Posted on 04/17/2018 10:44:15 AM PDT by conservative98
What Senate do you think could pass any bill that makes it easier to deport criminals? He could have just helped out by deciding what Congress really meant, to say sort of like fee/fine/tax.
By calling this guy brilliant you necessarily call the other four stupid, right?
As Gorsuch stated, the law must be precise enough to provide notice as to what the prohibited actions are. You could say, yes, you can come here, but if you get a parking ticket you will be deported. That is precise notice, and perhaps constitutional (if it is not capriciously petty), but no one would risk liberty and property to come here under such circumstances.
A law that states you can be deported for any reason that Neil Gorsuch finds constitutional would for the notice reason be unconstitutional.
Poorly written law is just like a poorly written contract. You may have a clear picture in your mind what you want but you must put it into iron-clad, wriggle-proof definition with proper legal binding speak.
I think you are going WAY overboard with your assessment.
Its not a big deal. Gorsuch just said the law was too vague. Go back an rewite it in more derail.
Those cases aren’t even before the court, you idiot.
Like what type of stupid standard is that? Screw everything else! As long as you don’t overturn what isn’t before you, then you are scum!
God just frigging idiots these days call themselves conservatives. Just loony toons.
>
If the statute is unconstitutionally vague, its subject matter is irrelevant.
So, any constitutionally vague statute is unconstitutional, no matter what its governing subject is.
>
‘Void for Vagueness’ WAS a valid decree....Before the Courts usurped authority over the whole of the Constitution.
“Yeah, I’m an “idiot”.
You called?
It was a joke son.
Man, you are dense, aren't you? I suppose the fact Gorsuch attends an ultra marxist "social justice" church with a "womyn priestess" as pastor who promotes Gay Marriage, Abortion on Demand, Tree Hugging, "Undocumented Rights" and the Woman's March every week from the pulpit.. HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT GORSUCH JUST NOT BE THE SECOND COMING OF SCALIA THAT HIS FAN CLUB CLAIMS HIM TO BE, right?
All that matters is that Gorsuch claims to be a "originalist" or "texualist", or what "judicial philosophy" you guys present as the end all, be all of the man's entire character, history, and record.
And 50 years of so-called "originalist" judges "growing" in office and turning into liberal activsts on the bench means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We just go on, blindly supporting and rubber stamping EVERY "originalist" judge that a GOP president nominates.
Well, enjoy the next 40 years with Gorsuch. Good luck turning back any liberal "precedents" with your so called "originalist" judge.
The actual text of Justice Blackmun's Roe v. Wade "sounds pretty good" and "reasonable" on paper too. For example, he writes that doctors have the right to intervene to refuse abortion "around" the third trimester due to concerns for the life of the unborn child. He wrote:
The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy. The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [Footnote 45] The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail.
Sounds pretty good, right?
“Man, you are dense, aren’t you? I suppose the fact Gorsuch attends an ultra marxist “social justice” church...”
God that recycled nonsense.
So where was that old trope from the cranks when he was coming downn on the side of decisions you liked?
Oh yeah, your mouths were shut. Likely will wire shut again when that momen reoccours.
But one wrong slip, and the conspiracy idiots are all about some church.
Jesus, what morons.
One of the things I really like about Trump is his willingness to make Congress do their jobs. He has also so shown a willingness to not circumvent the courts, even lib judges. He genuinely seems to respect Constitutional order and wishes to restore it. Much to the dismay of many Freepers.
Gorsuch is in that same mindset.
SCOTUS nominees need to be hooked up to lie detectors at their confirmation hearings.
They are. That's why they're able to corral them.
". . . born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." ". . . a well regulated militia, . . "
Well, there goes anchor babies, and gun bans
No, vagueness in writing laws by Legislatures is one of the way the Activist Judiciary has squeezed so much of their wacko Leftist agenda into law.
This is a sound Conservative principal. It just happens to be applied against a hot button issue Conservatives favor.
Bad law is bad law even if we happen to agree with what it is trying to accomplish.
Agreed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.