Don't want to fuss over it but I think they should be required to deport all illegals whether they like them r not. You know just enforce current laws, like arrest all the politicians that are shielding illegals, which is a felony under current law.
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 ...
He certainly was a huge contributor to it.
lol
They are. If the press doesn't drive them to irrelevancy, there's always Arkancide to eradicate the problem.
Judge Scalia would say you are an idiot.
That “Conservative” enough for you moron?
https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/678/docs/Antonin_Scalia_Philosophy_of_Legal_Interpretation.pdf
And it is not an issue Judge Grosuch has been called to rule upon
Your infantile hysteric non sequtor here just future provide the point you have utterly no clue what you are talking about here.
It is always good for folks to ask themselves the question what should due process mean if lamestream bureaucrats decided to go after them, their papers, their farms, their houses, their kids, their dogs. Oh what, they already have - such a pity.
I am for the Constitution, not particular outcomes, even when it means I don’t get outcomes I want.
The worst part of all laws are vagueness and obscurity over transparency. They turn our nation of laws into a “nation of men” where too much law is subject to interpretation of who is enforcing it. The end result is actual selective enforcement of the law, because by some minds at some times, but not always, the law scoops up someone while at other times others, by someone’s interpretation get a pass.
Regardless of how I feel about illegal immigration, Gorsuch may be on our side, if it is the Constitution we stand by. Note his opinion seems to be in sync on opaque law as was Scalia in the case the majority took some precedent from.
I’m with Gorsuch on this one and it isn’t a defeat....
There is NO judge who will vote the way YOU want, 100 percent of the time.
Because J. Gorsuch is a textualist and originalist, when he runs up against an ambiguous law, he is not going to uphold it just because YOU think it's a good law.
The whole idea of strict interpretation is that you do NOT consider whether a law is good, or bad, or well-intended. You ask only whether it passes constitutional muster.
Doing otherwise is legislating from the bench. Thought we agreed that was a BAD thing.
Don't want to fuss over it but I think they should be required to deport all illegals whether they like them r not. You know just enforce current laws, like arrest all the politicians that are shielding illegals, which is a felony under current law.
Okay,
Who voted to allow flag burning, against warrantless searches and other things that might look “liberal”?
Anthony Scalia. http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-neil-gorsuch-sided-with-the-liberal-justices-in-sessions-v-dimaya.html
This accused fellow was not an illegal alien, he had legal residency. Gorsuch in effect voted for civil liberties, so maybe you just believe in big government and are against some civil rights. I don’t know. The definition is not clear, burglary is breaking and entry but robbery is when someone is home generally speaking. So, the statute may not have been clear.
So, maybe “magically” you can tell us why Scalia sided with the liberal side as well?
I think the suspect in this case, had legal residency, so anyone assuming this dood was illegal may well be wrong. I think I got that from reading the opinion.
We got screwed AGAIN.
He did vote the right way. Ambiguous law is a open door for all the evils of discretionary justice.
Right on!
While I agree with Gorsuch's general view on vague laws, I don't understand his reference to "salesmen peddling shady" or whatever products.
All the definitions I looked up for burglary included "uninvited presence in a building to commit a crime".
How is standing outside a door talking to the resident considered burglary?
"Entering a store, shop, office building, or other structure used for business purposes with the intent to steal something, or to commit another type of felony, is considered “commercial burglary."
Gorsuch should have been more concise in his "door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products" phrase. Salesmen go into public places of business every day to present their products. If shady (maybe his term for fraudulent) then it would be considered burglary under California law.
Still, he should have used the phrase, "commercial burglary" because "residential burglary" is uninvited entrance with intent to commit a crime.
But then, Hillary had no INTENT when she set up her private server and used it to store classified documents. Again, the word INTENT. John Schmo, while being distracted, had no INTENT when he mowed down the civilians on the sidewalk and charged with man-slaughter.
Did I call him brilliant? Did I call anyone stupid? I thought I was only acknowledging his position on the issue, which is one that appears correct. Get the legislation right, down to the last dotted I and crossed T.
I agree. Haven't true conservatives & libertarians had this objection to the RICO statute for years?
Just what we need! Another ambiguous law for prosecutors to come after the unpopular with.
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.