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

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

[SeekAndFind]

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, forcefully defended the National Security Agency’s dragnet collection of domestic call records, alarming privacy advocates who view the collection as unconstitutional.

It’s not yet clear if Kavanaugh’s November 2015 concurrence while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will factor prominently in his confirmation proceedings. But before he was nominated, anti-surveillance progressive and conservative advocates expressed concern.

“I believe Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent judge, though certainly not a perfect one,” Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, told the Washington Examiner last week. "His Fourth Amendment perspective is troubling."

“As someone who sued the NSA over their metadata gathering as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, he and I disagree on that point, and I think a lot of liberty-minded folks are going to have that as a major concern,” said Cuccinelli, a former Virginia attorney general.

Privacy activists said Kavanaugh's two-page opinion was remarkable both for its legal analysis and the fact he didn’t need to write it. He attached the concurrence to a legal order turning down an appeal challenging the NSA’s then-discontinued call record dragnet.

The other appeals court judges offered no reason for denying the appeal, but Kavanaugh voluntarily wrote that he believed the collection, which Congress ended as a matter of policy earlier that year, was constitutional.

[Kazan]

I don't want government playing the role of pimp, which it have to do to prevent disease from spreading wildlife.

Getting high and endangering others is not not should be right.

[Nifster]

Blame congress. They write crap laws hoping courts will fix it. A bad law can be constitutional. It is not the courts duty to rewrite it

Everyone screamed about Roberts deciding to rewrite what obozo care was really all about. We don’t want that

[Theophilus]

Marshall defined the SCOTUS, not the Constitution or an amendment Marbury_v._Madison

[bluejean]

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

LOL! You made a funny!

[Ken H]

So it doesn’t matter whether the Court has 9 Clarence Thomases vs 9 Wise Latinas?

[momincombatboots]

You are ok with the NSA retaining meta data without a warrant? Wow, FR has certainly tracked far from the Constitution.

[eartick]

SO he supports the invasion of the FERAL Government into our daily lives and he said that Obamacare could fall under what was considered a tax.

People are calling this guy a constitutional and conservative judge?

Now that is a reach in what I consider a constitutional conservative pick and really doubt he will move the Suckpreme court to the right by an inch.

[P.O.E.]

Looming!

[Theophilus]

Clarence Thomas can't depolitisize, deactivate, disempower and undefine SCOTUS. A member of the Statist Magisterium does not lead that Reformation.

The crux of the matter is that every American Citizen needs to interpret the Constitution just like every Christian needs to interpret the Bible.

SCOTUS needs to reigned in by a Convention of the States.

[trebb]

Gosh - our side is as quick as the rabid Left when it comes to trying to screw the pooch...ironic.

[Russ]

Then you should be happy when the Democrats and Leftist Republicans succeed in blocking his confirmation. Your supposed clever wording of “FERAL Government” and “Suckpreme court” shows your distain for the institutions of our country. It doesn’t matter who he selected, you would have criticized it.

[eartick]

I guess you are one of the people in love with the happenings in America. Especially after PDJT got elected. Now everything is rosy, aren't they ostrich?

Oh, by the by, byte me.