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.