4 ms·

Yes, but the question we care about here is if we'd get a privacy preserving decision like Carpenter if Kavanaugh was on the court. I read that section of his o

Yes, but the question we care about here is if we'd get a privacy preserving decision like Carpenter if Kavanaugh was on the court. I read that section of his opinion, and it certainly seems like the answer is "no".

AmericanChopper 8y ago
There is no way to read "no" from the opinion written by Kavanaugh, as it exclusively references standing precedent. As far as I'm aware, Kavanaugh has not delivered any opinions of his own that would suggest he is hostile to 4th amendment protections. Given his reputation as strong constitutionalist, I think if you want to make that accusation, then you should have something more than a simple interpretation of Supreme Court case law.
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  This article [1], from a source that is generally quite positive on Kavanaugh, provides much more evidence of a trend in Kavanaugh's interpretation of the 4th amendment from his previous cases. That's what originally informed my opinion. [1] https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-four...
Lazare 8y ago
> I read that section of his opinion, and it certainly seems like the answer is "no". I don't think you understood what you were reading then. You can't just naively analyse someone applying rules other people wrote, and see any strong evidence in what rules he would write given the opportunity. In some cases (but not this one) a judge will write a side note explaining his thoughts, and even asking for the rules to be changed. But here, we just have someone saying "the Supreme Court said X must lead to Y, and this looks a lot like X, and thus it must lead to Y". The most you can gain from that is an understanding of how he interprets X; you can't learn anything about whether he thinks Y ought to follow X.
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17949047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17949047

AmericanChopper 8y ago

There is no way to read "no" from the opinion written by Kavanaugh, as it exclusively references standing precedent. As far as I'm aware, Kavanaugh has not delivered any opinions of his own that would suggest he is hostile to 4th amendment protections. Given his reputation as strong constitutionalist, I think if you want to make that accusation, then you should have something more than a simple interpretation of Supreme Court case law.

charleslmunger 8y ago
This article [1], from a source that is generally quite positive on Kavanaugh, provides much more evidence of a trend in Kavanaugh's interpretation of the 4th amendment from his previous cases. That's what originally informed my opinion. [1] https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-four...

Lazare 8y ago

> I read that section of his opinion, and it certainly seems like the answer is "no". I don't think you understood what you were reading then. You can't just naively analyse someone applying rules other people wrote, and see any strong evidence in what rules he would write given the opportunity. In some cases (but not this one) a judge will write a side note explaining his thoughts, and even asking for the rules to be changed. But here, we just have someone saying "the Supreme Court said X must lead to Y, and this looks a lot like X, and thus it must lead to Y". The most you can gain from that is an understanding of how he interprets X; you can't learn anything about whether he thinks Y ought to follow X.

charleslmunger 8y ago
See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17949047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17949047