http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-faithful-scalia-gorsuch-may-deciding-vote-immigrant/
If anything Gorsuch was upholding Scalia’s brand of judicial conservatism and limiting government overreach.
Marquess of Queensberry fighting isn’t going to get it done against nuke throwing Democrats. They’ve taken the pop culture, corporate culture and soon America while we virtue signal about conservatism.
Thanks for posting the link.
It was an informative analysis.
Sometimes failure is a good thing. It makes one reconsider what went wrong. And then leads to finding something that is the RIGHT solution.
In the greater scheme of things this will likely prove to be a boon to Trump's plans to stem illegal entry, not to encourage it.
So the four liberals also agreed with Scalia and four other conservatives didn’t?
Good takeaway.
It is unknown to many — even HERE at FR — that the BEST judges will always rule within the bounds of the law as it exists on the books; that if a State Legislature, or Congress has left gaps in the Law, the good judge cannot hand down a ruling that asserts on the basis of ethereal “emanations of penumbras” what ought to fill those gaps. The only proper ruling in a case that seeks to act on the sense of verbiage that isn’t in the Law, or is so imprecise that its meaning cannot be exactly determined, is to rule against the Plaintiff and drive them back to the Legislature, or to Congress to appeal to campaign for a change to the Law.
Not to mention, the whole case, all the way from the deportation proceeds through the filing of the petition for cert in the Supreme Court, happened during the Obama Administration. The only thing the Trump Administration did was have its solicitor general’s office argue the case and, maybe, file the brief.