# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand just sold out on Kavanaugh

## Matt Collins

He just posted it on his Facebook page... lame.

----------


## dannno



----------


## Matt Collins

> Some things aren't always what they appear to be.


Things are exactly as they appear. Rand just sold out on his core issue.

----------


## Matt Collins

> How did Ron prove it false? What did Ron Paul ever accomplish beyond educating people about how votes should be cast?


Ron kept getting elected despite being one of the most hated members of Congress by his colleagues. I understand it isn't a perfect comparison but the point still stands.

----------


## nikcers

> Who were the better options from Trump’s list?


That's some good pessimism you got there I didn't even consider that they could give us someone worse if Kavanaugh doesn't get the votes..

----------


## Matt Collins

> In a world where they don't control the media and the narrative maybe. They could always use any major opportunity to bury Rand Paul politically with a president that is as popular with their party as Trump is. 
> 
> We gotta take into account that the executive branch is not working for our ideals and would love to shut Rand up. 
> 
> You can't think about Trump's fake MAGA persona you got to think of the Trump that said someone needs to primary Rand Paul in 2016


I don't think things are quite that simple. I don't think Rand and Trump hate each other and I don't think they are trying to hurt each other. Trump does a lot of good things and I think Rand sees that. And I think that these two don't see each other as the enemy. But unfortunately Trump is not ideological or predictable so sometimes he aligns with liberty values, and sometimes he doesn't.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Who were the better options from Trumps list?


Mike Lee for starters.

But it doesn't matter, Rand can vote against Kavanaugh with a straight face.

----------


## revgen

Rand's decision to vote for Kavanaugh is more disappointing than the Pompeo vote. This is a man who will sit on that bench for his lifetime is he's chosen. Not a good look.

I know Rand panders to other Republican voters besides libertarians, but he usually did it through media interviews and tweets. Not voting on the Senate floor.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Uh no.... Kavanaugh hates the 4th Amendment and has stated so very clearly. There is no excuse for this.



Judge Napolitano said Randy Barnett would be his top choice on Tom Woods' show. Randy Barnett is Rand's go to legal guy. Rand Barnett is a yes on Kavanaugh,

*"Is Brett Kavanaugh such a nominee? Some libertarians have been skeptical of this, and I have been spending a bit of time bringing myself up to speed on his record. There are a few sour notes--two in particular--but on balance, his record is strong. He is pretty ardently committed to textualism--more on this below--and the separation of powers. And he is skeptical about judicial deference to administrative agencies. He has a superb Second Amendment opinion in Heller 2 in which he rejects the tiers of scrutiny approach that many circuits have been using to gut the Supreme Court's decisions in"*https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/29...bertarian-case

Heres The Libertarian Case For Brett Kavanaughs Supreme Court Nomination
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/29...rt-nomination/

----------


## RonZeplin

> Who were the better options from Trump’s list?


Why do SCOTUS nominees need to be on Trump's list, can't we have someone that will honor the constitution instead?

Reject them all, until he nominates someone law abiding.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Ron kept getting elected despite being one of the most hated members of Congress by his colleagues. I understand it isn't a perfect comparison but the point still stands.



FWIW, Ron is borderline terrible on judicial issues.  Ron thinks states like in Griswold vs Connecticut can just ban contraception. Ron thinks in Lawrence vs Texas states can have laws banning sodomy.  I wouldn't automatically concede Ron would be better than Kavanaugh on the bench.  I think he probably would be but Ron would not be the examplar on legal opinions.

----------


## PursuePeace

> *Things are exactly as they appear.* Rand just sold out on his core issue.


I guess we'll find out.

----------


## juleswin

> He just posted it on his Facebook page... lame.


Rand Paul made such a big deal about the 4th amendment throughout his political career that if there is any place to make a stand on, this is it. Even only to retain some of the credibility he has on this issue. The man squandered his presidential campaign trying to court voters by telling them how govt plans of searching millennial's cellphones when they clearly cared more about bread and butter economic issues, he has done filibusters on it on the senate floor and now he will just give in and vote for Kavanaugh?

Anyone one who still thinks any solution will come from a politician/politics needs to wake up and smell the roses. 





> what have people learned from the disaster of the Obama years? Do they understand the true nature of deep state power? The true continuity of agenda that takes place even as the pendulum swings from left to right? Or are they simply going to fall for the same trick, again and again, until the final nail is placed in the coffin of human freedom?


James Corbett

----------


## Matt Collins

> Judge Napolitano said Randy Barnett would be his top choice on Tom Woods' show. Randy Barnett is Rand's go to legal guy. Rand Barnett is a yes on Kavanaugh,


Randy, who is normally good, has it absolutely wrong and has apparently not read Kavanaugh's opinion on giving the NSA unlimited spying powers. This is the problem with listening to people from think tanks sometimes.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Rand Paul made such a big deal about the 4th amendment throughout his political career that if there is any place to make a stand on, this is it. Even only to retain some of the credibility he has on this issue. The man squandered his presidential campaign trying to court voters by telling them how govt plans of searching millennial's cellphones when they clearly cared more about bread and butter economic issues, he has done filibusters on it on the senate floor and now he will just give in and vote for Kavanaugh?


Bingo.

----------


## Matt Collins

> FWIW, Ron is borderline terrible on judicial issues.  Ron thinks states like in Griswold vs Connecticut can just ban contraception. Ron thinks in Lawrence vs Texas states can have laws banning sodomy.  I wouldn't automatically concede Ron would be better than Kavanaugh on the bench.  I think he probably would be but Ron would not be the examplar on legal opinions.


Don't confuse libertarianism with federalism/Constitutionalism.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ron kept getting elected despite being one of the most hated members of Congress by his colleagues. I understand it isn't a perfect comparison but the point still stands.


Maybe Rand knows how to actually get some things done, he has already gotten more done than Ron did, we needed Ron to come first and start the movement but we need people who get things done too.

----------


## Swordsmyth

I'm hoping that Rand knows Kavanaugh won't make it even with his vote and is taking the opportunity to look like a team player.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Maybe Rand knows how to actually get some things done, he has already gotten more done than Ron did, we needed Ron to come first and start the movement but we need people who get things done too.


What he is getting done is putting someone on the bench who hates the Constitution.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm hoping that Rand knows Kavanaugh won't make it even with his vote and is taking the opportunity to look like a team player.


In which case if the guy is going to get confirmed anyway, then all the more reason to take a principled stand.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What he is getting done is putting someone on the bench who hates the Constitution.


Maybe Kavanagh makes it on and maybe he doesn't, if Rand's vote doesn't make the difference and Trump keeps listening to him on other issues we may be better off because of Rand.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In which case if the guy is going to get confirmed anyway, then all the more reason to take a principled stand.


I said I hoped there were enough votes to STOP Kavanugh without Rand and that Rand knew that.

----------


## nikcers

> I don't think things are quite that simple. I don't think Rand and Trump hate each other and I don't think they are trying to hurt each other. Trump does a lot of good things and I think Rand sees that. And I think that these two don't see each other as the enemy. But unfortunately Trump is not ideological or predictable so sometimes he aligns with liberty values, and sometimes he doesn't.


I disagree entirely, Trump is a moderate at best, he changes from democrat to republican and no one bats an eye. If Rand Paul ran on the democrat party there is no way people would think he is a Democrat. They might be part of the same party but that's about it. You could say but didn't Rand endorse Trump? 

Not really, the Republican party picked him, and they basically made Rand promise to endorse whoever the Republican nominee ends up being during the 2016 election, Rand maybe has different ethics than you but he would of endorsed Jeb Bush if he was the nominee, that's just the kind of guy he is, he is a man of his word.

Now you could say well don't they politically align on issue x, y z? No, not really, that would be a debatable statement at best. Trump doesn't have any sort of real political ideology, at least that he is consistent on, the only thing that he is consistent on is his neocon foreign policy in regards to Iran.  

This is like saying that Ron Wyden and Ron Paul don't disagree on the role of government, or Rand Paul and Cory Booker. Rand will work with whomever he can on single issues and he goes out of his way not to burn bridges with politicians or their supporters, that doesn't make him a sell out.

----------


## phill4paul

We should change the forum name to "Matt Collins judge mental dictates." Honestly, Matt posts here maybe once or twice in a full moon and bitches about Rand. Hey, Matt has got the chops.He's a leader and a doer.

----------


## eleganz

Oh and let's not forget Rand endorsed Mitch.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh and let's not forget Rand endorsed Mitch.


Funding for the Iron Dome Hoax.
Drones for Police.

not his dad.

----------


## Swordsmyth

President Donald Trump on Monday expressed his appreciation to Sen. Rand Paul for his promise to support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

 “Thank  you to @RandPaul for your YES on a future great Justice of the Supreme  Court, Brett Kavanaugh,” Trump wrote in a Monday evening tweet. “Your  vote means a lot to me, and to everyone who loves our Country!” *(RELATED: RAND’S REVEAL: PAUL JUST ANNOUNCED HIS DECISION ON THE KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION)*
 Thank you to @RandPaul  for your YES on a future great Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett  Kavanaugh. Your vote means a lot to me, and to everyone who loves our  Country!
 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2018

More at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/30/tr...naugh-support/

----------


## devil21

Dunno, after being shot at, been in a highly unlikely train collision with a garbage truck and seriously assaulted by his neighbor, perhaps Rand has considered that his life may be in danger if he bucks too hard.  That's a tough position to be in if you're a Republican lawmaker that seems to be a constant target of a series of unfortunate events.

----------


## dannno

> Dunno, after being shot at, been in a highly unlikely train collision with a garbage truck and seriously assaulted by his neighbor, perhaps Rand has considered that his life may be in danger if he bucks too hard.  That's a tough position to be in if you're a Republican lawmaker that seems to be a constant target of a series of unfortunate events.


The attacks have all come from left wing fanatics..

----------


## juleswin

> How did Ron prove it false? What did Ron Paul ever accomplish beyond educating people about how votes should be cast?


What has Rand accomplished?

----------


## phill4paul

> What has Rand accomplished?


https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/fi...final-rule.pdf

----------


## devil21

> The attacks have all come from left wing fanatics..


Yeah that's the official story, at least.

----------


## Origanalist

Just throwing this out there...

Here’s The Libertarian Case For Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/29/...rt-nomination/

----------


## brushfire



----------


## Swordsmyth

> Just throwing this out there...
> 
> Here’s The Libertarian Case For Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/29/...rt-nomination/


I don't want him but he will be an improvement over Kennedy and he is better than many of the other people who were suggested.

I will not cry if he is confirmed.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I'm hoping that Rand knows Kavanaugh won't make it even with his vote and is taking the opportunity to look like a team player.


Related?

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake fled the country for Zimbabwe this week   seemingly for the sake of preserving the African nation's fledgling   democracy  but many political observers stateside suspect that there is   a notable secondary effect of such a trip: to delay the  upcoming  hearing on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

                                         The Republican lawmaker, who has been an ardent Trump critic,   touched down in the African country to serve as an official observer  of  the country's historic elections over the past weekend. According to   his office, the senator will stay in the region for approximately  three  more weeks. That's important because it means Flake will miss the   Senate's mandated early return to Washington, D.C. next month.

More  at:  https://www.salon.com/2018/07/31/off...ett-kavanaugh/

----------


## fcreature

Predictable thread is predictable.

He wasn't the best choice of the bunch. Certainly were better, but also were worse. Should still be a significant improvement over what we've had.

I'm not going to hate on Rand over this decision.

----------


## Jan2017

> I'm not going to hate on Rand over this decision.


Me either . . . 
Kavanaugh's DC Court of Appeals dissent considered the Obamacare individual mandate as a "tax and hence unconstitutional" -
and is in direct contrast to Chief Justice Roberts perspective of the now gone individual mandate - an interesting dynamic on the Court if it ever comes up again.

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Of course he did.... on his core issue too.


Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.

----------


## nikcers

> Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.


Yeah Rand said basically he would have a talk with him and see if he likes what he hears. The thing about the Supreme Court is one judge can't change everything. I think it was definitely a political gamble for sure, we never know whats around the corner, maybe Rand can talk Trump out of war with Iran..

----------


## eleganz

Trump literally had to tweet to thank Rand because he knew he needed the vote.

Next time a big issue comes up, the ears will be open.  Especially after their wins together thus far.

----------


## timosman

> Trump literally had to tweet to thank Rand because he knew he needed the vote.
> 
> Next time a big issue comes up, the ears will be open.  Especially after their wins together thus far.


Rand is Trump's protege. The only person with a spine in the senate.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.


You must have missed his filibuster?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Trump literally had to tweet to thank Rand because he knew he needed the vote.
> 
> Next time a big issue comes up, the ears will be open.  Especially after their wins together thus far.


That's not how it works. That's a quick way to get screwed.

----------


## acptulsa

> Rand is Trump's protege. The only person with a spine in the senate.


Say what?

You do realize Rand Paul has been in political office five times as long as Trump has, right?




> Originally Posted by loveshiscountry
> 
> 
> Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.
> 
> 
> You must have missed his filibuster?


I didn't miss his filibuster.  But I didn't hear him say that during his filibuster.

----------


## Jan2017

So this is great . . . the President has tweeted how Rand will vote.

Now, knowing that he has Rand's vote . . . Kavanaugh can get grilled - in a friendly, but inquisitive, way - about the
issue of electronic surveillance from the perspective of the libertarian constitutional originalists.

Throw it _ALL_ on the table at the confirmation hearings now, Rand.

Electronic surveillance and cyberwarfare is the 21st century cold war 4D chess game -
 we don't need the McCains or CNNs trying to micromanage the President of the United States in every chess move.

We need responsible citizens to demand our governments  get that Doomsday Clock turned back a few minutes
from it's current highest level ever - the ticks in the present year are just as they were in the countdown to doom as it was in 1953 -
and no one needs a Johnny McCain or George Brennan or John Bolton dumping "jet fuel" on the "Cold War tarmac."

----------


## timosman

> You do realize Rand Paul has been in political office five times as long as Trump has, right?


Yeah, I also watched the most recent election.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yeah, I also watched the most recent election.


So you saw Trump get 17,000 times as much free publicity as the rest of the GOP candidates combined?

----------


## timosman

> So you saw Trump get 17,000 times as much free publicity as the rest of the GOP candidates combined?


Do we have to?

----------


## acptulsa

> Do we have to?


The verb 'saw' is past tense, unless it applies to cutting wood.  I think the word you thought you saw is 'see'.

----------


## specsaregood

I trust that Randal is doing what he thinks is best to move the country in a freedom-oriented direction.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Now, knowing that he has Rand's vote . . . Kavanaugh can get grilled - in a friendly, but inquisitive, way - about the
> issue of electronic surveillance from the perspective of the libertarian constitutional originalists.
> 
> Throw it _ALL_ on the table at the confirmation hearings now, Rand.



Which means nothing. A SCOTUS candidate cannot be judged on what they say because there is no way to hold them accountable. The only thing that might be close to figuring out what they are going to do is if they have a record.

----------


## Jan2017

> Which means nothing. A SCOTUS candidate cannot be judged on what they say because there is no way to hold them accountable. The only thing that might be close to figuring out what they are going to do is if they have a record.


So . . . no hearings needed ? Uhm, I think you are wrong. 

Rand could ask about any or many of Kavanaugh's 300 written opinions over 12 years - majority opinions and dissents -
on issues that run the gamut - to get the prospective SCOTUS Justice's perspective on the Constitution and law and liberty principles.

----------


## juleswin

> So . . . no hearings needed ? Uhm, I think you are wrong. 
> 
> Rand could ask about any or many of Kavanaugh's 300 written opinions over 12 years - majority opinions and dissents -
> on issues that run the gamut - to get the prospective SCOTUS Justice's perspective on the Constitution and law and liberty principles.


Then why wouldn't he just say that he would wait after the hearing to determine whether he votes for the judge or not? This is just wrong of Rand and I believe he damages his political credibility with effortless capitulations like this.

----------


## Jan2017

> Then why wouldn't he just say that he would wait after the hearing to determine whether he votes for the judge or not? This is just wrong of Rand and I believe he damages his political credibility with effortless capitulations like this.


Respectfully - but also adamantly - disagree.

No need for Rand to wait if he has _already_ made up his mind - as also has Utah Sen. Lee in principle with his  "easy confirmation" statement -
Rand got some political capital this week . . . some "Benjamins" politically, so to speak.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Rand could ask about any or many of Kavanaugh's 300 written opinions over 12 years - majority opinions and dissents -
> on issues that run the gamut - to get the prospective SCOTUS Justice's perspective on the Constitution and law and liberty principles.


Why do that when he could just read the written opinions?

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Why do that when he could just read the written opinions?


So why do SCJ nominees get vetted? Shouldn't we just read what they wrote and not even ask questions to clarify? 

You're not the only one, but we have to many cannibals in the freedom movement.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So why do SCJ nominees get vetted? Shouldn't we just read what they wrote and not even ask questions to clarify?


It's called a "dog and pony show"    

Confirmation hearings are a joke, they don't matter. The nominee could say anything he wants, and then as soon as he is confirmed do the exact opposite. There is no way to hold them accountable because they can't be removed unless they somehow break the law (sadly ruling contrary to the law doesn't count).

----------


## timosman

> It's called a "dog and pony show"    
> 
> Confirmation hearings are a joke, they don't matter. The nominee could say anything he wants, and then as soon as he is confirmed do the exact opposite. There is no way to hold them accountable because they can't be removed unless they somehow break the law (sadly ruling contrary to the law doesn't count).


Our system is broken?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Our system is broken?


Not that part of it.

But stare decisis and judicial "interpretation" is absolutely against what was intended by most of the Founders

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Not that part of it.
> 
> But stare decisis and judicial "interpretation" is absolutely against what was intended by most of the Founders


Ideally there would be no party influence and all votes would be based on merit alone. Is there an absolute need of confirming a nominee right now?

----------


## eleganz

> That's not how it works. That's a quick way to get screwed.


Please do tell, how exactly does it work in Trump era?

----------


## surf

shame on Rand. helping liberty lose w/his endorsement of the 4th being trashed.

----------


## EBounding

> Please do tell, how exactly does it work in Trump era?


I'm sure Trump took over 100+hours of political strategy courses.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I can appreciate Styx's position, I really can.

A few years ago it would have been mine as well.

But a few things have changed, a few things have been brought to my attention, a few things have become too important to ignore in the name of ideological purity, over the last three years or so.

The eye opening epiphany for me is that the Jacobin/Bolshevik left is a clear and present and deadly danger.

This isn't just "political" opposition anymore...they *hate* us, and if given the power they seek, I have no reason to doubt that they would happily begin executing anybody that opposed them or were part of the old order.

This is war, and it is war for survival, and I'll take allies wherever I can find them.

----------


## dannno

> First, saying Rand isn't a libertarian shouldn't be controversial. I'm only quoting the man himself.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a Republican. And every now and then he'll pander to libertarians.


LOL, dude, you have it completely ass backwards.

Rand is not a Republican who panders to libertarians. That would be stupid. Why the $#@! would anybody who wants political power pander to libertarians? That is literally the dumbest thing I've heard in a minute..

Rand is a libertarian who panders to Republicans.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I can appreciate Styx's position, I really can.
> 
> A few years ago it would have been mine as well.
> 
> But a few things have changed, a few things have been brought to my attention, a few things have become too important to ignore in the name of ideological purity, over the last three years or so.
> 
> The eye opening epiphany for me is that the Jacobin/Bolshevik left is a clear and present and deadly danger.
> 
> This isn't just "political" opposition anymore...they hate us, *and if given the power they seek*, I have no reason to doubt that they would happily begin executing anybody that opposed them or were part of the old order.
> ...


Glad to see we're starting to come back together on this.  The only difference in our opinions is that I don't think giving Republicans control of that power is the answer.  Really, the only answer is taking that power away from them.  And the only way that can happen, in my opinion, is if people understand that they are two sides of the government coin.  Republicans own both houses and the Presidency - and yet, the government is growing faster than ever before.

I won't claim to have the answer, I really think it lies in pulling back the curtain on their little division game.  We've got to defund the RNC/DNC machine.  They just staged a HUGE fundraiser.  I think people need to be aware of how they're being manipulated into camps.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Glad to see we're starting to come back together on this.  The only difference in our opinions is that I don't think giving Republicans control of that power is the answer.  Really, the only answer is taking that power away from them.  And the only way that can happen, in my opinion, is if people understand that they are two sides of the government coin.  Republicans own both houses and the Presidency - and yet, the government is growing faster than ever before.
> 
> I won't claim to have the answer, I really think it lies in pulling back the curtain on their little division game.  We've got to defund the RNC/DNC machine.  They just staged a HUGE fundraiser.  I think people need to be aware of how they're being manipulated into camps.


I don't believe we were ever that far apart.

Styx is being abrasive for effect, and that can get under my skin at times, but I know what he's up to.

You, @Ender, @CCTelander and I'm sure others that I can't recall at the moment, remain people I have a great deal of respect for and consider "friends". 

I don't have any easy answers either, but I remain committed to fighting the battle as best I can, to achieve the same goals: restricting and limiting government and promoting the maximum amount of individual liberty as possible.

The threats I see to those goals I have made clear, and consider them to be of the primary importance, at this point in history.

----------


## afwjam

Now kiss

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Now kiss


I save them for @Danke

----------


## Danke

> I save them for @Danke





Don't want to make donnay jealous.

----------


## CCTelander

> I don't believe we were ever that far apart.
> 
> Styx is being abrasive for effect, and that can get under my skin at times, but I know what he's up to.
> 
> You, @Ender, @CCTelander and I'm sure others that I can't recall at the moment, remain people I have a great deal of respect for and consider "friends". 
> 
> I don't have any easy answers either, but I remain committed to fighting the battle as best I can, to achieve the same goals: restricting and limiting government and promoting the maximum amount of individual liberty as possible.
> 
> The threats I see to those goals I have made clear, and consider them to be of the primary importance, at this point in history.



I'm on my phone so posting anything more than a few lines is a major PITA, and as usual I've got my hands full with real life $#@! here so have very little time, but I did want to let you know, brother AF, that the respect and affection are mutual. I may not always agree with you, but I always do respect you and consider you a friend and brother in "arms."

----------


## jkr

so when & where is the 10 year party?

REALLY sounds like fun

remember remember

or


tea party

----------


## Aratus

November 5th looms!

----------


## afwjam

It should be on a boat, pick me up will you guys?

----------


## eleganz

> I can appreciate Styx's position, I really can.
> 
> A few years ago it would have been mine as well.
> 
> But a few things have changed, a few things have been brought to my attention, a few things have become too important to ignore in the name of ideological purity, over the last three years or so.
> 
> The eye opening epiphany for me is that the Jacobin/Bolshevik left is a clear and present and deadly danger.
> 
> This isn't just "political" opposition anymore...they *hate* us, and if given the power they seek, I have no reason to doubt that they would happily begin executing anybody that opposed them or were part of the old order.
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.


My question for those who want Kavanaugh (great chance at confirmation) out for his position on 4A and his time at the WH under W.  Are you willing to give that seat to a 50/50 chance to someone progressively worse if the Dems take the Senate?  Thats a 30-40 year SCOTUS seat.


I think many libertarians are still used to being under Obama where none of what we cared about ever mattered and we could be as pure as we wanted, criticizing a powerless GOP that couldn't get any significant libertarian or conservative legislation passed 08-16.  Back then you guys never had to worry about your purity having consequences, now you do.

I live in a heavily contested toss up congressional district.  I will be happily voting for the GOP choice even though its not my preferred but its 999999% better than the out-of-the-closet socialist opponent.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> My question for those who want Kavanaugh (great chance at confirmation) out for his position on 4A and his time at the WH under W.  Are you willing to give that seat to a 50/50 chance to someone progressively worse if the Dems take the Senate?  Thats a 30-40 year SCOTUS seat


Is that someone necessarily worse than Kavanaugh? The 4th Amendment may be the most important one to protect, with the emerging technology that will shape the future. And don't forget that 100,000 pages of his records from the Bush years are HIDDEN.

----------


## Todd

> Glad to see we're starting to come back together on this.  The only difference in our opinions is that I don't think giving Republicans control of that power is the answer.  Really, the only answer is taking that power away from them.


Yep.  I can count on one hand the number of Republican's and Democrats that i would feel comfortable with the decision making practices, and that's not enough to keep worrying about who controls the Statism every 4 years.

----------


## CaptUSA

> My question for those who want Kavanaugh (great chance at confirmation) out for his position on 4A and his time at the WH under W.  Are you willing to give that seat to a 50/50 chance to someone progressively worse if the Dems take the Senate?  Thats a 30-40 year SCOTUS seat.


Does it really matter?  I don't like SC Justices that are deferential to government.  This whole Left/Right "balance" on the Court is kinda silly.  It seems their preference for government is 8-0.  It's just a matter of which issues they're debating and the political direction at the time.  I don't expect so-called "conservative" justices to protect the 4th amendment anymore than I expect "liberal" justices to protect the 2nd.





> I think many libertarians are still used to being under Obama where none of what we cared about ever mattered and we could be as pure as we wanted, criticizing a powerless GOP that couldn't get any significant libertarian or conservative legislation passed 08-16.  Back then you guys never had to worry about your purity having consequences, now you do.


Have you seen the budget?!  So glad we gave the GOP power.   

This whole left/right shtick is getting pretty old.  I'm not sure how many times they'll need to kick you with the other boot before you'll get the message.

----------


## nikcers

> Couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.
> 
> 
> My question for those who want Kavanaugh (great chance at confirmation) out for his position on 4A ...


You can't fail at the 4th amendment and get a pass, or any of the bill of rights. I go farther than saying he shouldn't be on the supreme court he should be in jail. He is a coward for not standing up for the bill of rights and he does not deserve any more of my tax dollars.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Is that someone necessarily worse than Kavanaugh? The 4th Amendment may be the most important one to protect, with the emerging technology that will shape the future. And don't forget that 100,000 pages of his records from the Bush years are HIDDEN.


If the ultra-orthodox Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed, no one can. The Democrats will refuse to confirm anyone, or allow a confirmation to proceed normally, until they put a Communist of their own in office; at which point there will be a queue of empty seats to fill with the most radical Communists an Obama 2.0 can muster.

----------


## specsaregood

> If the ultra-orthodox Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed, no one can. The Democrats will refuse to confirm anyone, or allow a confirmation to proceed normally, until they put a Communist of their own in office; at which point there will be a queue of empty seats to fill with the most radical Communists an Obama 2.0 can muster.


they are already talking about expanding the court the moment they seize power again, adding 2 or more new seats.   We need to abolish the SC or limit it to only dealing with state vs state issues.

----------


## nikcers

> If the ultra-orthodox Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed, no one can.


Well if we are down that road than a bloodless revolution is impossible anyways. I am not letting you use America as a hostage to turn America into China.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Does it really matter? It seems their preference for government is 8-0. ing pretty old.
> 
> This whole left/right shtick is getting pretty old. I'm not sure how many times they'll need to kick you with the other boot before you'll get the message.



So you think there is just very little meaningful difference between this guy http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...homas-20110703




> Each summer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas invites his four new law clerks to his home to watch a movie.
> Not just any movie, but the 1949 film version of the classic of libertarian conservatism, Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead."


And this lady.https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/u...orld.html?_r=1




> In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice 
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

----------


## CaptUSA

> So you think there is just very little meaningful difference between this guy


Not what I'm saying.  I *am* saying that he will support government on "right" leaning issues.

For example,

He supported indefinite detention of US Citizens without due process - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

And, 

Strip searching of Middle Schoolers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffor...ict_v._Redding

----------


## Krugminator2

> Not what I'm saying.  I *am* saying that he will support government on "right" leaning issues.



Not always. But you want to know else fits into that category? Ronald Earnest Paul. Ron is extremely deferential to legislatures. Does that  mean you think Ron would be just more of the same on the court?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Constitution

----------


## CaptUSA

> Not always. But you want to know else fits into that category? Ronald Earnest Paul. Ron is extremely deferential to legislatures. Does that  mean you think Ron would be just more of the same on the court?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Constitution


Wait, so you completely dismissed the cases I posted to try to shift the argument to another one?  Ridiculous as the state laws may be, Ron and Thomas were both right on Lawrence v. Texas.  But again, totally not what I was talking about.

You're really having a problem with the strawmen today.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Wait, so you completely dismissed the cases I posted to try to shift the argument to another one?  Ridiculous as the state laws may be, Ron and Thomas were both right on Lawrence v. Texas.  But again, totally not what I was talking about.
> 
> You're really having a problem with the strawmen today.


Well.. The example I gave was the textbook example of differing to legislatures. Kind of hard to say I am strawmanning an argument when I am giving the classic case libertarians use when they say talk about deferring to legislatures.

And yes, it was decided correctly. Ron's opinion is bad on this issue.

Edit: Should say not deferring.

----------


## Matt Collins

> My question for those who want Kavanaugh (great chance at confirmation) out for his position on 4A and his time at the WH under W.  Are you willing to give that seat to a 50/50 chance to someone progressively worse if the Dems take the Senate?  Thats a 30-40 year SCOTUS seat.


Bad strategy.


Never compromise. Demand 100%. Settle for nothing less. 


The government have now is the result of settling for the lesser of evils for decades.

----------


## devil21

The truth is that both parties can always get "worse" every election cycle, and they always do, so continuing to err on the side of "less worse" every election means it continues downhill.  Trump was "less worse" than Hillary yet nothing of substance has changed for the better under "less worse" Trump.  A few token crumbs thrown here and there to keep the rabble unroused, with a huge helping of propaganda but nothing has changed on the issues that affect us all.  This is because both parties are loaded with fake politicians that act like they're opposed but aren't.  They're NWO proponents and take turns implementing necessary steps to achieve it.

Why is Trump's FCC running roughshod over state and local governments to force 5G into everyone's home?  Because it's a NWO (*NWO is really just global Roman Empire, hence Jesuit SCOTUS nominee*) goal to control every aspect of everyone's lives, with a heavy side of depopulation agenda.  That's not partisan but while Trump is in, privacy advocates/4A supporters turn off their brains.  Couldn't Trump put out an EO directing the FCC to act in accordance with state and local governments?  Yes, he could.  But he doesn't.  Because partisan bickering is a giant distraction from the real agenda that rolls right along without a hitch.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Why do SCOTUS nominees need to be on Trump's list, can't we have someone that will honor the constitution instead?
> 
> Reject them all, until he nominates someone law abiding.


This.
It's the best hiring practice. 

strong swim team > bunch of floaters

 Politics, don't get any on ya.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

I stand with Rand and the US Constitution. A libertarian is a Republican who has been falsely accused.

----------


## phill4paul

This was more than likely the reason Rand backed him. Rand had had conversations with him and I'm sure it was brought up....



> *
> Brett Kavanaugh Calls Carpenter v. United States a ‘Game Changer’ on 4th Amendment Law*
> 
> During a brief but telling exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) at his confirmation hearings last week, Kavanaugh gave the impression that his thinking on the matter has in fact changed.
> 
> "In your concurrence in Klayman v. Obama," Leahy said to Kavanaugh, you "*went out of your way to say that not only is the dragnet collection of America's telephone records by the National Security Agency OK because it is not a search…even if it is a search, it is justified in order to prevent terrorism." Why?*
> 
> Kavanaugh began his response by invoking precedent. *"I was trying to articulate what I thought based on the precedent at the time—at the time when your information went to a third party and the government obtained the information from the third party the existing Supreme Court precedent was that your privacy interest was essentially zero," he said.*
> 
> ...


https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/b...enter-v-united

----------


## Matt Collins

> This was more than likely the reason Rand backed him. Rand had had conversations with him and I'm sure it was brought up....
> 
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/b...enter-v-united


Which means Rand is naive. 

Nothing that comes out of a nominee's mouth matters at all because there is zero way to hold them to it.

----------


## timosman

> Which means Rand is naive. 
> 
> Nothing that comes out of a nominee's mouth matters at all because there is zero way to hold them to it.


"Why don't we dunk him in the water and see if he floats?" https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...he-floats-quot

----------


## eleganz

Isn't it amazing how we got so much whining about Kavanaugh on the 4th but not one person took the initiative to post a senator's number to call and lobby.

----------


## Aratus

.



> Is that someone necessarily worse than Kavanaugh? The 4th Amendment may be the most important one to protect, with the emerging technology that will shape the future. And don't forget that 100,000 pages of his records from the Bush years are HIDDEN.





> Yep.  I can count on one hand the number of Republican's and Democrats that i would feel comfortable with the decision making practices, and that's not enough to keep worrying about who controls the Statism every 4 years.





> Does it really matter?  I don't like SC Justices that are deferential to government.  This whole Left/Right "balance" on the Court is kinda silly.  It seems their preference for government is 8-0.  It's just a matter of which issues they're debating and the political direction at the time.  I don't expect so-called "conservative" justices to protect the 4th amendment anymore than I expect "liberal" justices to protect the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen the budget?!  So glad we gave the GOP power.   
> 
> This whole left/right shtick is getting pretty old.  I'm not sure how many times they'll need to kick you with the other boot before you'll get the message.





> You can't fail at the 4th amendment and get a pass, or any of the bill of rights. I go farther than saying he shouldn't be on the supreme court he should be in jail. He is a coward for not standing up for the bill of rights and he does not deserve any more of my tax dollars.





> If the ultra-orthodox Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed, no one can. The Democrats will refuse to confirm anyone, or allow a confirmation to proceed normally, until they put a Communist of their own in office; at which point there will be a queue of empty seats to fill with the most radical Communists an Obama 2.0 can muster.





> they are already talking about expanding the court the moment they seize power again, adding 2 or more new seats.   We need to abolish the SC or limit it to only dealing with state vs state issues.





> Bad strategy.
> 
> 
> Never compromise. Demand 100%. Settle for nothing less. 
> 
> 
> The government have now is the result of settling for the lesser of evils for decades.





> I stand with Rand and the US Constitution. A libertarian is a Republican who has been falsely accused.





> This was more than likely the reason Rand backed him. Rand had had conversations with him and I'm sure it was brought up....
> 
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/b...enter-v-united





> Which means Rand is naive. 
> 
> Nothing that comes out of a nominee's mouth matters at all because there is zero way to hold them to it.


Only time will tell... What FDR in 1937 did is a reaction to the Pro-Business "roar" of the 1920s.
Trump's big ballooning DEBT could trigger a GREAT RECESSION that in turn will see the current
party out of power fall back on ancient lore, that is way older than LBJ's vision of a Great Society.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

The way Kavanaugh was treated was disgusting, regardless of how you view his rulings.  Sending him to the court sends a signal that accusations without substantiation will not be the norm

----------


## Matt Collins

> The way Kavanaugh was treated was disgusting, regardless of how you view his rulings.  Sending him to the court sends a signal that accusations without substantiation will not be the norm


At the expense of the Constitution.

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Bad strategy.
> 
> 
> Never compromise. Demand 100%. Settle for nothing less. 
> 
> 
> The government have now is the result of settling for the lesser of evils for decades.


Someone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time isn't the enemy. You forget that?

----------


## CaptUSA

> The way Kavanaugh was treated was disgusting, regardless of how you view his rulings.  Sending him to the court *sends a signal that accusations without substantiation will not be the norm*


Are you kidding?!  This whole debacle sends the signal to the RNC/DNC/Media that huge ratings and fundraising can be ensured by a drummed up "controversy".

Regardless of whether he was confirmed or not, the message is well-received.  You won't see fewer of these things!

So if that's your justification for putting him on the Court, I think you're missing the mark.  Since the ultimate confirmation didn't matter for that "signal", then we might as well have held on for a better Judge.

----------


## nikcers

> Are you kidding?!  This whole debacle sends the signal to the RNC/DNC/Media that huge ratings and fundraising can be ensured by a drummed up "controversy".
> 
> Regardless of whether he was confirmed or not, the message is well-received.  You won't see fewer of these things!
> 
> So if that's your justification for putting him on the Court, I think you're missing the mark.  Since the ultimate confirmation didn't matter for that "signal", then we might as well have held on for a better Judge.


Yeah I thought I was optimistic myself, I was really hoping that all of those baseless accusations would fall on deaf ears because people would stop falling for the big lie once they became desensitized from it, but it seems like there is no desensitizing from it, it seems like they just target different people with it.

----------


## phill4paul

> Are you kidding?!  This whole debacle sends the signal to the RNC/DNC/Media that huge ratings and fundraising can be ensured by a drummed up "controversy".
> 
> Regardless of whether he was confirmed or not, the message is well-received.  You won't see fewer of these things!
> 
> So if that's your justification for putting him on the Court, I think you're missing the mark.  Since the ultimate confirmation didn't matter for that "signal", then we might as well have held on for a better Judge.


  Held on until when, exactly? Since everything is choreographed then when exactly did you think you would get the perfect candidate, in your mind, proffered by POTUS and nominated by the Senate? What exactly is it you are holding on for when you believe that everything is scripted from the get go?

----------


## CaptUSA

> Held on until when, exactly? Since everything is choreographed then when exactly did you think you would get the perfect candidate, in your mind, proffered by POTUS and nominated by the Senate? What exactly is it you are holding on for when you believe that everything is scripted from the get go?


I was just refuting the notion that by confirming Kav it was going to put a stop to accusations without substance.  The truth is the final result didn't really matter because the goal had already been achieved and to resounding results.

If we really want to put a stop to these things, it will only happen when we realize that the producers need an audience.  If the audience were to ever rise above the story line and pay attention to how they're being manipulated, they'd have to change the theme.  I've never maintained that these things are carefully scripted and choreographed - it's more like the producers select the thematic fault lines for the actors to exploit for maximum fundraising and division.  Like a reality TV show, the stage is set, the actors are chosen, the theme is given to the actors and then they do their best to fight over control of the power and the audience dutifully selects which side they'd like to have that power.  If the audience were to ever turn the channel, they'd have to cancel the show or come up with one with which the audience would engage.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> The way Kavanaugh was treated was disgusting, regardless of how you view his rulings.  Sending him to the court sends a signal that accusations without substantiation will not be the norm


Constitution-hating Kavanaugh is disgusting, and meanwhile you're worried about sending some weak message about how we treat sexual assault allegations? Does TMZ have a forum? Maybe it'd be a better place to make this kind of point.

----------


## Peace Piper

Did Kavanaugh help obscure Vince Foster's cause of death? Witness Knowlton and FBI agent Miquel Rodriguez saw neck bullet hole on Foster's body.

UK Telegraph: My sinister battle with Brett Kavanaugh over the truth- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard https://archive.is/Fd0jS
 (Original Telegraph article has Reg wall)

The ruse worked. Not hard to get Americans worked into a lather about 30+ year old stuff that doesn't matter while the real issues are buried in a mountain of ignorance.

----------

