Replies

>> I read his opinion, which follows the argument Scalia made writing for the majority in a 2008 case, namely that the law is too vague to be enforceable. <<

Yes, I read the arguement.

The Scalia decision was an 8-1 ruling on an entirely different type of law. Four the current conservatives on the court were also present on the court during the Scalia ruling. All four conservatives currently on the court voted with Scalia on the previous ruling.

When deciding the CURRENT case, NONE of them agreed that the previous ruling had ANY precedent on this one or involved the same sort of "vague law" that would justify voting to strike down this one. In short, it was comparing apples to oranges. It would be like trying to justify citing the 9-0 desegregation ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education to rule that snakes and chickens should be placed in the same cage together and not "segregated" into different cages.

Scalia would have never been the LONE GOP judge to vote with the marxist wing of the court, and you know it.

The problem is that you are not siding with "rule of law" conservatism but doctrinaire, power to the state, "conservative tribe" wins conservatism. That is a formula for continuing the left right battle for the next 2000 years that has been going on since FDR, at least.

What Gorsuch did, which you apparently find abhorent, is to apply the standard of legal clarity required for criminal law to administrative law. You and your 4 court brethren find this appalling.

For those of us, however, who have long decried the growth of federal power at the expense of individual rights fostered by such out of control workarounds of due process as civil asset forfeiture or administrative law, this is refreshing.

I for one want some more Gorsuches on the court so that when a good case finally comes along to take down or limit the reach of the Chevron deference "doctrine" advantage will be taken of the opportunity. The present "conservatives" aren't going to do it. It's stare decisis. So is civil asset forfeiture, and if one place of criminal due prcoess to be applied to a "civil" cause is applicable it is this one, which is the governments effort to use civil process to extract criminal penalties without regard to criminal standards of due process or standards of proof.

So, I applaud Gorsuch. My fight is for rule of law, not rule of doctrinaire statist conservatives.