It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy
Still he is An authoritarian, not the kinda guy I would have thought you would support...
Nice claim.
Back it up.
How is this Constitutional judge authoritarian?
The Fourth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution to protect Americans from facing unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Yet according to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment suffers no violation when the federal government engages in the wholesale warrantless collection of every Americans' telephone record metadata.
Yes he showed us he was a man who was rightfully emotional about his family being attacked and believing death threats, and his name being smeared forever due to the partisan weaponization of sexual assault claims that will ruin his name forever.
He showed us he had righteous indignation that was totally appropriate.
When I did at least O.K. enough at the hearings that it looks like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes.
This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.
And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.
I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You have tried hard. You’ve given it your all. No one can question your efforts. Your coordinated and well-funded efforts to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drag me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get me to quit. Never.
Kavanugh offered two principal explanations for why he considered the program to be constitutional. First, he invoked what's known as the "third-party doctrine," which says that if you voluntarily share private information with a third party, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. "The Government's collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment," Kavanaugh wrote.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
The funniest part of all this is that the Democrats claim his behavior reflected an inability to remain impartial,
It wasn't his behavior. It was his words.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Fallingdown
There are plenty of things I've done on the job that won't appear in my job resumé. To act as if an extremely brief summary of his career is somehow enough to convince you he's the best thing since sliced bread is ridiculous.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Fallingdown
There are plenty of things I've done on the job that won't appear in my job resumé. To act as if an extremely brief summary of his career is somehow enough to convince you he's the best thing since sliced bread is ridiculous.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Peter Strzok appears to have a partisan agenda? "Lynch that traitor!"
Kavanaugh appears to have a partisan agenda? "He's so brave and humble, put him in there already!"
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Anybody wondering why the Democrat side of the Judicial Committee never brought that up?
"Purple Haze or just a Craze"
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy
Sure so you are fine with his definition, you agree that telco's should keep all metadata to release to governments when requested and that is constitutional ?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy
Sure so you are fine with his definition, you agree that telco's should keep all metadata to release to governments when requested and that is constitutional ?
Companies can do what they want!
Isn't that what you said when internet giants were banning conservatives?
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy
Sure so you are fine with his definition, you agree that telco's should keep all metadata to release to governments when requested and that is constitutional ?
Companies can do what they want!
Isn't that what you said when internet giants were banning conservatives?
Do what they want within the confines of business sure, banning users is different than collecting data that can be turned over to third parties, the possibility for fraud is immense, not to mention the invasion of privacy.