If you are concerned about government surveillance, you should be skeptical of Brett Kavanaugh

Washington Examiner ^ | July 11, 2018 | Erin Dunne

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[MNJohnnie]

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.

[AndyJackson]

Sorry, I’ll try not to do it agan

[Mr Rogers]

“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!

[TigersEye]

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.

[AndyJackson]

Ruling the SC wrong is not in the powers of an appelllate judge

[MNJohnnie]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[M Kehoe]

Surveillance doesn’t need a judge on the Supreme Court. All surveillance needs is a corrupt DOJ and FBI.

Any questions?

5.56mm

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Bill Binney's Thinthread program at NSA had built-in protection for US citizens, but Michael Hayden and gang scrapped it for the boondoggle Pathfinder Project, which had no such protection. They later proved that Thinthread would have predicted the 9/11 attacks. Pathfinder did not and a few years later Pathfinder was ended, but its supporters kept their money.

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."

[Rashputin]

He’s a judge. By definition that makes him someone I stay skeptical about even when they’re saying all the right things.

[Gator113]

Hear hear....

It does get sickening.

[familyop]

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.

[Osage Orange]

I’d do it again...if I was you.

[Gulf War One]

Yeah. One of nine. More concerned about the murder if babies.

[SoConPubbie]

Ruling the SC wrong is not in the powers of an appelllate judge

Not their powers, but every Justice/Judge can add comments to their rulings as to why another courts rulings are incorrect. They have no official effect but give notice to the rest of the world about where that particular Justice/Judge is coming from.

As I have posted to you before, Justice Thomas does this all the time, as well as, I believe, Scalia did this as well.

I prefer this type of Jurist as it lets me know what they are thinking and how they are approaching different facets of the law.

This is one of the factors that go into the measure of whether or not a Jurist is a Great Jurist, or just following the mechanical rules of being a Jurist.

[TigersEye]

Can you act on that? No, not without cause.

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. ;-)

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the mention.

We need to able to trust these people, and I’m hard pressed to do that today.

[AndyJackson]

It’s easy for you to say. You aren’t me.

[DoughtyOne]

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.