He was just one of many participants. But Joe Biden actually takes credit for it (and I bet you would have voted for him). See:
https://washingtonsblog.com/2011/12...in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html . President Clinton had also proposed a bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. See:
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal95-1100489 . The current Act was passed 98-1 by the Senate, therefore, using your logic, all those Senators should never have been re-elected. If you read the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The keywords are "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause". It becomes like "what the definition of "is" is.
I don't totally disagree with you regarding the 4th Amendment. It might work if all the people involved were being honorable and did the right thing, but as we have seen with this election and the FBI with their phony FISA application, there is too much dishonesty within the government - both with elected and non-elected.
As for Kavanaugh, we don't know how he would actually vote if the case that the 4th Amendment was being violated came to the SC. All the members of the Senate had his cases that he dealt with as a judge and could have asked that question, If they didn't, then there might have been some reasonable explanation for any ruling he made.
If you are saying we can't take the chance, then we can say that about every nominee to the SC (or any federally appointed judgeship). We already have too many un-elected judges who try to make law from the bench rather than follow the Constitution.