The strongest criticism of Judge Kavanaugh centers around his ruling in the case Klayman v. Obama, which dealt with NSA warrantless bulk data collection under the Obama administration.  Here is the text of that decision.  On the surface, the opening statement is strong evidence of his possible weakness regarding one of our most important protections provided in the Bill of Rights.

I vote to deny plaintiffs’ emergency petition for rehearing en banc. I do so because, in my view, the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

In order to make an informed decision we must dig deeper into the decision and examine the basis for this ruling.  Here is how Judge Kavanaugh justifies this ruling:

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.

As you can see from this quote, Judge Kavanaugh is basing this decision on precedent from a Supreme Court decision.  As a member of a lower court he claims he is bound by vertical stare decisis.  Here is the definition of this concept from Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”  In short, it is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued… A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court.

This concept dates back to English Common Law and even back to Ancient Rome.  Because of this concept it is difficult to reach an informed conclusion on how he will rule once he is on the Supreme where they can set new precedent on any case.

In the Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh goes on to say:

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), 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

This statement bothers me a great deal.  The framers of the Constitution believed that freedom and preservation of our rights were more important than safety. It was a common theme.  Judge Kavanaugh  goes on to say:

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.

From the text of the 4th Amendment you can see that there are no exceptions for national security.

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.

From this chapter of Framers Intent by Thomas K Clancy, you can see that the notion of national security and safety exceptions to the 4th Amendment are very new.  The original intent of John Adams, who wrote the article of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights which became the model for the 4th Amendment. was to make the protections as broad as possible.  Could Judge Kavanaugh have based a negative ruling in this case on different precedent and still uphold stare decisis.  Yes, he could have, because there is so much conflicting precedent on the 4th Amendment and any constitutional concept.  That is one of the main reasons why precedent is such a flawed concept, which actually violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  Relying on the actual text and plain meaning as understood during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution are far superior.

I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th Amendment.  Based on his rulings on every other issue I’ve read so far, he is strong on all other issue.  Even with his weakness on the 4th Amendment, I still believe he is worth supporting for the Supreme Court.  Rand Paul also agrees.  Here is what he tweeted on the day I was writing this article:

Visiting the Imprisoned one of the corporal works of mercy

[I was] in prison and you visited me

Matthew 25:36c

There was an interesting story at ABC (via Instapundit) that jumped out at me this morning concerning President Trump’s relationship with the Black community vs President Obama‘s.

“This is probably the most pro-active administration regarding urban America and the faith-based community in my lifetime,” Scott told the group, adding, “This is probably going be … the most pro-black president that we’ve had in our lifetime.”

A black pastor saying Donald Trump the most pro black president we’ve had in our lifetime?  How is that possible?  The article continues

He compared Trump to his predecessor, Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, and said: “This president actually wants to prove something to our community, our faith-based community and our ethnic community.”

In other words Trump as a leader is trying to serve the black community.  Sounds like he’s taking advice from Christ:

Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.  But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.  Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Matthew 20:25-28

And what’s the best way to serve a person who has been in prison, help him find work to support himself once he’s out.

Trump told the group, which included pastors and bishops from across the country, that his administration has been making progress on efforts to make it easier for prisoners to re-enter society and find work.

“When we say hire American, we mean all Americans,” Trump said.

But what about Barack Obama?  Didn’t he care about the back community and feel compelled to serve them?   Pastor Scott again:

“The last president didn’t feel like he had to,” he added, saying of Obama: “He got a pass.”

That sound odd to say the least.  Who can we explain that kind of attitude toward a community that voted for him overwhelmingly?  The answer again is Christ:

Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’?  Would he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished’?  Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?  So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.'”

Luke 17:7-10

Put simply during his presidency Barack Obama saw that black community as his servants who owed him fidelity as existed to serve him politically as was his due as the first black president.  In contrast Donald Trump seeks to gain the support of the black community as a leader and thus is willing to serve to earn that support and it worth noting that the prison community is the least likely to provide votes as in many states ex-cons with felony conviction are not eligible to vote.

Donald Trump is putting the last first, you can’t get more biblical than that, and people wonder what the community of faith support him.



Choose a Subscription level


Of course one time tip jar hits are welcome as well



Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.