Here is where you can find Gorsuch’s concurring opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Here is what Gorsuch wrote:
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution,
the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously
construed that the mere expression of disfavored
opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders
cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of
Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as
invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary
power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark
about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and
courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a
lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject
to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration
and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine
that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction
involves a substantial risk that physical force may be
used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at
issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to
everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door
salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast
spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case
and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.”
Sounds pretty good to me, but I live in DC and the arbitrary and capricious decisionmakine and abuse of power here sickens me every day. I guess you are ok with it.
Either that or you are just going postal without a clue what was done to upset you.
The problem is it will not be re written let alone passed. If it’s a bit vague he could not land on the side of protection of the country from criminals who are here illegally? Why does the Liberal side ALWAYS get the benefit of doubt? I had my doubts about Gorsuch now l have more. I thought Kennedy would be the one to screw us this one -wrong.
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?
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.
While I agree with Gorsuch's general view on vague laws, I don't understand his reference to "salesmen peddling shady" or whatever products.
All the definitions I looked up for burglary included "uninvited presence in a building to commit a crime".
How is standing outside a door talking to the resident considered burglary?