"The debate arose after wealthy individuals contributed huge sums of money to nonprofits ranging from America Coming Together to MoveOn.org to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in order to support advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts, and voter registration drives. In total during the 2004 campaign, these groups reportedly spent several hundred million dollars. "

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D11F5F2C85F27 76A852578070058D510/%24file/08-5422-1206889.pdf

"Given the constitutionally permissible caps on an individual donor’s contributions to candidates or parties, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the risk that individuals might use non-profits to evade those limits. "

Gee Wally, ya think?

This should have been a straightforward application of administrative law, not unlike countless agency cases decided by this circuit every year. Congress has enacted a statute; the agency has violated it; the rules must be vacated; done. I would enforce the statute as written and call it a day. A good rule of thumb is we often do more for the law when we do less with the law. Per that rule, I concur only in part with the court’s opinion.


Looks like a reasonable and thoughtful Jurist to me.

CONFIRM KAVANAUGH!

freethoughtproject

"wealthy individuals contributed huge sums of money to nonprofits"

"Non" profits like the "free" thoughtproject?

The freethoughtproject is bringing this up one day before the vote for what purpose?

Because the radical liberal socialists went all in on uncorroborated sex crimes, and their egregious abuse of Dr. Ford, and it blew up in their face.

Radical liberal socialists never admit defeat. They just roll out plan b, c, d.... They replace the rejected bullshit with alternate bullshit.

Radical liberal socialists never admit defeat

President Trump and Jeff Flake have demand an FBI investigation of Judge Swamp. Confirmation halted.

They both love the bullshit.

MSM Using Kavanaugh Sex Scandal to Distract You From Real Reason He Shouldn’t Be Appointed

So you would rather have a far left nut case instead?

You would rather have demoncrats run our world?

You guys are messed up! You will never find a perfect justice because their isn't one. So you will just let the other side win over and over until there is nothing. This is the number one issue with the libertarian mindset. You commit suicide because you are spoiled rotten child. Its up to those that actually fight and make a difference.

You are demented.

You're only saying that to divert attention from Team Flake, Donny & Jeff.

Flake is taking over McCrazies moves.

The only group diverting attention are the attention whores in both extreme of the political spectrum.

[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.”

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

Being required to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent,

That's a damn lie. He's required to follow the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution above all else.

Being required to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent,

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.

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.

Binding precedent is not the law of the land, the US Constitution is, you despicable lying Clinton/Bush butt kisser.

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.

The supreme court itself has, on more than one occasion, overturned it's own rullings/binding precedent.

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 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.

Judge Kavanaugh wrote:

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.

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 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.

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.

One doesn't need to be a judge to ignore bad law, and bad court decisions.

Yeah... it’s called a criminal. Every criminal I ever arrested didn’t agree with the law or the court decisions finding them guilty in all their past criminal history convictions.

Sotomayor the wise latina, and Merrick F'n Garland? Who cares what your scofflaws leftist loon activist judges say?

It's amazing the lengths these police/surveillance state apologists will go to in order to justify fed.gov spying on American citizens.

Useful idiots for the State is what they are.

MSM Using Kavanaugh Sex Scandal to Distract You From Real Reason He Shouldn’t Be Appointed

The headline is something a retard would write.

They are going to distract with a made up sex scandal to cover up for some other imagined wrong.

Matt is borderline retarded and makes you look the same.

...something a retard would write.

Oh, the irony!

They are going to distract with a made up sex scandal to cover up for some other imagined wrong.

That's EXACTLY what it is - a distraction, a badly scripted soap-opera designed to keep rubes like you outraged.

I'll just add you to the list of surveillance state tools who don't give a damn about fed.gov spying on American citizens.

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.

It is true that the fourth amendment doesn't protect against putting a device on someones car.

Do you disagree with that?

If so you have reading comprehension problems or you are a liar or just stupid.

You may disagree with the policy. But an honest reading doesn't include devices put on cars.

You want someone to add words to the constitution. You're just a chronic crybaby.

It is true that the fourth amendment doesn't protect against putting a device on someones car.

I assume you mean a tracking device of some sort. Not unless there is a warrant issued, indicating probable cause.

Warrantless spying by the NSA is completely illegal.

As for the rest of your post, when are you going to grow the F up?

Warrantless spying by the NSA is completely illegal.

I don't agree with it.

But constitutionally speaking where are the prohibitions?

You think the constitution is whatever you believe. When actually it contains words which have meaning.

Show me the prohibitions where you don't have to pretend it means something you want it to mean.

As for the rest of your post, when are you going to grow the F up?

Pointing out that you are a chronic whiner and crybaby doesn't mean I am not grown up.

You whine about many things that don't really matter.

But constitutionally speaking where are the prohibitions?

4th Amendment.

You think the constitution is whatever you believe.

Attaboy Spanky - make up some more of your BS.

... things that don't really matter.

Yeah I get it - gooberment intrusion into the private lives of American citizens is no big deal.

After all, "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to be concerned about", right Parsons?

Doubleplussgood comrade! You will be receiving an extra allotment of Victory Gin for your unwavering servitude to Big Brother.

Yeah I get it - gooberment intrusion into the private lives of American citizens is no big deal.

No you don't get it dunce.

Us normals don't fret about pot being illegal or heroin or crack.

You're a dope.

You have to site what it says that makes it illegal.

You know that you just want to misrepresent the words. Because you are a spinner.

Us normals don't fret about pot being illegal or heroin or crack.

Try and stay on topic princess. And calling yourself "normal" don't make it so.

You're a dope.

More irony. What grade are you in Sport, 5th?

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.

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.

It's amazing the lengths these police/surveillance state apologists will go to in order to justify fed.gov spying on American citizens.

Useful idiots for the State is what they are.

Read the court opinions, you retarded idiot. It is amazing the lengths you will go to just to spew inane bullshit, but you abjectly refuse to read the court opinions you spew bullshit about and have no damn clue what they are about or what they say.

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.

Methinks your posts are above Dicktards legal understanding.

I know, but sometimes I have an irresistible impulse to punctuate a a Free of Thought Project thread with a fact bomb.

That has to be one of the worst sources on the internet.

Yeah I get it - gooberment intrusion into the private lives of American citizens is no big deal.

After all, "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to be concerned about", right Parsons?

Chyeah, right -- tell it to the "Public" corporate operatives FOR the Democrats-Left: HUNDREDS of Soros front groups, G00gle, Yahoo, FB, Twitter, CAIR, ACLU, SPLC, etal. It ain't the gummint who is methodically harvesting private info and data, censoring, investigating, and digging up PRIVATE dirt on conservatives/Republicans -- then airing it out in Mainstream Media.

Sometimes I have an irresistible impulse to punctuate a a Free of Thought Project thread with a fact bomb.

That has to be one of the worst sources on the internet.

But...but..."Free Thought Project" is a force for "Good" battling "Evil"!!

*triple eyeball roll*

It is true that the fourth amendment doesn't protect against putting a device on someones car.

Actually, SCOTUS says it constitutes a search.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

Syllabus at 400-01; page references to Opinion of the Court

Held: The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 404–413.

(a) The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumerated in the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. Pp. 404–405.

(b) This conclusion is consistent with this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which until the latter half of the 20th century was tied to common-law trespass. Later cases, which have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach, have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, which said that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” id., at 360. Here, the Court need not address the Government’s contention that Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34. Katz did not repudiate the understanding that the Fourth Amendment embodies a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas it enumerates. The Katz reasonable-expectation-ofprivacy test has been added to, but not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 176; Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 64. United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, and United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705—post-Katz cases rejecting Fourth Amendment challenges to “beepers,” electronic tracking devices representing another form of electronic monitoring—do not foreclose the conclusion that a search occurred here. New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, and Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, also do not support the Government’s position. Pp. 405–413

(c) The Government’s alternative argument—that if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was a reasonable one—is forfeited because it was not raised below. P. 413.

615 F. 3d 544, affirmed. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 413. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined, post, p. 418.

https://www.scribd.com/document/390004691/United-States-v-Jones-565-US-400-2012-4TH-AMDT-GPS-Device-on-Car

If they forbid it and say a warrant us ne3ded. I agree with the outcome.

[Scalia, Opinion of the Court, 585 US at 404] "We hold that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a 'search.'"

Attaching and using the GPS monitor is a search and requires a warrant. The Court excluded the evidence obtained by the warrantless unconstitutional search.