Why ignore Kavanaugh's disregard for the Constitution?

[Indeependent]

.

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.

Who said Kavanaugh was "guilty as charged"? That whole dog and pony show was obviously a farce from the get go but some of the more ignorant in D.C. fell for it hook, line and sinker. Along with a whole lot of peeps that can't see past the smoke and mirrors act or do a little research to look for his actual record online.

I think you need to blow off some steam about what happened to your husband because you’re not making sense.

The bank stole all of his heavy equipment when they went after me on a corporate loan that the bank had committed major fraud on. They had the sheriff raid our home and shop basically taking whatever they thought looked like it had any value. My cupboards were even gone through. The bank called me a terrorist. I was threatened with arrest for protesting what they were doing. It all transpire shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. Democrats used that Act as their justification but the bankers and their attorneys along with the company that designed my equipment to fail from the factory were all Republicans pushing through the banks agenda of "scorched earth" when it all started coming apart on them. Does that explain it enough for you to make a little sense out of why I think warrantless search and seizures suck?

You’re saying Wells-Fargo gave you a Corporate Loan and the loan was never really approved and another entitycame after you to seize assets purchased with this non-existent loan?

 

[RodISHI]

.
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.

Who said Kavanaugh was "guilty as charged"? That whole dog and pony show was obviously a farce from the get go but some of the more ignorant in D.C. fell for it hook, line and sinker. Along with a whole lot of peeps that can't see past the smoke and mirrors act or do a little research to look for his actual record online.

I think you need to blow off some steam about what happened to your husband because you’re not making sense.

The bank stole all of his heavy equipment when they went after me on a corporate loan that the bank had committed major fraud on. They had the sheriff raid our home and shop basically taking whatever they thought looked like it had any value. My cupboards were even gone through. The bank called me a terrorist. I was threatened with arrest for protesting what they were doing. It all transpire shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. Democrats used that Act as their justification but the bankers and their attorneys along with the company that designed my equipment to fail from the factory were all Republicans pushing through the banks agenda of "scorched earth" when it all started coming apart on them. Does that explain it enough for you to make a little sense out of why I think warrantless search and seizures suck?

You’re saying Wells-Fargo gave you a Corporate Loan and the loan was never really approved and another entitycame after you to seize assets purchased with this non-existent loan?

They required me to incorporate for the loan to specifically separate the assets for the mine production (it was an SBA loan made to my corporation which they also insisted on before totally separate as a totally woman owned business). The heavy equipment, tools etc. my husband owned for years that they stole were not part of the mining processing equipment that the loan was initiated for. Some of those were tools he'd had since he'd started his first business enterprise back in 1982. The bank didn't even have a proper UCC filing. They even filed it in an illegal manner trying to claim the land I leased to process high-grade road materials from but their UCC filed with no listed equipment that was purchased with the loan to process the materials at the mine site. (Wells Fargo also shorted the loan funds by $80,000.00) It must have been approved as SBA paid them very well for their so called losses.

 

[Indeependent]

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

Who said Kavanaugh was "guilty as charged"? That whole dog and pony show was obviously a farce from the get go but some of the more ignorant in D.C. fell for it hook, line and sinker. Along with a whole lot of peeps that can't see past the smoke and mirrors act or do a little research to look for his actual record online.

I think you need to blow off some steam about what happened to your husband because you’re not making sense.

The bank stole all of his heavy equipment when they went after me on a corporate loan that the bank had committed major fraud on. They had the sheriff raid our home and shop basically taking whatever they thought looked like it had any value. My cupboards were even gone through. The bank called me a terrorist. I was threatened with arrest for protesting what they were doing. It all transpire shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. Democrats used that Act as their justification but the bankers and their attorneys along with the company that designed my equipment to fail from the factory were all Republicans pushing through the banks agenda of "scorched earth" when it all started coming apart on them. Does that explain it enough for you to make a little sense out of why I think warrantless search and seizures suck?

You’re saying Wells-Fargo gave you a Corporate Loan and the loan was never really approved and another entitycame after you to seize assets purchased with this non-existent loan?

They required me to incorporate for the loan to specifically separate the assets for the mine production (it was an SBA loan made to my corporation which they also insisted on before totally separate as a totally woman owned business). The heavy equipment, tools etc. my husband owned for years that they stole were not part of the mining processing equipment that the loan was initiated for. Some of those were tools he'd had since he'd started his first business enterprise back in 1982. The bank didn't even have a proper UCC filing. They even filed it in an illegal manner trying to claim the land I leased to process high-grade road materials from but their UCC filed with no listed equipment that was purchased with the loan to process the materials at the mine site. (Wells Fargo also shorted the loan funds by $80,000.00) It must have been approved as SBA paid them very well for their so called losses.

The problem with the big banks like WG and JP Morgan is they can get away with activities that are absolutlely illegal.
JP Morgan tried to foreclose on 2.5 million homes that they were not even mortgaging and the local authorities dmnever know if the documents they are presented with are even on the up and up.

 

[RodISHI]

Who said Kavanaugh was "guilty as charged"? That whole dog and pony show was obviously a farce from the get go but some of the more ignorant in D.C. fell for it hook, line and sinker. Along with a whole lot of peeps that can't see past the smoke and mirrors act or do a little research to look for his actual record online.

I think you need to blow off some steam about what happened to your husband because you’re not making sense.

The bank stole all of his heavy equipment when they went after me on a corporate loan that the bank had committed major fraud on. They had the sheriff raid our home and shop basically taking whatever they thought looked like it had any value. My cupboards were even gone through. The bank called me a terrorist. I was threatened with arrest for protesting what they were doing. It all transpire shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. Democrats used that Act as their justification but the bankers and their attorneys along with the company that designed my equipment to fail from the factory were all Republicans pushing through the banks agenda of "scorched earth" when it all started coming apart on them. Does that explain it enough for you to make a little sense out of why I think warrantless search and seizures suck?

You’re saying Wells-Fargo gave you a Corporate Loan and the loan was never really approved and another entitycame after you to seize assets purchased with this non-existent loan?

They required me to incorporate for the loan to specifically separate the assets for the mine production (it was an SBA loan made to my corporation which they also insisted on before totally separate as a totally woman owned business). The heavy equipment, tools etc. my husband owned for years that they stole were not part of the mining processing equipment that the loan was initiated for. Some of those were tools he'd had since he'd started his first business enterprise back in 1982. The bank didn't even have a proper UCC filing. They even filed it in an illegal manner trying to claim the land I leased to process high-grade road materials from but their UCC filed with no listed equipment that was purchased with the loan to process the materials at the mine site. (Wells Fargo also shorted the loan funds by $80,000.00) It must have been approved as SBA paid them very well for their so called losses.

The problem with the big banks like WG and JP Morgan is they can get away with activities that are absolutlely illegal.
JP Morgan tried to foreclose on 2.5 million homes that they were not even mortgaging and the local authorities dmnever know if the documents they are presented with are even on the up and up.

My case was so bad they actually altered the certified court transcript to cover it all up. Never the less I learned many, many things I would have never considered prior to all of that. I'm told fraud upon the court has no statue of limitations but one still must have an attorney to take it all on and where does one find an honest and decent one to do all that at this point in time here where we are is beyond me. Justice finds everyone in time kind of like the Ford Blasey fiasco in Kavanaigh's confirmation process. It all comes around in its given time.

 

[Jerico]

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.

Now Democrats care about privacy? What a timeline. Just in time for the most privacy violating president in history to have finished his two terms under their label.

If Kavanaugh were so unconstitutional, the left wouldn't be trying to destroy him- they'd love him.

His record speaks for itself on that matter and I love Judge Andrew Napolitano's explanation on the issue. Everyone should watch his video on it that is why I put it in this thread. All one has to do is look at that and the record at EPIC.com to see what he has stood for. He obviously didn't like it when people were able to make up shit and go after him. What is embraced by one party will be manifested by another when things get heated no matter which side of the fence one is on so why allow anyone in such a position that was willing to trash the fourth and the fifth in their rulings and by their past actions?

(Truthfully though I do see a bit of justice transpiring in all that as he seems to have ruled in favor of warrantless searches and surveillance. So he basically tied himself to that guilty without any proven cause when he trashed the fourth and fifth. Even so though that was a nasty dog and pony show that some Democrats helped initiate and create. I am sure that will come back to haunt them heavily in the next election cycle but that doesn't mean I believe we need Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court either. Justice isn't actually blind as it all comes around in its own time and the Lord does choose the foolish things)

I was being facetious. I support Kavanaugh insofar as I think to not support him is to betray the very fabric of our judicial system. I won't spend any time defending his actual record as a judge. He is a product of the Bush era Republicanism which I'm not a fan of so I get what you're saying.

At this point, though, to not confirm him under the given pretext would be worse, I think, than not. Other than his views on privacy, he doesn't seem so bad. All of the justices have opinions here and there on things I disagree with. That's why we have more than one justice on the SC.

I fully endorse debate on the issue. Obviously he isn't an ideal judge, but what else can be done right now? With this cloud hanging over the head of the committee, to not appoint him is to reward the Democrats for this atrocious behavior. Even if he were to lose the nomination by no votes regarding this record, the appearance of victory alone is enough to empower the democrats to do this again.

It's unfortunate it came to this, because had he been treated fairly, I would firmly believe a no vote for his record on this would be warranted, but alas, I want him nominated just to give the finger to democrats. We have other justices to counter his supposed flawed opinions.

 

[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.

Now Democrats care about privacy? What a timeline. Just in time for the most privacy violating president in history to have finished his two terms under their label.

If Kavanaugh were so unconstitutional, the left wouldn't be trying to destroy him- they'd love him.

His record speaks for itself on that matter and I love Judge Andrew Napolitano's explanation on the issue. Everyone should watch his video on it that is why I put it in this thread. All one has to do is look at that and the record at EPIC.com to see what he has stood for. He obviously didn't like it when people were able to make up shit and go after him. What is embraced by one party will be manifested by another when things get heated no matter which side of the fence one is on so why allow anyone in such a position that was willing to trash the fourth and the fifth in their rulings and by their past actions?

(Truthfully though I do see a bit of justice transpiring in all that as he seems to have ruled in favor of warrantless searches and surveillance. So he basically tied himself to that guilty without any proven cause when he trashed the fourth and fifth. Even so though that was a nasty dog and pony show that some Democrats helped initiate and create. I am sure that will come back to haunt them heavily in the next election cycle but that doesn't mean I believe we need Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court either. Justice isn't actually blind as it all comes around in its own time and the Lord does choose the foolish things)

I was being facetious. I support Kavanaugh insofar as I think to not support him is to betray the very fabric of our judicial system. I won't spend any time defending his actual record as a judge. He is a product of the Bush era Republicanism which I'm not a fan of so I get what you're saying.

At this point, though, to not confirm him under the given pretext would be worse, I think, than not. Other than his views on privacy, he doesn't seem so bad. All of the justices have opinions here and there on things I disagree with. That's why we have more than one justice on the SC.

I fully endorse debate on the issue. Obviously he isn't an ideal judge, but what else can be done right now? With this cloud hanging over the head of the committee, to not appoint him is to reward the Democrats for this atrocious behavior. Even if he were to lose the nomination by no votes regarding this record, the appearance of victory alone is enough to empower the democrats to do this again.

It's unfortunate it came to this, because had he been treated fairly, I would firmly believe a no vote for his record on this would be warranted, but alas, I want him nominated just to give the finger to democrats. We have other justices to counter his supposed flawed opinions.

I disagree with your premises of rewarding the Democrats if he is not confirmed. The Democrats will pay dearly for their actions in the upcoming elections. To confirm him knowing these flaws exist will be adding more leaven to the whole of lies that have gotten loose in our government. There is a time to say no more and start basing it all on the truth instead of lies and deceit. Start binding it all up by shutting and locking the doors to those who will not defend and protect every bit of our constitution and the citizens rights.

 

[Oddball]

This is typical of jurists on the authoritarian right: expand the power of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto another is called Freudian Projection.

• “A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
• “The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual.”
• “Attributing one’s own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile.”
• “The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.”
• “People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way.”
• “Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

 

[Jerico]

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.

Now Democrats care about privacy? What a timeline. Just in time for the most privacy violating president in history to have finished his two terms under their label.

If Kavanaugh were so unconstitutional, the left wouldn't be trying to destroy him- they'd love him.

His record speaks for itself on that matter and I love Judge Andrew Napolitano's explanation on the issue. Everyone should watch his video on it that is why I put it in this thread. All one has to do is look at that and the record at EPIC.com to see what he has stood for. He obviously didn't like it when people were able to make up shit and go after him. What is embraced by one party will be manifested by another when things get heated no matter which side of the fence one is on so why allow anyone in such a position that was willing to trash the fourth and the fifth in their rulings and by their past actions?

(Truthfully though I do see a bit of justice transpiring in all that as he seems to have ruled in favor of warrantless searches and surveillance. So he basically tied himself to that guilty without any proven cause when he trashed the fourth and fifth. Even so though that was a nasty dog and pony show that some Democrats helped initiate and create. I am sure that will come back to haunt them heavily in the next election cycle but that doesn't mean I believe we need Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court either. Justice isn't actually blind as it all comes around in its own time and the Lord does choose the foolish things)

I was being facetious. I support Kavanaugh insofar as I think to not support him is to betray the very fabric of our judicial system. I won't spend any time defending his actual record as a judge. He is a product of the Bush era Republicanism which I'm not a fan of so I get what you're saying.

At this point, though, to not confirm him under the given pretext would be worse, I think, than not. Other than his views on privacy, he doesn't seem so bad. All of the justices have opinions here and there on things I disagree with. That's why we have more than one justice on the SC.

I fully endorse debate on the issue. Obviously he isn't an ideal judge, but what else can be done right now? With this cloud hanging over the head of the committee, to not appoint him is to reward the Democrats for this atrocious behavior. Even if he were to lose the nomination by no votes regarding this record, the appearance of victory alone is enough to empower the democrats to do this again.

It's unfortunate it came to this, because had he been treated fairly, I would firmly believe a no vote for his record on this would be warranted, but alas, I want him nominated just to give the finger to democrats. We have other justices to counter his supposed flawed opinions.

I disagree with your premises of rewarding the Democrats if he is not confirmed. The Democrats will pay dearly for their actions in the upcoming elections. To confirm him knowing these flaws exist will be adding more leaven to the whole of lies that have gotten loose in our government. There is a time to say no more and start basing it all on the truth instead of lies and deceit. Start binding it all up by shutting and locking the doors to those who will not defend and protect every bit of our constitution and the citizens rights.

Fair enough. Again, I don't particularly disagree with you. The Democrats have just made me jaded. The fact remains that this event has galvanized both sides in a pretty powerful way. He will be confirmed, and it will be for no other reason than to thumb the nose to the democrats, or he will lose, and the democrats will feel empowered because of it. In both cases, his judicial record is irrelevant and will not be carried forward beyond his nomination. That's all I'm saying. The Republicans will absolutely not withdraw him at this point. He is worth too many political points now.

I would love to see a strict constitutionalist or 9 on the SC. No doubt about it, but I think such a person would have sexual assault allegations spring up from both sides of the aisle and get no defense. That or they'd have an unfortunate boating accident at the ranch.

We have a lot of work to do in cleaning up our government. It's our fault. We need to fix it. Trump's a start, and while I support him, he's the first iteration of what I hope to be a long and successful shift in political quality.

We should focus on the next SC justice. RBG will retire "soon" I'm sure. That's the chance to expect some serious judicial review. Ideally, I would love to get behind what you're saying. I just don't see a snow ball's chance in hell of it happening.

Maybe the hope should be that Kavanaugh loses his confirmation and someone else is put forward. That too is risky. Could get someone worse than him. So I'll just take whatever joy I can from this.

 

[Louis Thorpe]

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

Who said Kavanaugh was "guilty as charged"? That whole dog and pony show was obviously a farce from the get go but some of the more ignorant in D.C. fell for it hook, line and sinker. Along with a whole lot of peeps that can't see past the smoke and mirrors act or do a little research to look for his actual record online.

I think you need to blow off some steam about what happened to your husband because you’re not making sense.

The bank stole all of his heavy equipment when they went after me on a corporate loan that the bank had committed major fraud on. They had the sheriff raid our home and shop basically taking whatever they thought looked like it had any value. My cupboards were even gone through. The bank called me a terrorist. I was threatened with arrest for protesting what they were doing. It all transpire shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. Democrats used that Act as their justification but the bankers and their attorneys along with the company that designed my equipment to fail from the factory were all Republicans pushing through the banks agenda of "scorched earth" when it all started coming apart on them. Does that explain it enough for you to make a little sense out of why I think warrantless search and seizures suck?

You’re saying Wells-Fargo gave you a Corporate Loan and the loan was never really approved and another entitycame after you to seize assets purchased with this non-existent loan?

They required me to incorporate for the loan to specifically separate the assets for the mine production (it was an SBA loan made to my corporation which they also insisted on before totally separate as a totally woman owned business). The heavy equipment, tools etc. my husband owned for years that they stole were not part of the mining processing equipment that the loan was initiated for. Some of those were tools he'd had since he'd started his first business enterprise back in 1982. The bank didn't even have a proper UCC filing. They even filed it in an illegal manner trying to claim the land I leased to process high-grade road materials from but their UCC filed with no listed equipment that was purchased with the loan to process the materials at the mine site. (Wells Fargo also shorted the loan funds by $80,000.00) It must have been approved as SBA paid them very well for their so called losses.

Terribly unfair process.

 

[Oberon178]

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

You are entitled to your opinion. Every asshole is. I have no need to change party affiliation just because a few creeps are willing to ignore the truth. Now a lot of Democrats have switched over but I can assure you that won't last long when they start learning some of the shit some Republicans are keeping pushed on them that violates not only their constitutional rights but their human rights too.

I actually read your posts...you’re a Progressive.
Or mentally ill.

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?

Not a fan of Republicans, either, and especially the Bushes and the RNC, all just as much traitors as the DNC, and I do indeed remember Bush II's 'tort reforms' re bankruptcy that increased bennies and court treatment for the well- heeled while handing out license to steal from anyone in the lower income brackets. Kanvanugh is not being judged by that, thanks to Democratic Party scumbags like Feinstein, our Senator from Red China, and the behind the scenes help from the RNC these fake news stories get in Congress and the Senate.

I don't look for Democrats to do anything remotely better for anybody, and we have two years when they controlled both houses and the White House, and all they focused on was bailing out Goldman Sachs and and the big banks and insurance companies, and letting them pay huge bonuses to the very criminals who tanked the markets. At this point it really is the far lesser off two evils, and that is Trump for the foreseeable future. Not a reality I like, but it needs to be recognized nonetheless.

 

[Oddball]

9-11 resulted in some desperate measures ie the Patriot Act, yup.. let's review it..

The unpatriotic Patriot Act wasn't a result of 9/11™....That pile of authoritarian, liberty crushing crap was sitting in a congressional file somewhere, waiting for the right big scary event to provide a cheap excuse for it to be foisted upon all of us....It's less deserving of review than it is having gasoline poured all over it and torched.

 

[McRocket]

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.

GREAT thread/post.

THANK YOU.

This is what should have been the uproar against Kavanaugh...not what he did or did not do 35+ years ago at a party (that he was never charged/convicted of).


I don't agree with everything he says, but it was a sad day when Judge Andrew Napolitano was forced off of the air (and his show Freedom Watch was cancelled by Fox).



And it was an even sadder day when the Patriot Act was created.

 

[Lumpy 1]

9-11 resulted in some desperate measures ie the Patriot Act, yup.. let's review it..

The unpatriotic Patriot Act wasn't a result of 9/11™....That pile of authoritarian, liberty crushing crap was sitting in a congressional file somewhere, waiting for the right big scary event to provide a cheap excuse for it to be foisted upon all of us....It's less deserving of review than it is having gasoline poured all over it and torched.

I respect your views, my knowledge is wanting so I'll study up....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

“Why ignore Kavanaugh's disregard for the Constitution?”

Because one is an ‘originalist’ and conservative ideologue who likewise disregards the Constitution.

Still have not gotten surgery for your headupyourassitis ?

 

[Hossfly]

Perhaps Amy Coney Barrett should have been a much better nominee than Kavanaugh.

She's next.

 

[Missourian]

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

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!

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

Congress can make the Patriot Act go away. Many of the privacy issues are going to go the way of government, because people give away their access all the time with their cell phones, Twitter, FB and the like. Good luck finding the perfect Supreme Court Justice by the way.

 

[flacaltenn]

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."

That does concern me. Particularly because of the lack of technical knowledge or system specifics that any judge or lawyer has in hearing cases like that.

But face it -- there's only 4 or 5 members of Congress that will speak out against the KNOWN abuses and POTENTIAL abuses of the Big Brother NSA Spy Machine. And those 4 or 5 have invested time to UNDERSTAND the technology and the risks. Today it's hacking an opposition political campaign. Tomorrow it will be making a group filthy rich by spying financial transactions.

And hardly ANY POLITICIAN wants to face this system down. The hypocrites in Congress OVERWHELMINGLY RE-AUTHORIZED the 702 Domestic spying just this year at a time when the ENTIRE nation was becoming aware of the FISA court abuses and hijinks. And they did it WITHOUT adding the amendments suggested to add protections for citizens. Some of the same REPUB TARDS investigating the FBI abuses with the 702 system VOTED for re-authorization WITHOUT added safeguards.

AND -- on the EVE of that vote, Trump tweeted out a SCATHING criticism of renewing it without further changes. But what hardly anyone even noticed is -- by NOON of the day of the vote, Trump had backed totally down and retracted most of his opinion.

That's how fishy all this is. Don't tell me who the Civil Libertarian are. There ARE NONE in either Brand Name party anymore save 4 or 6.. And don't tell me about statists.. If you want ANTI-Statists and Civil Libertarians, they are all unaffiliated or Big L or Little l libertarians.

Personally, I think most everyone in D.C. has been comprised by "files and intel". And when it comes to Domestic Spying -- they are just gonna roll over anyways.

As for the jacket unzipping and "party trespassers" --- those have very little damage potential to 4th amendment rights. If you read further -- the "jacket unzipping" was to VERIFY the clothing underneath, because there was a bulletin description of the robber. Could care less either way. Should be some police discretion.

To that point, you cannot get anyone interested in the dangers of Government DOMESTIC SPYING, because most folks say they "have nothing to hide". Well then --- what ya bitchin' about a jacket unzipping then??

 

[RodISHI]

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

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!

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

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.

 

[Darkwind]

Oh, I'm sorry.

We are only supposed to nominate and confirm 'THE PERFECT CANDIDATE'.

How silly of us.