Why ignore Kavanaugh's disregard for the Constitution?

[PredFan]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

You understand that there are other judges on the scotus right? You understand that there are others on the scotus that are no where near being a constitutionalist right? You understand that you won’t get a judge you agree on everything with right?

I wasn't addressing "everything". Nor addressing the rest of scotus and what they are doing. Only one thing, "The Patriot Act", our fourth and fifth amendment rights and who helped author it.

You weren’t? Your statement that he “ignores the Constitution” is pretty general.

 

[RodISHI]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

You understand that there are other judges on the scotus right? You understand that there are others on the scotus that are no where near being a constitutionalist right? You understand that you won’t get a judge you agree on everything with right?

I wasn't addressing "everything". Nor addressing the rest of scotus and what they are doing. Only one thing, "The Patriot Act", our fourth and fifth amendment rights and who helped author it.

You weren’t? Your statement that he “ignores the Constitution” is pretty general.

Perhaps you did not read the whole original post. I'll repeat this part for you. ...
In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC

 

[Darkwind]

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

Now you are truly showing what a dumb-ass you are. I have been a registered Republican for many years and all my best friends are too. What I am not is so ignorant as to believe that when you start removing Constitutional protections you start becoming a police state. Too bad your brain is stuck on that dog and pony show they all put on for the totally blind fools to follow along with. If you had done your research you would know Kavanaugh was as much Obama's man as he was Bush's for taking away peoples 4th and 5th. Stuff that up your craw and choke on it for awhile.

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Your friend is wrong. Utilizing a private business opens you up to their rules.

She is wrong in your view.

Since when did the airlines start paying all the bills for TSA? oh that's right they don't.

I have no problem with a business setting the rules by which they will operate by as long as they foot the bills for their entire operation, are not endangering others and do not ask for any type of handouts.

What handout? Security?

Stop and think about this. TSA is NOT a violation of the right to privacy. You do NOT have a right to fly.

 

[RodISHI]

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Your friend is wrong. Utilizing a private business opens you up to their rules.

She is wrong in your view.

Since when did the airlines start paying all the bills for TSA? oh that's right they don't.

I have no problem with a business setting the rules by which they will operate by as long as they foot the bills for their entire operation, are not endangering others and do not ask for any type of handouts.

What handout? Security?

Stop and think about this. TSA is NOT a violation of the right to privacy. You do NOT have a right to fly.

Yet you are saying it seems that TSA is working for the airlines. what gives them that right to have tax supported employees they can dictate policy to? I am merely going by what you said as you claim that the airlines have that right. I agree they do have the right to determine policies that affect their business but they need to pay for those policies not the right to demand others pay for them (support them with tax dollar services)...


I very seldom have ever use air services and after the last trip won't ever again if I can help it.

 

[beautress]

I found a report that as of 2012, which I know was six years ago, the Patriot Act was responsible for dismantling 50 acts of terror against the USA, including taking out of Osama bin Laden in 2011, 10 years after his orchestration of 9/11/2001 when he took out the twin towers of the WTC and the part of the Pentagon. I would be in favor of allowing the authorities to do what had to be done in order to successfully protect America from another unwanted attack by anyone who had a yen to destroy the lives of not only the 2700 innocent people who were murdered by terrorists that day, but the several hundreds of Firefighters, Police, and other first responders in those tragic events. So if Kavanaugh favored expediting removing terror threats and threats to masses of American citizens by hostile groups, he deserves kudos and not condemnations from scholars who have their heads up their butts when it comes to fighting criminals engaged in terrorist activities where the rubber hits the road. If you have a family member who is an officer of the law, his opinion, if heeded, could save some very important first responders. Here's the article I just located on the Patriot Act's results, even if it is a little old: Fifty Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism

​

 

[Darkwind]

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Your friend is wrong. Utilizing a private business opens you up to their rules.

She is wrong in your view.

Since when did the airlines start paying all the bills for TSA? oh that's right they don't.

I have no problem with a business setting the rules by which they will operate by as long as they foot the bills for their entire operation, are not endangering others and do not ask for any type of handouts.

What handout? Security?

Stop and think about this. TSA is NOT a violation of the right to privacy. You do NOT have a right to fly.

Yet you are saying it seems that TSA is working for the airlines. what gives them that right to have tax supported employees they can dictate policy to? I am merely going by what you said as you claim that the airlines have that right. I agree they do have the right to determine policies that affect their business but they need to pay for those policies not the right to demand others pay for them (support them with tax dollar services)...


I very seldom have ever use air services and after the last trip won't ever again if I can help it.

That is your choice and the most effective way to fight back. I also think that the airlines should be reimbursing the taxpayers for this level of security.

However, if you say that we should not have that level of security, then you have to agree to absolve the airlines of any responsibility to the passengers in the case of an attack.

 

[Care4all]

.

A Progressive. Really. In what sense? Are all the Tea Party people Progressives too? I ask because see if it were not for them the Republicans wouldn't have a chance even though the Democrat leadership mostly sucks at this point.


pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective
adjective: progressive

1. 1.
   happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
   "a progressive decline in popularity"
   synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating; More
   gradual, step-by-step, cumulative
   "progressive deterioration"
   • (of a disease or ailment) increasing in severity or extent.
     "progressive liver failure"
   • (of taxation or a tax) increasing as a proportion of the sum taxed as that sum increases.
     "steeply progressive income taxes"
   • (of a card game or dance) involving a series of sections for which participants successively change place or relative position.
   • archaic
     engaging in or constituting forward motion.
2. 2.
   (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
   "a relatively progressive governor"
   • favoring or promoting change or innovation.
     "a progressive art school"
     synonyms: modern, liberal, advanced, forward-thinking, enlightened, enterprising, innovative, pioneering, dynamic, bold, avant-garde, reforming, reformist, radical;
     informalgo-ahead
     "progressive views"
     antonyms: conservative, reactionary
   • relating to or denoting a style of rock music popular especially in the 1980s and characterized by classical influences, the use of keyboard instruments, and lengthy compositions.
3. 3.
   Grammar
   denoting an aspect or tense of a verb that expresses an action in progress, e.g., am writing, was writing.

noun
noun: progressive; plural noun: progressives; noun: progressive proof; plural noun: progressive proofs
1.
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian
"he is very much a progressive"

I suggest you read your posts from the last 2 years...I have.
You’re a Republican Hating/Progressive Loving loon.

I see I don't agree with tactics like forcing people into your way of thinking so you must make a label up in your mind for me.

Kavanaugh's type of thinking is a prelude to a fascist police state. I will not agree with any one who denies people their rights. The Democrats via a few crooked Republicans used the Patriot Act as an excuse against me when Wells Fargo committed major fraud against me as they stole my husband's livelihood and then made the American public pay for it on top of all that so I will never go along with that kind of treatment for anyone in this country. If you do not like that go suck an egg.

Kavanaugh was as much Obama's boy as Bush's. You fail to address that don't you. It is easier for you to try and label me as something that might disgust someone else.

I will never support denying people the right to refuse vaccines, toxic food, toxic water, insurance or someone else's version of what religion they should follow. Apparently a few Republicans are willing to try and force their benefactors (corporate creeps) crap on the whole; and I do not support that anymore than I support the give away of the money in the peoples coffer and stealing away their paychecks for the insurance/banking industry and pharmaceutical industry via Obamacare. If you support those things then you are a fascist just as much as the Austrian stazi.

Tell me what do you call a person who claims to be a Republican but desires to force the commerce of their benefactors on someone else? Do you have a label for that?

I hate both Parties.
I voted against Globalism, Business Visas and any politician that was too polite to be honest.
That’s why I voted for Trump.

That two parties is the basic of the system. Same as in the spirit. There is a right hand side and a left hand side but if one is corrupted the other is subject to that corruption. Very few have the ability to use both their right and left hands equally but in time it all balances out.

Now back to Kavanaugh. I think it would not be a good thing to have him on the Supreme Court unless he has a change of heart and realizes what he has done is wrong for the country. I doubt that is going to happen so he needs to be dismissed and someone else considered who believes in the Constitutional rights provided in the fourth and fifth amendments. .

Only Progressives do the “Guilty as Charged” bullshit.
Way too British Empire for me.

LOCK HER UP!

 

[RodISHI]

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Your friend is wrong. Utilizing a private business opens you up to their rules.

She is wrong in your view.

Since when did the airlines start paying all the bills for TSA? oh that's right they don't.

I have no problem with a business setting the rules by which they will operate by as long as they foot the bills for their entire operation, are not endangering others and do not ask for any type of handouts.

What handout? Security?

Stop and think about this. TSA is NOT a violation of the right to privacy. You do NOT have a right to fly.

Yet you are saying it seems that TSA is working for the airlines. what gives them that right to have tax supported employees they can dictate policy to? I am merely going by what you said as you claim that the airlines have that right. I agree they do have the right to determine policies that affect their business but they need to pay for those policies not the right to demand others pay for them (support them with tax dollar services)...


I very seldom have ever use air services and after the last trip won't ever again if I can help it.

That is your choice and the most effective way to fight back. I also think that the airlines should be reimbursing the taxpayers for this level of security.

However, if you say that we should not have that level of security, then you have to agree to absolve the airlines of any responsibility to the passengers in the case of an attack.

If a person flies on an airline then aren't they taking that risk and any other risk that comes along with flying willingly? I do not have an issue with informed consent.

 

[Doc1]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

He's a Bushie, he probably helped the Patriot Act.

 

[sakinago]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

Kavanaugh was barely going to get confirmed even before the whole Ford debacle. I would’ve loved barret-Cohen, but that might’ve been a bridge too far for the GOP Sen in purple states ahead of an election. I’m more worried about google getting bed with government in the near future than I am about NSA data collection. Google actually influences

 

[The Original Tree]

Why didn't The Democrats bring this up instead of make False Allegations?

Too Late......we confirmed Kavanaugh with this baggage.

 

[RodISHI]

Why didn't The Democrats bring this up instead of make False Allegations?

Too Late......we confirmed Kavanaugh with this baggage.

I actually think he will make a good justice for the times but I am a bit concerned about this issue on our fourth amendment rights.

 

[Votto]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

Because democrats don't give a single rat's ass about civil liberties anymore, and everyone knows it....So the only arrow left in their quiver is character assassination.

Well apparently neither do Republicans or they are merely being sheeple to busy following the circus while this dude is appointed to the Supreme Court. People in the alternative media who have bitched about the Patriot Act are even ignoring that this guy penned it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of them (supposedly conservative Republicans) supporting and pushing for this guy to be confirmed.

After what Justice Roberts did to conservatives with Obamacare I just anticipate where the knife in the back will land with Kavanaugh as well

There is a reason the Swamp confirms these people.

However, when Dims appoint someone they are never disappointed.

 

[RodISHI]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

Because democrats don't give a single rat's ass about civil liberties anymore, and everyone knows it....So the only arrow left in their quiver is character assassination.

Well apparently neither do Republicans or they are merely being sheeple to busy following the circus while this dude is appointed to the Supreme Court. People in the alternative media who have bitched about the Patriot Act are even ignoring that this guy penned it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of them (supposedly conservative Republicans) supporting and pushing for this guy to be confirmed.

After what Justice Roberts did to conservatives with Obamacare I just anticipate where the knife in the back will land with Kavanaugh as well

There is a reason the Swamp confirms these people.

However, when Dims appoint someone they are never disappointed.

Well we can hope and pray it won't happen again in some other bullshit plan.

 

[Votto]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

Because democrats don't give a single rat's ass about civil liberties anymore, and everyone knows it....So the only arrow left in their quiver is character assassination.

Well apparently neither do Republicans or they are merely being sheeple to busy following the circus while this dude is appointed to the Supreme Court. People in the alternative media who have bitched about the Patriot Act are even ignoring that this guy penned it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of them (supposedly conservative Republicans) supporting and pushing for this guy to be confirmed.

After what Justice Roberts did to conservatives with Obamacare I just anticipate where the knife in the back will land with Kavanaugh as well

There is a reason the Swamp confirms these people.

However, when Dims appoint someone they are never disappointed.

Well we can hope and pray it won't happen again in some other bullshit plan.

Any institution that can rule for the Dred Scott Decision is probably not worth a damn.

The whole thing seems bizarre to me. It is a mad rush to appoint 9 stooges to legislate through reinterpreting the Constitution.

 

[RodISHI]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

Because democrats don't give a single rat's ass about civil liberties anymore, and everyone knows it....So the only arrow left in their quiver is character assassination.

Well apparently neither do Republicans or they are merely being sheeple to busy following the circus while this dude is appointed to the Supreme Court. People in the alternative media who have bitched about the Patriot Act are even ignoring that this guy penned it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of them (supposedly conservative Republicans) supporting and pushing for this guy to be confirmed.

After what Justice Roberts did to conservatives with Obamacare I just anticipate where the knife in the back will land with Kavanaugh as well

There is a reason the Swamp confirms these people.

However, when Dims appoint someone they are never disappointed.

Well we can hope and pray it won't happen again in some other bullshit plan.

Any institution that can rule for the Dred Scott Decision is probably not worth a damn.

The whole thing seems bizarre to me. It is a mad rush to appoint 9 stooges to legislate through reinterpreting the Constitution.

Have you ever read the book of Enoch? I see it all more as a fulfillment of the times; along with things I have been told over the years that didn't used to make sense to me when people said them but do make sense now to me.

 

[Votto]

Because democrats don't give a single rat's ass about civil liberties anymore, and everyone knows it....So the only arrow left in their quiver is character assassination.

Well apparently neither do Republicans or they are merely being sheeple to busy following the circus while this dude is appointed to the Supreme Court. People in the alternative media who have bitched about the Patriot Act are even ignoring that this guy penned it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of them (supposedly conservative Republicans) supporting and pushing for this guy to be confirmed.

After what Justice Roberts did to conservatives with Obamacare I just anticipate where the knife in the back will land with Kavanaugh as well

There is a reason the Swamp confirms these people.

However, when Dims appoint someone they are never disappointed.

Well we can hope and pray it won't happen again in some other bullshit plan.

Any institution that can rule for the Dred Scott Decision is probably not worth a damn.

The whole thing seems bizarre to me. It is a mad rush to appoint 9 stooges to legislate through reinterpreting the Constitution.

Have you ever read the book of Enoch? I see it all more as a fulfillment of the times; along with things I have been told over the years that didn't used to make sense to me when people said them but do make sense now to me.

Funny you should ask, I own a copy and have read it.

The early church used it a lot but Constantine I think threw it out of the Cannon because it spoke so harshly against world rulers being damned to hell for all their crap.

After all, most men who have walked the earth have either been a slave or part of the military machine.

 

[RodISHI]

Well apparently neither do Republicans or they are merely being sheeple to busy following the circus while this dude is appointed to the Supreme Court. People in the alternative media who have bitched about the Patriot Act are even ignoring that this guy penned it. I am thoroughly disgusted with some of them (supposedly conservative Republicans) supporting and pushing for this guy to be confirmed.

After what Justice Roberts did to conservatives with Obamacare I just anticipate where the knife in the back will land with Kavanaugh as well

There is a reason the Swamp confirms these people.

However, when Dims appoint someone they are never disappointed.

Well we can hope and pray it won't happen again in some other bullshit plan.

Any institution that can rule for the Dred Scott Decision is probably not worth a damn.

The whole thing seems bizarre to me. It is a mad rush to appoint 9 stooges to legislate through reinterpreting the Constitution.

Have you ever read the book of Enoch? I see it all more as a fulfillment of the times; along with things I have been told over the years that didn't used to make sense to me when people said them but do make sense now to me.

Funny you should ask, I own a copy and have read it.

The early church used it a lot but Constantine I think threw it out of the Cannon because it spoke so harshly against world rulers being damned to hell for all their crap.

After all, most men who have walked the earth have either been a slave or part of the military machine.

Perhaps more people will start reading it. I believe they need to and well a lot of other things they should know to that is not being taught.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why didn't The Democrats bring this up instead of make False Allegations?

Too Late......we confirmed Kavanaugh with this baggage.

You know, I think that when the Ford letter first surfaced, the GOP was freaking out, but then they figured that it would be easier to defend against Dr. Ford's allegations. Not only that, but they figured if they could demonize her bad enough, the people would feel sorry for Kavanaugh and want him seated on the SC.

Interestingly enough, I've heard a few stories about Kavanaugh lying to Congress, as well as his stance on whether or not a sitting president can be indicted, and the 4th Amendment, I was hoping that people would start talking about that, rather than the allegations of Ms. Ford.

But, the GOP played their hand well, and were properly outraged at Ford's accusations. And, they were so outraged, that they never brought up anything else.

If they would have focused on the lying and all the other crap Kavanaugh has done, rather than on the sexual assault allegations, he might not be sitting there today.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

THANK YOU
Why would ANYONE want this big govt dipshit on the bench? WHY

I don't and the people claiming they don't like the violations of our 4th and 5th when it comes to the Patriot Act are ignoring this too. His nomination is making president Trump look like a true hypocrite because he didn't like being spied on either. Trump should withdraw this guy's nomination.

And replace him with whom?

You are aware that Trump doesn’t select judicial nominees; indeed, Trump wouldn’t know a qualified jurist if he punched Trump in the nose.

Republican nominees to the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court in particular – are selected by conservative operatives and Republican party bosses; any nominee would be an ‘originalist’ conservative ideologue with the same propensity for authoritarianism and contempt for the privacy rights of citizens.

If Kavanaugh’s nomination were withdrawn he’d be replaced with someone just as bad, or worse.

A whole lot worse....in terms of conservative values.

I didn't like the smear...but I didn't like the choice either.