Kennedy Announced Retirement from Supreme Court (Kavanaugh nominated)

cbi1972 said:

Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites


This Kavanaugh guy is in the mold of Ajit Pai and I mean that in the worst possible way.

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

He is not a good judge. That Net Neutrality ruling was abysmal in how he decided (from the bit I read). ISP is not cable TV in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

RollTide_HTTR said:

I just can't help but feel dread about the direction of court from here on out.

Click to expand...

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.
Kavanaugh expressed that view in the course of a 2015 statement concurringin the denial of rehearing en banc in Klayman v. Obama, which was then before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case centered on the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's controversial information-gathering program, which involved the NSA collecting the telephony metadata of all Americans. "In my view," Kavanaugh wrote, "the Government's metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/scotus-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-on-the-fo



Ugh...

Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

MattinBama said:

Because apparently he believes it only applies to law enforcement and information that would be used in court.



Do you see any mention of court of law or law enforcement? I don't.

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

Nope. I also don't see anything about sharing it with a 3rd party makes it null and void.

Click to expand...

jthomas666 said:

OK, so Kavanaugh is VERY pro-business. Was the only dissent in a case that ruled that SeaWorld violated safety standards, resulting in the death of Dawn Branchau in 2010 (see the documentary Blackfish for details). (There's a good overview on Vanity Fair, but there's a little language, so no link.).

It's one thing to say that the trainers knew the risks; but in this particular case, SeaWorld did not inform the trainers that they were working with an animal that had killed two other people at a different park.

I suspect we may be hearing more about this particular case.

Click to expand...

jthomas666 said:

OK, so Kavanaugh is VERY pro-business. Was the only dissent in a case that ruled that SeaWorld violated safety standards, resulting in the death of Dawn Branchau in 2010 (see the documentary Blackfish for details). (There's a good overview on Vanity Fair, but there's a little language, so no link.).

It's one thing to say that the trainers knew the risks; but in this particular case, SeaWorld did not inform the trainers that they were working with an animal that had killed two other people at a different park.

I suspect we may be hearing more about this particular case.

Click to expand...

"It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one. But it's not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one."

Gorsuch was demonstrating his firm belief in the principle that the actual words of a law should be strictly applied by the court. This doctrine, often referred to as textualism, stands for the proposition that it is up to the legislature to make the law and is up to judges to strictly apply the actual words of the law.
Gorsuch maintained that the actual words of the statute in question would only back the driver when he was "operating" both the cab and the trailer as a single unit. Obviously, he couldn't "operate" the truck and trailer together and drive away for help and warmth because the brakes on the trailer were frozen. The other judges on the 10th Circuit were willing to apply a dollop of common sense and give the driver the benefit of the doubt.

Click to expand...

jthomas666 said:

OK, so Kavanaugh is VERY pro-business. Was the only dissent in a case that ruled that SeaWorld violated safety standards, resulting in the death of Dawn Branchau in 2010 (see the documentary Blackfish for details). (There's a good overview on Vanity Fair, but there's a little language, so no link.).

It's one thing to say that the trainers knew the risks; but in this particular case, SeaWorld did not inform the trainers that they were working with an animal that had killed two other people at a different park.

I suspect we may be hearing more about this particular case.

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

I think you are just not framing it right. He isn't pro-business. He is anti killer whale. How can you not like someone who is so obviously tough on fish on fish crime? Jon you want to go soft on literal KILLERS. You can't deny it! ITS IN THEIR NAME!

Click to expand...

DzynKingRTR said:

Whales are mammals.

Click to expand...

MattinBama said:

mammal on mammal crime is even worse.

Click to expand...

DzynKingRTR said:

Whales are mammals.

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I have plenty of fish friends. Some of them are even black fish. I never would have imagined in a million years that I was a fishist, but the evidence is clear. I need to reevaluate my life.

Click to expand...

DzynKingRTR said:

Recognizing your own fishism is the first step to being a better mammal.

Click to expand...