Posted on 07/12/2018 6:23:44 PM PDT by TBP
From reading it. It’s written in plain English as the founders intended. Learn history.
I know history
Brett writes clearly and anyone can understand it. Have you read his actual decisions? I doubt it.
I read his decision on the meta data collection. He clearly stated that as long as the NSA collects it from a third party source, it’s perfectly ok to spy on Americans without a warrant.
His squirmy out was that it wasn’t “unreasonable”. Maybe not unreasonable, totally unreasonable, and totally illegal.
I’m absolutely positive I understand the Constitution better than at least four judges on the Supreme Court. What’s your point?
Nappy went off the deep end many months ago.
No just this is just the usual hysteric whining of a person who sexual orientation trumps any reason, fact or intellectual honesty.
Judge Nap has been a fevered defender of the Muller Clown show, and the DOJ, which shows his posturing about “the swamp” here is just infantile hypocrisy.
No however, your overinflated sense of your own intellectual infallibility is pretty clearly on display
Nice you have feelings on the issue, too bad your feelings are not facts.
Rather then cling to intellectually infantile emotional hysterics, try actually looking into Kavanaugh’s background and rulings..
You are currently are displaying a total ignorance on this topic that is simply inexcusable.
It wasn’t his decision it was a concurrence on a request for an en bank hearing
2. The legal issue in Klayman v. Obama was whether plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction against the NSA’s bulk collection of telephony metadata. Hawkins quotes passages from what he calls Kavanaugh’s “concurring opinion.” Kavanaugh’s opinion is not, as the reader might think, a concurrence in the panel ruling against plaintiffs, but rather a concurrence in the D.C. Circuit’s unanimous denial of rehearing en banc in the case. (Kavanaugh was not on the panel; among those who were, and who denied plaintiffs relief, was noted libertarian Judge Janice Rogers Brown.)
Nowhere was I emotional. You’re the one using ad hominem attacks like “infantile”.
I’ve heard and read plenty about his background. He’s not going to move the needle at all.
He’s a Bushie, beltway insider and has had some questionable opinions. That’s all. I’m done with you. Boring. Go play high school debate on Reddit.
I used to enjoy Judge Napolitano when he gave continuing legal education lectures as a New Jersey Appellate Court judge. As a talking head, he was able to come out of the political closet and fully expose his personal beliefs. Although he sounded conservative on some issues, I noticed a hard edged aspect when it came to civil liberties beyond the classical Liberal view (as opposed to today’s progs). It all made sense when I learned he was gay. As such, he is naturally inclined (some may say unnaturally) toward an extreme libertarian point of view. Consequently, I don’t trust his judgment about a variety of issues, including judicial nominations because it will always be shaded by his personal rejection of traditional morality and personal responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.