Kavanaugh recognizes no electronic device privacy!

Kavanaugh recognizes no electronic device privacy!
0

#1

Senators were too busy during the hearings to even go NEAR this . . . something that could impact anyone, not just women.

Care about the privacy of your desktop, laptop, smartphone, etc.? Justice Kavanaugh does not! He actually believes warrantless searches of all your electronic devices are entirely within the scope of the Constitution:

Kavanaugh’s America looks more like the old Soviet Union


#2

This is an automatically-generated Wiki post for this new topic. Any member can edit this post and use it as a summary of the topic’s highlights.


#4

Don’t forget Manual Trans. They get no respect, and have to pay extra for remote starters. :blush:


#5

For more detail on the fact that Napolitano isn’t quite telling the whole truth about Kavanaugh’s opinion on warrantless searches…

I agree that Kavanaugh could be stronger on the 4th amendment, but I can’t say based on those opinions he wrote that we actually know his views. As a Supreme Court Justice, he could strike down NSA spying. He just couldn’t do it as an appellate judge based on the precedent at the time.


#6

The dilemma with allowing any exceptions at all to #4 absent a warrant, even for national security reasons, is that sadly with corrupt government officials if you give 'em an inch they will take a mile. Doubters need to speak with members of the FISA court.


#7

Keep in mind, if you travel overseas and return to USA, you have to deal with this:

To me, that’s like a virtual cavity search.


#8

Funny how wired.com provides security reports but their site (at least on my android phone) brings up continued popups to subscribe and when closing immediately pops up again larger. When closing again, the original sized ad comes up again a few seconds later. Rinse, repeat. That’s worse than porno ads. They call themselves a security website? Shameful.


#9

You seem to disagree with his judicial philosophy, which is that the job of a judge, whether a lower court or the Supreme Court, is to interpret and apply the law as written by Congress and signed by the President and the Constitution as written and amended in light of prior decisions.

It is not up to him to “strike down NSA spying” even as a Supreme Court Justice if his decision is not supported by law or the Constitution. Even if he personally disagrees with it.

I find this approach refreshing and necessary. We do not appoint supreme leaders for life when someone gets on the Supreme Court. That is a recipe for a judicial tyranny as we nearly have now where Judges decide that because a presidential candidate said things about foreigners they disagree with, once elected to be President by the people of the United States under our Constiution he no longer has the right the law plainly gives the President to control immigration and foreign policy.

This ruling was made by several circuits and was only overturned by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote. Scary how close we are to a tyranny.


#10

In return for anonymously lump sum paying off his 200k in debt, Kavanaugh will rule whatever way his mysterious benefactor wants.


#11

I agree. Which is borne out in the article I posted. But to be fair, legal scholars differ on this issue. Striking down the NSA spying program is a view that is well within the mainstream of constitutional opinions on the subject. The constitutional scholars that are “stronger” on privacy think there is a basis for striking it down. He didn’t, therefore one could hope for him to be “stronger” than his past decision(s) have shown. But the reason he didn’t rule against the NSA is likely because of his view of the law, precedent, and the role of the judiciary, not an actual indicator of how strong or weak his is on the 4th amendment. That’s all I was saying with that comment.

I haven’t read any of his opinions, but I do generally agree with the judges that the Federalist Society champions, so I think I probably would agree with his judicial philosophy. This thread was about 4th amendment jurisprudence. That’s all I was referring to.

I can only assume this was researched for real and he was asked about it by the democrat senators on the judiciary committee (considering how badly they were grabbing at straws to find a way to disqualify him) and they ended up with squat. But it’s refreshing to see someone running with this conspiracy theory rather than the 36 year old sexual assault claim for a change.


#12

He filed financial forms for the years in question. He had <50k in assets with 200k in debt. The next year the debt was 0. He doesn’t make enough money for that to be valid, his reported assets plus his salary do not = 200k.

He did get asked, it was years and years of buying his buddies baseball tickets, which they all suddenly paid back. He couldn’t name any of the friends he had bought tickets for, and wasn’t asked why he was letting his friends go through more than his annual salary of baseball tickets for years without reimbursement.

Republican Senators bought that particular bridge he was selling, and Democratic Senators figured the sexual allegations would stop him.


#13

What years? I’m pretty sure that info is incorrect. Can you please provide a source?


#14

It never came up in the hearings. That means that Democrat Senators were content with his answers too. Democrats threw everything but the kitchen sink and him to Bork his nomination, and when that didn’t work, they tried their hardest to delay it. Don’t you think if there was anything to the baseball ticket conspiracy theory, they would have pursued it more?