@V77👋

@Smiley hey you. Glad it’s Friday?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJs0Pk478PE

Dogs are whimpering. They want to go for a walk. Be back later

Abortion

Ka­vanaugh ruled in favor of abor­tion re­stric­tions in at least one case.[70][71][72] In Oc­to­ber 2017, Ka­vanaugh joined an un­signed di­vided panel opin­ion which found that the Of­fice of Refugee Re­set­tle­ment could tem­porar­ily pre­vent an un­ac­com­pa­nied alien minor in its cus­tody from trav­el­ing to ob­tain an abortion.[72] Days later, the en banc D.C. Cir­cuit re­versed that judg­ment, with Ka­vanaugh dissenting.[72][73] The girl then ob­tained an abortion.[74] In his dis­sent, Ka­vanaugh crit­i­cized the ma­jor­ity for cre­at­ing "a new right for un­law­ful im­mi­grant mi­nors in U.S. gov­ern­ment de­ten­tion to ob­tain im­me­di­ate abor­tion on demand".[75] In Azar v. Garza (2018), the girl's claim was ul­ti­mately dis­missed as moot after the en banc D.C. Cir­cuit's judg­ment was va­cated by the U.S. Supreme Court.[76]

Affordable Care Act

Appointments Clause and separation of powers

In Au­gust 2008, Ka­vanaugh dis­sented when the cir­cuit found that the Con­sti­tu­tion's Ap­point­ments Clause did not pre­vent the Sar­banes–Oxley Act from cre­at­ing a board whose mem­bers were not di­rectly re­mov­able by the President.[85][86] In Free En­ter­prise Fund v. Pub­lic Com­pany Ac­count­ing Over­sight Board (2010), the Supreme Court re­versed the cir­cuit's judg­ment by a vote of 5–4.[87]

In 2015, Ka­vanaugh found that those di­rectly reg­u­lated by the Con­sumer Fi­nan­cial Pro­tec­tion Bu­reau (CFPB) could chal­lenge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of its design.[88][89] In Oc­to­ber 2016, Ka­vanaugh wrote for a di­vided panel find­ing that the CFPB's de­sign was un­con­sti­tu­tional, and made the CFPB Di­rec­tor re­mov­able by the Pres­i­dent of the United States.[90][91] In Jan­u­ary 2018, the en banc D.C. Cir­cuit re­versed that judg­ment by a vote of 7–3, over the dis­sent of Kavanaugh.[92][93]

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

In Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2007), Ka­vanaugh dis­sented when the cir­cuit court al­lowed a law­suit mak­ing ac­cu­sa­tions of Exxon­Mo­bil human rights vi­o­la­tions in In­done­sia to pro­ceed, ar­gu­ing in his dis­sent that the claims were not jus­ti­cia­ble.[104][105] Ka­vanaugh dis­sented again when the cir­cuit court later found that the cor­po­ra­tion could be sued under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789.

{What is the Alien Tort Statue? } The Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350; ATS), also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section of the United States Code that reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.

https://youtu.be/LVP0UU4hYIU

@Converge did you find the link?

Pedo next

https://usat.ly/2N9qDiL?dlr=ios_ual

I hate them

🔥

Piss on Blumenthal, Liar, rat faced TURD💩

@V77 Hello how are you it's Unbelievable what these people the Demon-Rats did to Judge Brett Kavanaugh his Wife his 2 little girls his Family I cried when he was in Tears

In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc D.C. Circuit found that the Free Speech Clause did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label on their products.[111][112] In United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC (2016), Kavanaugh dissented when the en banc circuit refused to rehear a rejected challenge to the net neutrality rule, writing, "Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule".[38][113][114]

Fourth Amendment and civil liberties

In No­vem­ber 2010, Ka­vanaugh dis­sented from the de­nial of re­hear­ing en banc after the cir­cuit found that at­tach­ing a Global Po­si­tion­ing Sys­tem track­ing de­vice to a ve­hi­cle vi­o­lated the Fourth Amend­ment to the United States Con­sti­tu­tion.[115][116] The cir­cuit's judg­ment was then af­firmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones (2012).[117] In Feb­ru­ary 2016, Ka­vanaugh dis­sented when the en banc cir­cuit re­fused to re­hear po­lice of­fi­cers' re­jected claims of qual­i­fied im­mu­nity for ar­rest­ing par­ty­go­ers in a va­cant house.[38][118] In Dis­trict of Co­lum­bia v. Wesby (2018), the Supreme Court unan­i­mously re­versed the cir­cuit's judgment.[119]

@Dina ❤️ Demon-rats is right. It’s vile. It Turns my stomach.

His beautiful family.

It’s evil.

Brb

Afk

Communists

Facts of the case
Antoine Jones was arrested on Oct. 24, 2005, for drug possession after police attached a tracker to Jones's Jeep -- without judicial approval -- and used it to follow him for a month. A jury found Jones not guilty on all charges save for conspiracy, on which point jurors hung. District prosecutors, upset at the loss, re-filed a single count of conspiracy against Jones and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard. Jones owned the "Levels" nightclub in the District of Columbia. Jones and Maynard were then convicted, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court specifically stated in a 1983 case regarding the use of a beeper to track a suspect that the decision could not be used to justify 24-hour surveillance without a warrant.

Watch and listen carefully https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1nUf8YY1oY

In Klayman v. Obama (2015), Kavanaugh concurred when the circuit court denied an en banc rehearing of its decision to vacate a district court order blocking the National Security Agency's warrantless bulk collection of telephony metadata.[120][121] In his concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote that the metadata collection was not a search, and, even if it were, no reasonable suspicion would be required because of the government's special need to prevent terrorist attacks.[122] In Klayman I, the plaintiffs, subscribers of Verizon Wireless, brought suit against the NSA, the Department of Justice, Verizon Communications, President Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, and General Keith B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency.[3] The plaintiffs alleged that the government is conducting a "secret and illegal government scheme to intercept vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications" and that the program violates First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and exceeds statutory authority granted by Section 215.[3] In Klayman II, the plaintiffs sued the same government defendants and in addition, Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T, Apple again alleging the bulk metadata collection violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and constitutes divulgence of communication records in violation of Section 2702 of Stored Communications Act.[4]

Oh boy. https://twitter.com/kevboat44/status/1045851005773139969?s=21. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoOia22VsAAbTZR?format=jpg&name=900x900

Check out @TomFitton’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1045850421867270144?s=09

https://twitter.com/_ImperatorRex_/status/1045829913096249344

And this. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoOeno6VYAEA8N0?format=jpg&name=small

fbi already looked at in sept 13th or around that. nothing here

same return story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzDHUMgeAs