GOP women on Kavanaugh. “All boys do this”

[f7ben]

2 minutes ago, Snake said:

 

Fast and Furious?

Why do you always have to deflect and draw comparisons? It's pretty pathetic and most do it

[Jimmy Snacks]

38 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Dude....Kavanaugh is hell bent on wrecking your constitutional rights. That throws decorum out the window. He is the enemy of free men. He should be treated as such

Zderpski says The Constitution is irrelevant although he will try to deny saying it....dude is straight up feeb. 😂

Edited September 23, 2018 by Jimmy Snacks

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Zderpski says The Constitution is irrelevant although he will try to deny saying it....dude is straight up feeb. 😂

Agreed....strict constitutionalists....fluid document....etc etc

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Zderpski says The Constitution is irrelevant although he will try to deny saying it....dude is straight up feeb. 😂

You should go get a puppy or kitten or something to fill your sad void.

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

Agreed....strict constitutionalists....fluid document....etc etc

Yuh.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

44 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

It is. If they put up another frat boy like him it will take a few months and the midterms will be over.

Yah, that's the point, ritard. The R's aren't motivated to come out at this point. Drop something like a SC pick on top of the midterms and what does that do to R turnout? Dems are already motivated and need to win across the board. R's are not motivated and just need to not lose across the board. 

[Jimmy Snacks]

17 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

You should go get a puppy or kitten or something to fill your sad void.

Yuh.

Sad void my ass...your idiocy makes me laugh. 

[Snake]

1 hour ago, f7ben said:

“In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”

^^^^Those are his words....defending government abuse and illegal search and seizure. He is an advocate for police abuse as well. There is a reason they are hiding everything the man did during the Bush years

[T]he Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . . 

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, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, . . . the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports. [Citations omitted.] . . . The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. See THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004). In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications, but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called. In short, the Government’s program fits comfortably within the Supreme Court precedents applying the special needs doctrine.

To be sure, sincere and passionate concerns have been raised about the Government’s program. Those policy arguments may be addressed by Congress and the Executive. Those institutions possess authority to scale back or put more checks on this program, as they have done to some extent by enacting the USA Freedom Act.

In sum, the Fourth Amendment does not bar the Government’s bulk collection of telephony metadata under this program. I therefore agree with this Court’s decision to stay the District Court’s injunction.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2565D20B2A8C4CCF85257F0300714E8C/$file/15-5307-1584707.pdf

I read it as saying the policy doesn't go against prior SC precedent, the policy is ripe for abuse and the proper venue for remedy is Congress or the Executive branch.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Snake

[f7ben]

7 minutes ago, Snake said:

[T]he Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . . 

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, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, . . . the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports. [Citations omitted.] . . . The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. See THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004). In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications, but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called. In short, the Government’s program fits comfortably within the Supreme Court precedents applying the special needs doctrine.

To be sure, sincere and passionate concerns have been raised about the Government’s program. Those policy arguments may be addressed by Congress and the Executive. Those institutions possess authority to scale back or put more checks on this program, as they have done to some extent by enacting the USA Freedom Act.

In sum, the Fourth Amendment does not bar the Government’s bulk collection of telephony metadata under this program. I therefore agree with this Court’s decision to stay the District Court’s injunction.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2565D20B2A8C4CCF85257F0300714E8C/$file/15-5307-1584707.pdf

I read it as saying the policy doesn't go against prior SC precedent, the policy is ripe for abuse and the proper venue for remedy is Congress or the Executive branch.

Fuck congress....they have shown us their will. We need a SC that will defend us

[Carlos Danger]

Is there a single witness to collaborate her story? Seems like every name she has given male or female does not share her memory.

[Snake]

I guess if you want an activist ju

5 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Fuck congress....they have shown us their will. We need a SC that will defend us

 

Activist judges are so 2008...

[Zambroski]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Sad void my ass...your idiocy makes me laugh. 

I doubt much of anything in your life makes you laugh anymore.  It's been interesting watching your transition.   Your verbiage is the biggest tell.

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Is there a single witness to collaborate her story? Seems like every name she has given male or female does not share her memory.

i can't wait to read her "conditions".  So far, sounds like a load of hooey.

[f7ben]

6 minutes ago, Snake said:

I guess if you want an activist ju

 

Activist judges are so 2008...

Right....so Kavanaugh can get fucked

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Right....so Kavanaugh can get fucked

He apparently couldn't in High School.   

 

[f7ben]

Honestly ....there is no precedent for Kavanaugh to state that the govt has a right to compel 3rd parties turn over any information on you that they might be holding .....and without a warrant. His position is that the information they hold with your permission does not constitute "personal effects"

That is as activist as it gets

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Honestly ....there is no precedent for Kavanaugh to state that the govt has a right to compel 3rd parties turn over any information on you that they might be holding .....and without a warrant. His position is that the information they hold with your permission does not constitute "personal effects"

That is as activist as it gets

No private person or entitity can legally aid or abet, whether active or passive, those participating in illegal activity or conspiring to participate.  Still need a warrant though. That's where our real problem is right now.  When citizens start to fail to recognize the governments legitimacy and purpose, a warrant is only good to those willing to comply. I think the FISA debacle should have us all starting to quesiton just what the fuck is going on.

i haven't read where Kavanaugh is part of this problem.

[f7ben]

8 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

No private person or entitity can legally aid or abet, whether active or passive, those participating in illegal activity or conspiring to participate.  Still need a warrant though. That's where our real problem is right now.  When citizens start to fail to recognize the governments legitimacy and purpose, a warrant is only good to those willing to comply. I think the FISA debacle should have us all starting to quesiton just what the fuck is going on.

i haven't read where Kavanaugh is part of this problem.

I dont see what you posted has to do with mass warrantless data collection?

[Zambroski]

4 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I dont see what you posted has to do with mass warrantless data collection?

I was offereing a "precedent". That's why I said 'it still needs a warrant".  Information provided freely to a third party can be demanded (warrant) by government if there is reason to believe illegal activities.  They don't have to comply.  They can go to court if they feel the G'ment hasn't proven their case.  But they could face the consequences too.

I have no problem with his decision on this.  

[f7ben]

10 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I was offereing a "precedent". That's why I said 'it still needs a warrant".  Information provided freely to a third party can be demanded (warrant) by government if there is reason to believe illegal activities.  They don't have to comply.  They can go to court if they feel the G'ment hasn't proven their case.  But they could face the consequences too.

I have no problem with his decision on this.  

Are you fucking retarded?

His position is the government needs no warrant and can force any company to turn over whatever info they want on anyone without a fucking warrant

God dammit are you dumb

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, f7ben said:

Are you fucking retarded?

His position is the government needs no warrant and can force any company to turn over whatever info they want on anyone without a fucking warrant

God dammit are you dumb

The 4th does not give a free fucking pass.  It only protects against any unreasonable searches and demands for information.  

Now, go give Moto a high fiver!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zambroski]

8 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Are you fucking retarded?

His position is the government needs no warrant and can force any company to turn over whatever info they want on anyone without a fucking warrant

God dammit are you dumb

 

3 hours ago, f7ben said:

Make it personal when you got nothing

 

[Anler]

2 hours ago, f7ben said:

Why do you always have to deflect and draw comparisons? It's pretty pathetic and most do it

Avoid accountability.

 

2 hours ago, f7ben said:

Agreed....strict constitutionalists....fluid document....etc etc

You don't need rights, you live in the freest country on Earth!  Derp

[f7ben]

28 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

The 4th does not give a free fucking pass.  It only protects against any unreasonable searches and demands for information.  

Now, go give Moto a high fiver!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 4th protects your personal effects from unreasonable search and seizure. 

The government ....without probable cause.....compelling private companies to turn over your data....is as unreasonable as it gets

[Zambroski]

4 minutes ago, f7ben said:

The 4th protects your personal effects from unreasonable search and seizure. 

The government ....without probable cause.....compelling private companies to turn over your data....is as unreasonable as it gets

"Compelling".  Why would they want to collect it without a probable cause?  How much data are they really collecting anyway with batch information?  And why are so many upset about it when they give all their information away freely and at request.  Most rattle out their social when asked and who reads those longs stupid disclosures anyway?  "Hey Google, what is this disclosure about?"   Most of the informaition collected  is benign.  The government has to go pretty far after they have "suspect" of any information to prove anything anyway.  Unless they just make shit up...Hint, hint  FISA.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the government here, I'm just making a point that it seems we are slipping off the reality raft a tad here.

[f7ben]

12 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

"Compelling".  Why would they want to collect it without a probable cause?  How much data are they really collecting anyway with batch information?  And why are so many upset about it when they give all their information away freely and at request.  Most rattle out their social when asked and who reads those longs stupid disclosures anyway?  "Hey Google, what is this disclosure about?"   Most of the informaition collected  is benign.  The government has to go pretty far after they have "suspect" of any information to prove anything anyway.  Unless they just make shit up...Hint, hint  FISA.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the government here, I'm just making a point that it seems we are slipping off the reality raft a tad here.

Just shut up retard. You're so fucking dumb it hurts my head trying to understand your word salad