, down one from 17 yesterday. Cases taken to the court are usually heard by a 3-judge panel. A party that receives an adverse ruling may appeal to have the case heard by all the judges (a rehearing en banc). In the 4th Amendment case of Klayman v. Obama, Kavanaugh did not even sit on the panel which heard the arguments on the merits. The panel ruled unanimously to dismiss the case because the plaintiff lacked standing, which means the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. The 3-judge panel issued a unanimous per curiam opinion, and each judge wrote an opinion addressing the fatal standing flaw in the plaintiff case. Plaintiff petitioned to have the case heard by the full court, en banc. The court issued another per curiam opinion, unanimously by all the judges, with a page and a half written by Judge Kavanaugh, rejecting the petition for rehearing. Judge Kavanaugh never sat on a panel which heard argument on the merits of the case. Kavanaugh wrote that the existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1979 was binding on the D.C. Circuit Court. He recited what that binding precedent said. However, the case was rejected for rehearing, was not reheard, and was remanded to the the trial court (D.C. District Court). At the District Court, Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case and have it heard. 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). At issue was a Temporary Injunction issued by the District Court. On remand, the District Court dismissed the case, stating, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At the Circuit Court: 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 [...] 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 Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting in part - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 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 ourConstitutional 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Pinguinite #13] I really don't get this type of animosity toward her for taking the position she has. Not that I fault anyone for disagreeing with her. It's like this. There were dozens or more of democrats that tried to fry Kavanaugh in ways that don't need expounding on, whereas Murkowski did no such thing. She merely gave a thoughtful explanation as to her way of thinking and acted according to her conscience. I listened to her give most of her speech on her decision. I can respect her opinion without agreeing with it. - - - - - - - - - - While I concur that Sen. Murkowski should not be removed from any position because of how she votes, her membership in, or support from a political party is something for the party to address. The party is not bound to finance her campaigns when her votes undermine the objectives of the party. I respectfully find Murkowski's explanation less than compelling. a good man with sterling academic credentials, unblemished professional record It appears Kavanaugh is qualified. Is he fit? ... the reason I could not support Judge Brett Kavanaugh in this cloture motion this afternoon, is that it my role, my responsibility as one senator on this floor, I take this obligation that we have in the role of advice [sic - advise] and consent as seriously as anything that I am obligated, or privileged to vote on. And so I have a very high standard. I have a very high bar for any nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2, this is one that many many people in this body know. But it states that "A judge act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." And I go back and I look to that. It is pretty high. It is reallly high, that a judge shall act at all times, not just some times when you're wearing your robe, but a judge should act at all times, in a manner that promotes public confidence. Public confidence. Where's the public confidence? Public confidence resides with the public, not the Senate. The public confidence in Judge Kavanaugh, "a good man with sterling academic credentials, unblemished professional record," was higher after his testimony than before. The public confidence in Dr. Ford and the opponents of Judge Kavanaugh was clearly demolished. Public confidence in the Senate Judiciary Committee was greatly diminished. Judge Kavanaugh properly hurled the Democrat senators' impropriety and corruption in their faces. They stooped to spew forth allegations for whioch there remains no corroboration, and even those which the New York Times could not find fit to print. The impropriety of the Democrat senators was so manifest that they, the Democrat party, and the Democrat candidates up for reection all took a substantial hit in the polls. Republican candidates surged in the polls, and President Trump surged past 50% approval in the Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll. So, it is high. And even, even in the face of the worst thing that could happen, a sexual assault allegation, even in the face of an overly, and overtly, overtly political process, a politicized process, and even when one side of this chamber is absolutely dead set on defeating his nomination, from the very git go, before he was even named, even, even in these situations, the standard is that a judge must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Again, public confidence resides with the public. Public confidence in Judge Kavanaugh was higher after his testimony than before. The public confidence in Dr. Ford and the opponents of Judge Kavanaugh was clearly demolished. Public confidence in the Senate Judiciary Committee was greatly diminished. The impropriety of the Democrat senators was so manifest that they, the Democrat party, and the Democrat candidates up for reection all took a substantial hit in the polls. Republican candidates surged in the polls, and President Trump surged past 50% approval in the Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll. And, and after the hearing that we all watched, last week, last Thursday, it became clear to me, or was becoming clearer, that that appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable. The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/impropriety#dataset-cacd Cambridge Dictionary Impropriety [UK] behaviour that is dishonest, socially unacceptable, or unsuitable for a particular situation Public confidence does not conflate to one senator's personal opinion about the appearance of impropriety. But, in my conscience, because that's how I have to vote, at the end of the day, is with my conscience, I could not conclude that he is the right person for the court, at this time. What has the time got to do with approval or disapproval of a nomination? While a sexual assault was dredged up again, an FBI investigation on the allegation indicated that it found "no corroboration of the allegations" of sexual misconduct against him. The full report is reportedly over 1,000 pages long. Dr. Ford's testimony, however emotional, offered two possibilities: (1) Dr. Ford is mentally defective, or (2) Dr. Ford is a terribly bad liar whose testimony, compared to prior statements, is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Sen. Murkowski's speechification has little to nothing to do with Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications for the office ("a good man with sterling academic credentials, unblemished professional record") and does not identify any disqualifying conduct. Sen. Murkowski talks about the appearance of impropriety, but did not identify or address any specific impropriety. Sen. Murkowski alluded to her real political problem with a yes vote - the opposition of the Alaskan Indian population. I agree with the opinion of Sen. Collins that the uncorroborated allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh did not rise to the level of more likely than not, or preponderance of the evidence. Judge Kavanaugh is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
And getting a another Ginsburg or Sotomayer is worse than Kavanaugh. So until you kooks can produce the “perfect president that will nominate the perfect justice”... kindly shut the fuck up and stop helping the snowflakes by not helping the conservatives.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Basically after listening to her dribble in her heart she does not believe he is innocent but doesn't want to come out and say it. She is willing to let the demoncrats ruin everything while she holds her head up and says I will not get dirty! We do not need her. She is clearly the wrong person for the job if she is not willing to fight in the shit for the betterment of America. She should not be supported in any way by the GOP.
That is hilarious!
Post 21 should explain it.
Oh you are a neocon! Okay.
I agree. She should be told that her position will now be occupied by a Republican who votes conservative. We're not punishing her. We're rewarding him.
You have rebutted claims I was unaware of. Granted the below 7 min video is not as authoritative as actual citations which you'd prefer, but for what it's worth... https://www.facebook.com/DefyTheState/videos/1103142549851076/ In a nutshell, the claim is Kavanaugh was working with the W Bush admin and was at least in general, supportive of the Bush admin in regards to the Patriot Act and worked to justify torture. Though perhaps he was just "doing his job" as lawyers are apt to do for clients even contrary to their own personal convictions. Little, if anything, mentioned in the video has anything at all to do with the court cases you cite.
The reasons you gave in #16 to oppose Kavanaugh were: Those were legit reasons to oppose him that I would agree with. That Trump nominated him or that he had fake sex assault accusations against him were not. As your #16 did not source to a facebook video or anything else, I responded to what you offered as your own opinion. The offered reasons would be legit only if the assertions were true. The supporting material is not presented. I never heard of former TV anchor and Ben Swann before. Wikipedia describes him as: That Justice Kavanaugh pays no mind to the 4th Amendment is proven false by his opinion writing at the D.C. Circuit Court.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska,
#2. To: All (#1)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska,
#3. To: Justified, x45 (#0)
#4. To: hondo68 (#3)
Blue wave, impeachment #1 priority for 2019.
#5. To: Justified, bushbot, NWO (#4)
#6. To: hondo68, Justified, liberal, socialist (#5)
#7. To: nolu chan, Cherokee Nation, x45 (#6)
The Wave of the future - Cherokee Nation
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
Pence has loser 2020 written all over him.
#9. To: nolu chan (#8)
#10. To: nolu chan (#8)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
Trump will probably get two more picks. Plus maybe Clarence Thomas's replacement.
#12. To: hondo68 (#10)
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
#13. To: Justified (#1)
She should be removed for all power positions. Not one dime of national gop money should be given to her upon her reelection bid. We do not need wishy washy backstabbing pubs!
#14. To: Pinguinite (#13)
There were dozens or more of democrats that tried to fry Kavanaugh in ways that don't need expounding on, whereas Murkowski did no such thing.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#13)
would much rather have an honest independent thinker in the senate
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
#18. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#16)
Lost in all the accusations is Kavanaugh's endorsement of the patriot act and the notion that it's okay for the US gov to spy on Americans. Word is he does not pay any mind to the 4th Amendment.
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.
While the zeal and vigilance with which plaintiffs have sought to protect ourConstitutional 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.
Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judges.
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.”).
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.
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.
F. The Litigation on Remand
#19. To: Pinguinite, Justified (#13)
[Justified #1] She should be removed for all power positions. Not one dime of national gop money should be given to her upon her reelection bid. We do not need wishy washy backstabbing pubs!
[Sen. Murkowski]
[Sen. Murkowski]
[Sen. Murkowski]
[Sen. Murkowski]
Impropriety. a failure to observe standards or show due honesty or modesty; improper language, behavior, or character: she was scandalized at the impropriety of the question | there are no demonstrable legal improprities.
[US] dishonest behavior, or a dishonest act
[...]
#20. To: Pinguinite (#16)
(Edited)
Lost in all the accusations is Kavanaugh's endorsement of the patriot act and the notion that it's okay for the US gov to spy on Americans. Word is he does not pay any mind to the 4th Amendment.
#21. To: nolu chan, All (#19)
#22. To: nolu chan (#8)
#23. To: Pinguinite (#13)
#24. To: hondo68 (#5)
Says the Karl Rove bushbot, Hillary neocon.
#25. To: nolu chan (#19)
While I concur that Sen. Murkowski should not be removed from any position because of how she votes,
#26. To: hondo68 (#7)
Blue Wave, priority #1 for 2019 impeach & remove Trump.
#27. To: nolu chan (#18)
#28. To: Pinguinite (#27)
You have rebutted claims I was unaware of. Granted the below 7 min video is not as authoritative as actual citations which you'd prefer, but for what it's worth...
Lost in all the accusations is Kavanaugh's endorsement of the patriot act and the notion that it's okay for the US gov to spy on Americans. Word is he does not pay any mind to the 4th Amendment.
[Facebook Video by Ben Swann] https://www.facebook.com/DefyTheState/videos/1103142549851076/
Benjamin Swann (born July 17, 1978) is an American television news anchor, political commentator and journalist. He has worked as a sports producer, news journalist and producer, and managing editor on network affiliates, FOX, and RT America of the Russian state-owned TV network RT. He received a number of television journalism awards by 2009.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]