Posted on 04/17/2018 10:44:15 AM PDT by conservative98
Mark R. Levin Verified account
@marklevinshow
Gorsuch blows it, big time
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Correct!!! 100% spot on !!!
“Because a radio bloviator knows more than a SCOTUS justice?
I. Don’t. Think. So.
Remember Gorsuch is a textualist, like Scalia. If he agreed it was too vague, that’s good enough for me.”
from:
MARK LEVIN: Gorsuch blows it, big time
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3648218/posts
Any comment, Great One?
Too much information overload in the title, article. and first post.
Can you condense it for quick reading by the rest of us?
If one of the Founders, himself chosen to interpret the Constitution to "the People," through his writings in THE FEDERALIST's 85 Essays, makes such a strong assertion about the nation's Constitution's supremacy, then isn't it reasonable that elected or appointed officials in the government it structures are not allowed to "innovate" upon appropriately-enacted laws flowing from its provisions?“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act.” – Alexander Hamilton
Has Comey found some new, and appropriately-passed Amendment?
In June 2016, Trump stated: "Yet today, 240 years after the Revolution, we have turned things completely upside-down." - Donald Trump
And it's not just about jobs and economic opportunity. It's about freedom, exercise of "Creator-endowed rights and liberties," and opportunity for each citizen, not just self-appointed elitists who fancy themselves as entitled to make decisions for all.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Roger Weightman on June 24, 1826:
" I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."Some time ago, I posted the following:
"Perhaps the so-called "progressive" enemies of freedom understand better than those who fancy themselves as "conservatives" that in order to reverse the Founders' ideas of "People over government," and institute "government over People," they must first marginalize and destroy the ideas from which liberty is derived.
The writings of America's Founders are replete with references which rebuke would-be tyrants and cite a Higher Source for life, liberty and rights. Early histories confirm those facts.
As so-called "progressives" have led a movement in forsaking the Founders' "reliance on Divine Providence," and belief that individuals are "endowed by their Creator," they also have forsaken the principles underlying America's Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and are systematically dismantling the greatest protections for liberty ever established for a people.
"Ideas have consequences"(Weaver).
The ideas of 1776 came out of a set of ideas consistent with liberty.
We tend to forget, or have never considered, that other world views existed then, as now.
Unless today's citizens rediscover the ideas of liberty existing in what Jefferson called "the American mind" of 1776, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America."
There are those who call themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving, and as old as the history of civilization.
Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying American's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.
This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.
Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.
In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.
Open closet. What did they find?
Gorsuch did not blow it, McConnell Ryan Obama Clinton, Comey, etc blew it! Dont forget monica too
BINGO!!!
No, if Gorsuch votes to overturn "landmark" liberal "precedents", like the "right" to an abortion and the legalization of gay "marriage", THEN the Gorsuch cheerleaders on this board have merit and were right to gloat about how "Trump kept his campaign promise" and how Gorsuch is the second coming of Scalia.
UNTIL that happens, the Gorsuch love fest has absolutely NO merit.
But go ahead, keep mindlessly cheerleading for this judge because Trump appointed him. We all know its impossible for a GOP president to appoint a bad SCOTUS judge, right?
You are an idiot. Grow up.
I thought he was an "originalist", or is it "strict constructionist"?
These guys seem to change their terminology more often than the LGBTQWHATEVERINITALSITISTHISWEEK crowd.
How about the next time we urge GOP Senators to rubber stamp a judge for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench because the President who appointed him has an "R" next to his name, we say the judge is an "awesomeist"?
"Harriet Miers would make an excellent addition to the court. She is an awesomeist, after all. It says so, according to her official White House bio. We can't go wrong with an awesomeist!"
I agree. Laws have to be specific if they are to be enforced. We don’t want Congress passing a bunch of sloppily-written laws that give law enforcement the latitude to interpret them any way they wish. You know what guys like Comey and Mueller can do with that.
Yeah, I’m an “idiot”. The crowd blindly supporting a judge because he claims to be an “originalist” were soooo much smarter and wiser than me. Well, good luck having Gorsuch around for the next few decades. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
IIUC, he agrees with the opinion that the law as written is too vague on what constitutes a violent crime. Now to me, it’s like indecency; I can’t really define it, but I know it when I see it. But to a legal mind distinctions like that matter, and criminals can get off scot-free because of them.
So, just rewrite the law to remove all doubt as to the nature of the crimes, and resubmit it. He’ll do his job again, as he did this time, and the deficiency will be corrected.
“I stopped listening to him 9 years ago.
Plus He was a never Trumper even after the convention..”
I stopped listening to him 2008. He doesnt go straight to the point. Plus he’s a Never Trumper. F him
“Ambiguous laws drive me nuts.”
And make lawyers rich.
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.
Do you have a link?
Thx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.