What a fool!
If he voted it down because it’s too vague, that’s not so bad.
Change the word “violent crime” in the statute to “felony,” and it should be fine.
“Since the Court said that the law was too vague, it just needs to be rewritten. “
Good luck with that, given that The Congress is a do nothing organization. Today, two of the three branches of government have ceased to function to facilitate the will of the people. There is not a nickel’s worth of difference between the lazy, worthless SCOTUS and the House and Senate. The country would be 100% better without both of them as they exist today.
Media making this a “man bites dog” story LOL!
(Scalia said the same as Gorsuch)
They have a list of specific crimes....they just need to do an add on.
We all say we want judges who apply the law without political or even policy considerations. That is what Gorsuch did here, it appears to me. Based only upon reading this article (maybe there is more to it): Gorsuch said that a law applicable to “crimes of violence” cannot be applied to a burglary in which there was no violence. The opposing position was that burglary is necessarily a crime of violence. IDK about that. I get it, but laws should be specific enough that it is reasonably clear when they do and do not apply.
Well maybe it is too vague. Rewrite it.
I believe this was an Obama provision that was struck down for being vague. And it was.
I think this was a good call.
Congress just needs to write a clear version ASAP.
Rewrite it to say convicted of any felony.
There is a positive way to look at this. When was the last time a lefty justice voted against the party line? Conservatives are far more likely to put the law before partisan orthodoxy. That, as hard to swallow as it may be sometimes is to their credit.
MSM is attempting to portray this as a rebuke of Trump’s policies. Don’t fall for it. It is a minor correction sending it back to Congress and telling them they need to be more specific in their wording.
The law IS too vague. That’s bad law. SCOTUS ruled correctly.
Sometimes, in interpreting the Constitution correctly you have to support results that you do not like.
My question is, what blackmail does the Left have on Gorsuch? I’m convinced they completely control the Supreme Court now through blackmail. The only ones they can’t control that way were/are Scalia (dead, probably murdered by the Left) and Thomas (marginalized by the media).
“Violent crimes are violations of criminal law that involve the intentional use of violence by one person against another. Social scientists do not agree on a single or unified definition of violence, however.
Criminologists tend to favor narrow definitions of violence, focusing on physical harm or threats. Many, but not all, criminologists accept the definition provided by an influential National Research Council study, which defined violence as “behaviors by individuals that intentionally threaten, attempt, or inflict physical harm on others” (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 2; see General Overviews). This definition includes a diverse assortment of behaviors, including homicide, assault, robbery (theft accompanied by force or threat), rape, torture, capital punishment, and boxing. But it excludes many acts that are encompassed by other, equally reasonable definitions.
How one chooses to define violence prefigures the types of behavior that are counted as violence, the levels of violence observed across place and time, the theories that make sense of violent behavior, and the social response to violence.”
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0001.xml
If the law is vague how come only the liberals plus Gorsuch saw that and four conservative Justices didn’t?
Did Gorsuch at least get a fat briefcase full of cash to take to Switzerland?
NOT AGAIN!!!???
It must be the miasmal air inside the beltway.
Or is it the money or the need to fit in?