Judge Gorsuch sides with Liberal Supremes

[JDW]

http://www.businessinsider.com/gorsuch-supreme-court-votes-immigration-case-2018-4

 

uh-oh Not 2A related, but bothersome, none the less

[chicagoresident]

It falls in line with past views. He's a constitutionalist. Which means you believe the bill of rights are natural rights, not rights that only apply to naturalized US citizens.

 

Without reading the article I would guess his argument that deporting someone back to a 3rd world *hole that might of grown up here and only spoke English might be an 8th ammendment violation.

 

Judges, you would hope, are aligned more constitutionally then the mainstream parties. The ones that are in lockstep with the mainstream parties are a danger to the Republic. The executive branch often sidesteps the constitution in the name of national security, but it's up to the judicial branch to keep them from going to far.

[cybermgk]

It falls in line with past views. He's a constitutionalist. Which means you believe the bill of rights are natural rights, not rights that only apply to naturalized US citizens.

 

Without reading the article I would guess his argument that deporting someone back to a 3rd world *hole that might of grown up here and only spoke English might be an 8th ammendment violation.

 

Judges, you would hope, are aligned more constitutionally then the mainstream parties. The ones that aren't are a danger to the Republic. The executive branch often sidesteps the constitution in the name of national security, but it's up to the judicial branch to keep them from going to far.

Nope,

 

"Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it.""

 

That actually is good for us in many ways. SO many Anti Gun laws are written exactly like that. California, Mass, NY AWB laws are like that, vague, where people constantly debate what IS legal or not. Proposed and passed Illinois are even more vague.

 

NOW, saying that, it means many laws could be found unconstitutional due to vagueness. I'd rather they would be for violating the 2nd, put future crap to rest.

[kevinmcc]

Fix the act. I like that he stood with the unconstitutional due to vagueness. Illinois has so many unconstitutional vague laws because Chicago Democrats are such horrible law makers.

[gunuser17]

Case is fairly narrow and only has to deal with one of the criminal provisions that calls for someone to be deported because of a conviction. Get convicted of a violent crime- get deported - so say get convicted of attempted murder - get deported. That part of the statute was pretty clear. Here though - get convicted of burglary where it is not clear if it was "violent" - is that a violent crime? This falls under a catch-all provision in the statute that left it pretty much up to immigration judges to decide if a conviction was for a violent act. The supreme court found that the statute was too vague on what constituted a violent crime in this catch-all provision. Easy fix for congress if they can get off their seats and actually pass legislation. Not really anything to do with the President's actions on immigration.

[cybermgk]

Fix the act. I like that he stood with the unconstitutional due to vagueness. Illinois has so many unconstitutional vague laws because Chicago Democrats are such horrible law makers.

Yep

[lawman]

Congress will just rewrite it to clear up the vagueness part and then it will be found constitutional if it makes it that far again.

[xrlke]

I have no problem with one judge or judges siding with the "other" side. Rulings should be based on the Constitution and the original intent.

[ChicagoRonin70]

This is very heartening to me. It demonstrates that even on so-called "progressive" topics, if they are consistent with the actual Constitution and its meanings, then he will support those things consistently. That takes away the argument that will be made that Gorsuch is politically motivated to the right on subjects such as Second Amendment cases, and makes the argument that if he is inclined in a certain way, it is the correct Constitutional way to interpret whatever his position is.

[BobPistol]

Sometimes LW's get it right. Vague laws must be struck down as unconstitutional. This definitely helps in the pro-2A side as most anti gun laws are vague.