Julie Kelly Spots a Judge With SCOTUS Potential Who Knows 'the Whole Point of Our Constitution'

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment:

a 5th Circuit panel held that so-called geofence warrants are unconstitutional. Such warrants seek location information within a certain area and time frame as a means to identify suspects; in the case of United States v. Smith, it was used to find robbers. In reaching its conclusion, the appeals court has split with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said recently in United States v. Chatrie that it didn’t count as a Fourth Amendment “search” when the government got two hours’ worth of location information from Google that had been voluntarily exposed by the defendant.
Such “circuit splits,” as they’re called, generally increase the chances of Supreme Court review, because the justices can resolve them to ensure uniformity across the country.

The ruling could have an effect on some of the government's January 6 cases, and Julie Kelly (@Julie_Kelly2) shared a constitutional gem from one of the judges:

Interesting--Fifth Circuit just ruled that geofence warrants violate 4A. Recall the FBI sought and received a Google geofence warrant on Jan 6, 2021.

INTO MY VEINS JUDGE HO (Trump appointee, on short list for SCOTUS, Trump chose ACB instead) pic.twitter.com/EQnnGXBPma
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 13, 2024

This entire paragraph is great:

Geofence warrants are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime. The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery—and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this new technology. So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests. But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly-spirited officers—and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” THE FEDERALIST No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Id. But “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Id. It's because of “human nature” that it's “necessary to control the abuses of government.” Id.