Brett Kavanaugh's defense of NSA phone surveillance looms as confirmation question

Washington Examiner ^ | 07/09/2018 | Steven Nelson

[MtnClimber]

Evil lurks large over us. It is only with close scrutiny and action that good can prevail.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

On September 11, 2001, Brett Kavenaugh was in the White House with his wife when the plane hit the Pentagon. They were instructed to run for their lives from the White House as another plane was on the way. That would have been Flight 93. He saw the destruction which muslims wrought that day. He lived it. No doubt that colored his view of the NSA surveillance.
 

[JohnBrowdie]

rand paul is a fraud, a poseur, an attention whore, and, at heart, a liberal. the fact that you have to drag in a couple of historically bad senators to make your idol seem to suck less proves the fatal weakness of your argument.

[fortheDeclaration]

Trump was for this.

[fortheDeclaration]

I think Trump will do better.

[JohnBrowdie]

it’s creepy how the paulbots are all perfectly ready to redefine the pauls’ hysterical lust for attention as “standing on principle” — and it’s simply because he says “constitution” almost as often as he says “I”, “me”, and “my”.

[familyop]

It was about metadata—not the content from calls. Back in the old days, police weren’t allowed to listen to or record our telephone calls without warrants. But they were allowed to find out where we were. Do you see?

Granted, there’s more to it than that, including information about who’s calling, who we’re calling, etc.

But I don’t know what Kavanaugh could have legally done about it. It may be, that we needed Congress to legislate on the matter or to repeal some legislation. Most of the Fourth Amendment violations implemented in judicial decisions have come from Congress. For judges, it can be difficult to decide against congressional laws sometimes, and even more difficult for judges who are not in the Supreme Court.

[CurlyDave]

As I read the whole story, Kavanaugh says the constitution doesn't forbid the collection, but since congress has now outlawed it, he would follow current law and find it illegal.

I do not see a huge problem if it is honestly explained.

[JohnBrowdie]

care to explain that one?

[Lurkinanloomin]

A couple?
I count ten.
Ten traitors.
Four of them re-elected AFTER their betrayal.
And you probably cheered their re-election.
Just because they wear an R jersey even if they vote to give the Democrats a permanent majority.

[familyop]

Didn’t the NSA recently delete those phone records anyway?

[sailor76]

Like when he has supported legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution?
===============

Both of which are legal in some states. Do you want the fed gov telling you how to live? Like it or not, pot & hookers are here to stay.

[sailor76]

Wait until they bring up Kavanugh’s stonewalling Patrick Knowlton, in the coverup of Vince Foster’s death.

[familyop]

"Like when he has supported legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution?"

Yes, especially from his State of Kentucky. Too many people there have been suffering horribly from the normalization of dope.

[Gene Eric]

Rand Paul is consistent on these matters, and I trust his sincerity. But he must careful to avoid losing ground.

[JohnBrowdie]

you cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to someone else’s bad behavior.

period.

so, give it up.

[JohnBrowdie]

yes. he is consistently concerned only with the size of his own image in the MSM.

this is NOT standing on principle. it us the prostitution of principle.

your emperor has no clothes.

[arrogantsob]

He will talk tough then confirm.

[Architect of Avalon]

Bet on.

[Yaelle]

I am no Paul bot. I’ve disagreed with him and especially his father on many issues. We might have some issue with Trump’s choice. I’ll mow his lawn if he gets my concerns brought up in the hearing. His neighbor won’t hit a girl.