Re: Kavanaugh-- In Case You're Keeping Score

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The left and the right both work for the very same corporations.

This was all a ruse to keep us from debating Kavanaugh's position on the 4th Amendment, which he has been raping for decades now.

What specific decisions on the CoA has he made "for decades" which "raped" the 4th Amendment?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

What specific decisions on the CoA has he made "for decades" which "raped" the 4th Amendment?

There's plenty on there on it. Here's a link to consider:

Kavanaugh, Klayman, and the Fourth Amendment
https://www.cato.org/blog/kavanaugh-...urth-amendment

[Aquila]

Essentially, they need Kavanaugh appointed if they want to strengthen the chances of being able to continually spy on the American people and collect data on our private lives.

This was all a distraction to keep the real questions from being asked. And BOTH parties were playing it up. Because they work for the same corporate powers that really run the government.

[Pressing-On]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?452644...rett-kavanaugh

October 8, 2018
Ceremonial Swearing In of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice in a ceremony at the White House. In remarks before the swearing-in, President Trump apologized to Justice Kavanaugh and his family for the “terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure,” referring to the Senate confirmation process. “Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception,” the president said. After taking the oath of office, administered by his predecessor, Anthony Kennedy, Justice Kavanaugh thanked the president for his support and affirmed his commitment to judicial independence and impartiality. “The Senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional. That process is over. My focus now is to be the best justice I can be. I take this office with gratitude and no bitterness,” said the new justice. In addition to recently retired Justice Kennedy, all nine sitting Supreme Court justices attended the East Room ceremony. President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9 and he was confirmed by the Senate, 50-48, on October 6. This public ceremony followed a private swearing-in ceremony held two days earlier at the Supreme Court.

Whatever you think about his ideology, the search and destroy was a blight on our Due Process.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

https://www.c-span.org/video/?452644...rett-kavanaugh

October 8, 2018
Ceremonial Swearing In of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice in a ceremony at the White House. In remarks before the swearing-in, President Trump apologized to Justice Kavanaugh and his family for the “terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure,” referring to the Senate confirmation process. “Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception,” the president said. After taking the oath of office, administered by his predecessor, Anthony Kennedy, Justice Kavanaugh thanked the president for his support and affirmed his commitment to judicial independence and impartiality. “The Senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional. That process is over. My focus now is to be the best justice I can be. I take this office with gratitude and no bitterness,” said the new justice. In addition to recently retired Justice Kennedy, all nine sitting Supreme Court justices attended the East Room ceremony. President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9 and he was confirmed by the Senate, 50-48, on October 6. This public ceremony followed a private swearing-in ceremony held two days earlier at the Supreme Court.

Whatever you think about his ideology, the search and destroy was a blight on our Due Process.

So was the refusal to have a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee for over 400 days before the national election. NEVERTHELESS, I am glad this is over.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

So was the refusal to have a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee for over 400 days before the national election. NEVERTHELESS, I am glad this is over.

According to Senate rules and because elections have consequences, they didn’t have to vote or look at Garland.

Comparing that circumstance with Kavanaugh is simply a disgusting mistake on your part. The Republicans would have never staged such a dishonest, personal destruction hit job on Garland or any other candidate.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There's plenty on there on it. Here's a link to consider:

Kavanaugh, Klayman, and the Fourth Amendment
https://www.cato.org/blog/kavanaugh-...urth-amendment

This is what I figured you were referring to.

All the libertarian and conservative articles about Kavanaugh and the 4th amendment all point to this single case, Klayman vs Obama.

Your claim that Kavanaugh has been "raping" the 4th Amendment for "decades" is an extreme hyperbole and nothing close to the truth.

Also, Kavanaugh followed the letter of the 4th in his concurrence. He specifically pointed out “the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Kavanaugh stated "the Government's metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court's case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient "special need" — that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement — that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports."

Kavanaugh was correct in his concurrence.

Like it or not, the 4th allows for reasonable search and seizure.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

So was the refusal to have a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee for over 400 days before the national election.

Tell it to Biden, he's the one who set those rules in place. The Dems are just angry that their own rules got used against them.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

This is what I figured you were referring to.

All the libertarian and conservative articles about Kavanaugh and the 4th amendment all point to this single case, Klayman vs Obama.

Your claim that Kavanaugh has been "raping" the 4th Amendment for "decades" is an extreme hyperbole and nothing close to the truth.

Also, Kavanaugh followed the letter of the 4th in his concurrence. He specifically pointed out “the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Kavanaugh stated "the Government's metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court's case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient "special need" — that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement — that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports."

Kavanaugh was correct in his concurrence.

Like it or not, the 4th allows for reasonable search and seizure.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

But the question remains, how "reasonable" is the metadata collection of information, telephone call recordings, email recordings, internet search recordings, etc. of millions of Americans... "just 'cause "terrorism"???

And so far, with the previous SCOTUS rulings, the right to privacy is being whittled away at in the name of "national security". Frankly, our right to privacy is almost non-existent. And that is because we keep appointing justices that do not put a premium on the American citizen's right to privacy as intended by the Constitution.

"Reasonable" actions like these can take place during times of creditable terrorist threat. But the government should never be empowered to just collect data on millions of Americans without first establishing that the need is "reasonable".

In my opinion this is far more important than some girl he and his buddies ran a train on in college, more important than gay marriage, and yes, I think it is even more important than abortion. Our constitutional right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures is paramount. I fear the recent decisions of the SCOTUS and those justices who have been appointed are playing a bit fast and loose with the Constitution's wording, and are forgetting about its intent.

I'm also not too big on his corporatism. However, right now it is hard to find any politician, judge, or public official that isn't beholden to some corporate master.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But the question remains, how "reasonable" is the metadata collection of information, telephone call recordings, email recordings, internet search recordings, etc. of millions of Americans... "just 'cause "terrorism"???

And so far, with the previous SCOTUS rulings, the right to privacy is being whittled away at in the name of "national security". Frankly, our right to privacy is almost non-existent. And that is because we keep appointing justices that do not put a premium on the American citizen's right to privacy as intended by the Constitution.

"Reasonable" actions like these can take place during times of creditable terrorist threat. But the government should never be empowered to just collect data on millions of Americans without first establishing that the need is "reasonable".

In my opinion this is far more important than some girl he and his buddies ran a train on in college, more important than gay marriage, and yes, I think it is even more important than abortion. Our constitutional right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures is paramount. I fear the recent decisions of the SCOTUS and those justices who have been appointed are playing a bit fast and loose with the Constitution's wording, and are forgetting about its intent.

IMO he sufficiently address "reasonable search and seizure" and backed it with previous decisions upheld by the SCOTUS.

You say these actions "can take place during times of 'credible' terrorist threat."

1) there are credible threats to this country all the time;
2) if limited to only after a credible threat received, it would be too little too late.
3) you say you fear SCOTUS is forgetting about the 4th's intent -- that's debatable. I believe the founders would allow for what is currently being done.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm also not too big on his corporatism. However, right now it is hard to find any politician, judge, or public official that isn't beholden to some corporate master.

What decisions on corporations has Kavanaugh made with which you disagree?