I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

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?

You don't find his involvement in the patriot act a concern, I'm not comfortable with people like him that advocate for collection of metadata. Spying on Americans is AOK in his book, assuming of course this is true and not some made up crap.

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.

source

a reply to: Grambler

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.

Really? Let's see some of what he said.

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.

So he has proof of that? Or nah? He's lobbing out accusations left and right.

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.

Does he have one single shred of evidence of this "calculated and orchestrated political hit?" If it exists, somebody show it to me so I can denounce it. And this is just yanked straight from Trump's ass: "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election." That's the part where he should have just whipped out the MAGA hat.

And really? "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" ? Was this an Infowars audition? Add a "Q" t-shirt to go with that hat.

That's probably not even the most WTF part of it. This is super laughable:

"and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups"

Who is he pointing a finger at? How many millions were spent in support of Kavanaugh? The Judicial Crisis Network alone has spent $12 million on advertisements. And Whelan was using their PR firm (CRC) when he launched his "No, no, it was this other guy, maybe, I think — ah who knows but lets just put his name out there because 'presumption of innocence' is totally important" narrative. I can't say that he didn't pay CRC for their services but I sure do wonder if he did.

And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.

That doesn't sound like a thinly veiled threat.

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.

I can tell, he's going to be super impartial by the way he is accusing some ambiguous group — "you" — of a vast conspiracy to destroy his family. Who is in this group? Serious question. Exactly who is in this group? I think it's important. I've been told repeatedly that if people have political bias, they can't do their jobs. Hell, Trump said that a judge whose parents immigrated here from Mexico wouldn't be able to preside over a case in which he was the defendant.

You know how I know how bad that # actually sounds to an objective ear? He literally put out an op-ed with a title that started "I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge" in an effort to convince people that he's really not as far from independent and impartial as he made himself sound.

I actually found the denial part compelling. Which is a lot more than I could say for his later responses when asked about drinking and such.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Your source.

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.

Awww... Do words hurt you ?

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: 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.

Yet you somehow know that he’s absolutely disqualified because of one afternoon on television before an inquisition... hypocrite much comrade... 🤔

a reply to: theantediluvian

You use the word proof alot.

I don't think it means what you think it means when it is convenient.

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.

So you think Kavanaugh made more money in public service then he could’ve made in private practice ?

I will answer that for you no. When he chose to be a public servant he made a sacrifice .


At this point in your position you’re standing in a bucket trying to pull the handle up with both hands .

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: 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!"

One violated the regulations of their department and was given a "resign or be terminated" option
This one chose the foolish , I will wait (in desperate hope that the Democrats could save his sorry a__)
Bet you don't even know which one...

"Just words . just speeches" - Obama

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"

Why would they, both sides have the same goals.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes yes you are quite the impartial person on this

I mean, him being upset at this obvious political smear job that lead to his reputation being ruined and his family getting death threats is unacceptable

I remember when you were calling for Ginsburg to not be allowed to be in the bench when she went off on trump

Oh that’s right you said nothing of the sort

ginsburg saying trump would ruin the country was fine

But a man getting upset at a hit job designed to take down his reputation and lead to his family getting death threats, that’s disqualifying!

I would think this double standard would be above you

a reply to: theantediluvian

His Salem witch tribunal is over, his 7th FBI supplemental background investigation complete and added to his file containing 6 complete FBI background investigations that found nothing.

You don't have to keep dissecting every word he has ever written or said anymore.

You're not going to change anyone's mind one way or the other.

Let the Senate vote and see what happens.

We the people will submit the final and most important verdict in November!

See ya at the polls!

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?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it was you who was accused with no evidence and roasted by the democrats and MSM would you act all nice ? Would you recuse yourself in shame ? Or would you stand up to the bullies and defend yourself ?

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.

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.

Oh, so now you're changing the goal posts.

Nice!

Are you a senator as well?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're safe space being invaded? Lol like the comedy gold "He's raping us through technology" line?

Grow up and stop hogging all that goddamn coolaid

a reply to: [post=23833466]DBCowboy[/post

How so ? An invasion of privacy is an authoritarian move is it not ?

If i was a senator i would be pro data collection.

a reply to: DBCowboy

" How is this Constitutional judge authoritarian? "

He's an Authority on Constitutional Law ...........)