Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/17/2018 8:03:56 AM PDT by BOARn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
To: BOARn

Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan concluded her opinion with “Death to America!”


2 posted on 04/17/2018 8:06:53 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

DAMN these Libard lawyers, wrecking our country.

They always pretend something is “too vague” when they don’t want it. Of course, they can rationalize anything at all when they do want it.


4 posted on 04/17/2018 8:08:57 AM PDT by Enchante (FusionGPS "dirty dossier" scandal links Hillary, FBI, CIA, Dept of Justice... "Deep State" is real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

If Justice Gorsuch agreed it was too vague, that’s good enough for me.


6 posted on 04/17/2018 8:10:56 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

Was it too vague? They upheld a lower court ruling, perhaps it IS too vague to pass the sniff test and it needs to be rewritten to be completely iron clad.

Not a total loss, but a definite setback for the time schedule though.


7 posted on 04/17/2018 8:11:33 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

She doesn’t live in the neighborhood where this decision will have an impact.


8 posted on 04/17/2018 8:12:55 AM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

But “Gun Control” is not vague enough to enforce.

Good one, guys.


9 posted on 04/17/2018 8:13:32 AM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

And don’t expect McConnell or Ryan to craft new legislation to clarify and tighten up the definitions of “crimes of violence”.

No, they like things as they have just turned out, just like Obamacare.

They hate America; America is For Sale, and so are they.


10 posted on 04/17/2018 8:14:39 AM PDT by bkopto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn
Typically misleading anti-Trump headline. Gorsuch ruling mirrored Scalia's 2015 ruling in a similar case that ruled "crimes of violence" is unconstitutionally vague. If anything Gorsuch was upholding Scalia's brand of judicial conservatism and limiting government overreach. A good synopsis of what really happened can be found here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-faithful-scalia-gorsuch-may-deciding-vote-immigrant/

11 posted on 04/17/2018 8:15:38 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

The story speaks about resolutions pertaining to LEGAL immigrants. From the summary, I can’t tell if it impacts illegal invaders, which were the core of DJT’s campaign.


12 posted on 04/17/2018 8:15:52 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn
Sad day.

Shame on alleged "justice" Gorsuch.

One hopes he will gain wisdom and insight for correct interpretation of our Constitution in following decisions.

14 posted on 04/17/2018 8:19:34 AM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except for convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

OK...re-write the law in a clearer fashion.


15 posted on 04/17/2018 8:20:45 AM PDT by pgkdan (The Silent Majority STILL Stands With TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

When has a Left appointed SCOTUS ever sided with our side on the key issues?


17 posted on 04/17/2018 8:26:32 AM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

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. 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


18 posted on 04/17/2018 8:27:25 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

Who is any court to tell the president he cannot deport anybody?


25 posted on 04/17/2018 8:50:33 AM PDT by wastedyears (Americans are dreamers too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

If SCOTUS says “crime of violence” is too vague, Ryan and McConnell can draft a revision to the statute in 20 minutes, pass it in both houses in a week, and have it on President Trump’s desk for signature.

But Ryan and McConnell are open border globalists.

Spit.


26 posted on 04/17/2018 8:51:02 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

Sounds like something that can be rewritten more tightly, then permitted, however.


29 posted on 04/17/2018 8:56:55 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

The Supreme Court has absolutely NO SAY on matters of immigration.

That is solely the purview of the Executive Branch.


31 posted on 04/17/2018 8:58:12 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Build The Wall !! Jail The Cankle !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

Justice Kagan. Born and raised in New York City. Went to Harvard Law School.

Her adjustment to the atmosphere of Harvard was rocky, she received the worst grades of her entire law school career in her first semester.

While at the University of Chicago, she published a law review article on the regulation of First Amendment hate speech in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul; an article discussing the significance of governmental motive in regulating speech;and a review of a book by Stephen L. Carter discussing the judicial confirmation process. In the first article, which became highly influential, Kagan argued that the Supreme Court should examine governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases and analyzed historic draft-card burning and flag burning cases in light of free speech arguments.

Kagan joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School as an assistant professor in 1991.

In 1993, Senator Joe Biden appointed Kagan as a special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. During this time, she worked on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Kagan served as Associate White House Counsel for Bill Clinton.

In 2001, she was named a full professor and in 2003 was named Dean of the Law School by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers.

During her deanship, Kagan upheld a decades-old policy barring military recruiters from the Office of Career Services because she felt that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy discriminated against gays and lesbians.

As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard.

On January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.

~ Wikipedia


32 posted on 04/17/2018 9:00:12 AM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

If the only problem is that the law is too vague, then make it clear by listing specific “crimes of violence,” e.g., Murder I,II,III, aggravated assault, simple assault, vehicular homicide, rape, etc. Problem solved.


33 posted on 04/17/2018 9:00:44 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BOARn

This is BS ... but OK ... just rewrite the law to replace “crimes of violence” with specific crimes.


35 posted on 04/17/2018 9:03:49 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson