Anything that the ASSPRESS writes is most likely, and should be presumed to be, a lie, unless and until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise.
Justice Gorsuch did NOT join Kagan’s opinion in full. He wrote a an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
HIS opinion, is actually the controlling opinion under the Marks rule, because it provided the narrowest grounds needed to get to the 5 votes on the judgment.
Read his opinion, NOT the ASSPRESS rendition of his opinion, and you will see that the ASSPRESS is lying, as usual.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Unlike Kagan, Gorsuch bases his reading of the law and the void for vagueness doctrine on an ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING of the Constitution and Constitutional principles.
“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.”
The bottom line is, his vote was the same as hers'.
Thank you and Apilar for unspinning this.
Standing for civil liberties and rule of law rather than the arbitrary and capricious judgment of government bureaucrats is a pretty good outcome to me.