Kavanaugh: I Don’t Like the Practice of Judges Using Acquitted Conduct in Sentencing

RUSH TRANSCRIPT You ve ░░░░░░░░ it quite well Earlier ░░░░░░░░ year I attended oral ░░░░░░░░ in Microsoft versus the ░░░░░░░░ States also known as ░░░░░░░░ Microsoft Ireland case Naturally ░░░░░░░░ was very interested in ░░░░░░░░ The case was the ░░░░░░░░ of the communications act ░░░░░░░░ for data stored overseas ░░░░░░░░ United States falls within ░░░░░░░░ acts confines I had ░░░░░░░░ the legislation known as ░░░░░░░░ cloud acted to resolve ░░░░░░░░ issue Oral argument Congress ░░░░░░░░ the cloud act the ░░░░░░░░ the case before the ░░░░░░░░ The specific issue in ░░░░░░░░ Microsoft Ireland case has ░░░░░░░░ resolved by my legislation ░░░░░░░░ the case also raised ░░░░░░░░ broader question that I ░░░░░░░░ like to ask you ░░░░░░░░ the stored communications act ░░░░░░░░ passed in 1986 no ░░░░░░░░ imagined a world where ░░░░░░░░ could be stored overseas ░░░░░░░░ acceptable instantaneously in the ░░░░░░░░ States It was clear ░░░░░░░░ the act covered data ░░░░░░░░ in the United States ░░░░░░░░ it was less clear ░░░░░░░░ it extended the data ░░░░░░░░ abroad using new technologies ░░░░░░░░ were not available in ░░░░░░░░ How do we interpret ░░░░░░░░ laws in light of ░░░░░░░░ technology How do we ░░░░░░░░ whether the authors an ░░░░░░░░ actors of legislation would ░░░░░░░░ been in unforeseen situations ░░░░░░░░ Senator I think they ░░░░░░░░ as elsewhere the job ░░░░░░░░ a judge is to ░░░░░░░░ on the words written ░░░░░░░░ the statute passed by ░░░░░░░░ Sometimes Congress will write ░░░░░░░░ statute where the words ░░░░░░░░ very precise It s ░░░░░░░░ clear it covers only ░░░░░░░░ that might be in ░░░░░░░░ at the time Sometimes ░░░░░░░░ will write broader more ░░░░░░░░ words as does the ░░░░░░░░ at times That can ░░░░░░░░ to new technologies for ░░░░░░░░ the Fourth Amendment of ░░░░░░░░ And the Constitution applies ░░░░░░░░ things that were not ░░░░░░░░ at the founding including ░░░░░░░░ and communication devices that ░░░░░░░░ not known at the ░░░░░░░░ So too with statutes ░░░░░░░░ depends on how broadly ░░░░░░░░ ve written it This ░░░░░░░░ a broader point which ░░░░░░░░ the issue of privacy ░░░░░░░░ liberty on the one ░░░░░░░░ versus security law enforcement ░░░░░░░░ the other An enormous ░░░░░░░░ going forward for the ░░░░░░░░ in the first instance ░░░░░░░░ also for the federal ░░░░░░░░ including the Supreme Court ░░░░░░░░ forward The Carpenter case ░░░░░░░░ past term is a ░░░░░░░░ example of that written ░░░░░░░░ chief justice Roberts As ░░░░░░░░ look ahead over the ░░░░░░░░ 10 to 20 years ░░░░░░░░ balance of Fourth Amendment ░░░░░░░░ and privacy versus security ░░░░░░░░ law enforcement is an ░░░░░░░░ issue HATCH I appreciate ░░░░░░░░ elucidation on that On ░░░░░░░░ domestic front there has ░░░░░░░░ debate for some time ░░░░░░░░ in Congress about whether ░░░░░░░░ laws should be updated ░░░░░░░░ require a warrant for ░░░░░░░░ content of electronic communications ░░░░░░░░ of how old those ░░░░░░░░ are As you may ░░░░░░░░ the Electronic Communications Privacy ░░░░░░░░ currently distinguishes between communications ░░░░░░░░ are less than 180 ░░░░░░░░ old and those that ░░░░░░░░ more than 180 days ░░░░░░░░ requiring a warrant for ░░░░░░░░ former but not the ░░░░░░░░ Can you speak generally ░░░░░░░░ the importance of warrant ░░░░░░░░ and why they are ░░░░░░░░ important bulwark against the ░░░░░░░░ overreach The warrant requirement ░░░░░░░░ ensure as a general ░░░░░░░░ that the executive branch ░░░░░░░░ not unilaterally able to ░░░░░░░░ someone s privacy Someone ░░░░░░░░ liberty without judicial oversight ░░░░░░░░ ensures there is probable ░░░░░░░░ or whatever the standard ░░░░░░░░ be in a statutory ░░░░░░░░ to get someone s ░░░░░░░░ or information or otherwise ░░░░░░░░ their liberty or privacy ░░░░░░░░ judicial oversight as part ░░░░░░░░ the checks and balances ░░░░░░░░ the Constitution and Congress ░░░░░░░░ written that also in ░░░░░░░░ statutes come as you ░░░░░░░░ senator