Jurisprudence Brett Kavanaugh Is Trying to Walk Back "Kavanaugh Stops." Justice Brett Kavanaugh does not seem happy that his name has become synonymous with racist immigration enforcement. In September, the justice wrote that Hispanic residents' "apparent ethnicity" could be a "relevant factor" in federal agents' decision to stop them and demand proof of citizenship. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection promptly seized upon his opinion as a license to stop any Hispanic person on the basis of race--often with excessive, even sadistic force --and detain them until they proved their lawful presence. Law professor Anil Kalhan termed these encounters "Kavanaugh stops," and the name swiftly caught on as evidence mounted that they had become standard practice across the country.

Sharing a name with a famous person can prompt endless jokes and comments -- but in these particularly politically-charged times, having the same name as a political figure can be especially tiresome. That's something a young man from Kentucky named Brett Kavanagh has learned only too well in recent weeks: On Friday, Brett, 27, complained about the recent woes of having his name, prompting others with famous names to commiserate. Women named Siri and Alexa, and men named Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee, all tweeted about how hard it is to have a well-known name. His tweet inspired others to chime in, including this person who pointed to a Scottish man named Steve Bannon -- who is not the same as Breitbart's Steve Bannon A man named Bruce Y. Lee knows the struggle This Brett, who works in customer service and lives in Louisville, spells his last name differently from new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but it seems their nearly-identical names has caused him some trouble. Tough times: Brett (pictured) doesn't spell his name the same way as the judge, either'This is a terrible time to be named Brett Kavanagh,' he tweeted.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford responds to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey Ford gave a detailed scientific explanation for her memory of the alleged incident involving Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at her highly anticipated Senate testimony Thursday. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pressed Ford over her level of certainty that it was, in fact, Kavanaugh who allegedly pinned her down 36 years ago, while in high school, and attempted to remove her clothing. "How are you so sure that it was he?" Feinstein asked. Ford, a California-based psychology professor, laid out a detailed scientific explanation.

Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday evening that until he learns more about the sexual assault allegation regarding Brett Kavanaugh, he is "not comfortable voting yes" on Kavanaugh. It's Flakes last chance to poke President Trump and the country in the eye before he rides retires and likely finds a job in the liberal media. Jeff Flake becomes the first Republican senator to call for a pause on the Kavanaugh hearings until the Judiciary Committee hears from his accuser. Kavanaugh's accuser is a far left anti-Trump activist. Over the past few days, what appeared at first to be a merely token resistance to the nomination of Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh has morphed into something entirely more menacing.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society. Starting in 2012, the Supreme Court's approach to digital privacy has undergone a seismic shift. In a series of recent cases on location tracking and cellular phone searches, the court has recognized that, when it comes to big data, old rules about our expectations of privacy may not apply. Because information can now be gathered, stored, and analyzed cheaply, the Supreme Court has recently found that Fourth Amendment protections must be carefully recalibrated to prevent unchecked police power. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, however, has exhibited a contrasting and outdated understanding of privacy. As important questions come before the court in the future--on police drone surveillance, on the use of facial recognition software, on government access to the vast troves of different kinds of digital data companies hold on us--it's crucial to understand where Kavanaugh stands.