Posted on 07/11/2018 2:59:37 PM PDT by TBP
The Fourth Amendment broadly guarantees that Americans should be free from government intrusion in their homes and private lives and that infringements on these rights must come with the justification of a warrant or probable cause. These guarantees and protections form the basis of property protections and a right to privacy both of which are fundamental to individual liberty.
In 2015, Kavanaugh went out of his way to minimize these protections. During his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he issued a separate concurrence in the denial of a rehearing en banc in Klayman v. Obama. That case dealt with the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s collection of telephone metadata of all Americans. In telecommunications, metadata is the information on the length and time of calls and their origins and destinations which includes a sweeping amount of data and can offer broad details of the private lives of Americans. In his statement, Kavanaugh sided with the government writing, “In my view, the government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.”
I support the round up of information for a member of a suspect group, or a rogue on his own.
There’s no way I agree with the collection of data on every citizen, as I believe is being rounded up today.
No, if you are a whiny brat crying because your Never Trump god Mike Lee did not get picked, you are concerned about Kavauagh. Everyone is smart enough to realize how utterly stupid and self destructive this Never Trump clown show is.
Sorry, I’ll try not to do it agan
“Kavanaugh apparently believes that the Fourth Amendment allows the government to collect our data. That is disturbing. “
He’s the candidate Trump chose. He’s the ONLY one with a chance of being confirmed this fall. So...you think I need to oppose him?
Not a chance! No way in hell! “Get Thee behind me, Satan!” Not interested. I’ll take the 90% candidate instead of waiting for Mr Perfect!
That’s all true.
LEOs should still expect everyone to be armed though simply because we are Americans.
As far as talking about the guns you own on the internet; people say a lot of things on the internet. They may also neglect to say a lot of things too.
Ruling the SC wrong is not in the powers of an appelllate judge
Infantile stupid ignorant twaddle. Completely without the slightest hint of any intellectual merit or fact.
These statements on this thread indicate the posters did NOT bother to learn a single thing about Kavanguah and instead are mindlessly vomiting what ever stupidity their 5th rate radio talk show hosts have screamed at them.
The Cruzbots are racing around here screaming emotionally hysteric utter nonsense because they stupidly believe if they can stop Kavanuah their Never Trump god, Mike Lee will get the job.
Most of the statements on this thread are wholly without a slightest hint of intellectual merit or fact. They are merely the narcissistic whining of people STILL pouting Cruz lost.
Yes, I also think officers should assume a person is packing, or at least has weapons at home. Can you act on that? No, not without cause.
Officers are at risk every day. They need to be wary.
I think gun owners should be ambiguous concerning gun ownership.
Surveillance doesn’t need a judge on the Supreme Court. All surveillance needs is a corrupt DOJ and FBI.
Any questions?
5.56mm
Thomas Drake, a senior executive at NSA, quoted Maureen Baginsky: "9/11 is a gift to NSA. We're gonna get all the money we need and then some."
He’s a judge. By definition that makes him someone I stay skeptical about even when they’re saying all the right things.
Hear hear....
It does get sickening.
The new liberaltarian Republicans (hippie faction) decided that they would rather use police against terrorists than to fight a real overseas war. That choice always includes more surveillance.
I’d do it again...if I was you.
Yeah. One of nine. More concerned about the murder if babies.
Internet bragging would be pretty weak cause IMO.
I think gun owners should be ambiguous concerning gun ownership.
Even someone who is identifying particular guns that they own may still be being ambiguous about the subject as a whole. ;-)
Thanks for the mention.
We need to able to trust these people, and I’m hard pressed to do that today.
It’s easy for you to say. You aren’t me.
No, but the internet bragging can certainly put you on a list.
Then some innocuous thing comes up, and suddenly your home is being searched on that case. Wink wink...
I do very little talking about guns on the internet.
I may talk about a weapon that is involved in some incident, but beyond that I’ll stick to guns I had as a kid.
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.