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 ...
The President has plenary power to get rid of illegal scum. Gorsuch’s opinion is, frankly, stupid and destructive.
Actually, Levin is twice as smart as SCOTUS justices. Are you attacking Thomas and Alito by proxy, and defending a guy who voted with the hacks who hate America? Yes, you are.
Then strike down a narrow point, not the whole freaking thing! Gorsuch betrayed the rule of law, period.
“Anthony”???
Folks like you don't deserve constitutional rights.
It’s no surprise that your hero is Andy Jackson.
Who says anything about expelling legal residents other than CRIMINAL legal residents? Gorsuch’s and your opinion is extra-Constitutional? But, you are so much smarter than Alito and Thomas. You should invite the Lenin Sisters on the Court to your next cocktail party.
Define tax cheat. Failure to add the sales tax for a bag of tomatoes at the untended roadside farm produce stand?
We are all criminals. Every day all of us are in violation of some regulatory scheme or other that carries potential criminal penalties for violation. Most certainly you are guilty of a host of environmental crimes. Should we toss you out of the country after we indict you, and force a confession before you are bankrupted.
Now go reread Gorsuch's opinion and tell me what is wrong with Gorsuch's opinion. We are talking reasoned argument, not that you want the outcome voted that the dissent voted for. What do you want as the enduring law and the enduring legal opinion to result from this case - that we can toss you out every time some DC bureaucrat decides he doesn't like the way you look.
Stop, take a breath and read what Gorsuch wrote. He did strike the law down on a very narrow point - the narrowest of all points possible. The law is so ambiguous that it fails to provide adequate notice as to what is required to steer clear of the law.
They are going to have to write the whole damn thing, and it may take years more of justice denied, if it EVER gets served. He did not specifically uphold any part of the law, as far as I can ascertain.
In fact, what is clear is that the general statutory scheme of tossing out legal immigrants who commit crimes is constitutional, provided you are clear about what the crimes are, e.g. defrauding the post office by causing the transmission of a letter through the mails without affixing proper postage?
What is unconstitutional is what Scalia held to be unconstitutional - attempting to hold people criminally liable for actions that are so vaguely described that you don't know whether they fall afoul of the proscribed action or not.
E.g. to use Gorsuch's example, by attacking Trump's SC choice have you committed treason? You have certainly expressed genuine actual unconcealed undeniable contempt for the sovereign.
Strange bedfellow for you, Bill. ;d
Heh. I actually agree with Levin MOST of the time, so this is not a "stopped clock is right twice a day" thing. A lot of what Levin says is pretty common sense conservative ideas, including the fact that he's rightfully pointing out that the "But Scalia voted the same way--" excuses for Gorsuch are BS.
Levin only goes off the deep end when starts yapping about how some "Article V convention of the states" will magically solve everything, and if the 17th amendment is repealed it will magically result in Senators like we had back in the 1700s, and so forth (and when Levin claims to be above partisan politicians but flip flops on whether something is Constitutional or not depending on what party controls Congress at the time)
The biggest problem with Levin has never been the guy himself, but rather that he developed an insane cult-like following on FR and elsewhere in the conservative community that saw him as some infallible all-wise, all-knowing deity that was God's anointed spokesman on all matters of constitutional authority. ANY disagreement with Levin, no matter WHAT the issue, meant that you hated America, the Constitution, and the founding fathers, because the Great One, Mark Levin, spoke for them and never erred in judgement. You must not be "educated" on the Constitution if you dare hold a different opinion than Levin.
His followers really jumped the shark when they started talking like that, and sounding like Ron Paul supporters (both Paul and Levin's cultists seem to think that their guy personally instructed the founders themselves on how to write the Constitution at the time). Before Levin, Ann Coulter enjoyed a similar level of cult-like worship on here.
In any case, Levin's cultists have gone underground and have ceased claiming he's infallible God ever since he opposed Trump in the primary, and I don't know if any figure has risen to fill that void. Too bad, it would be amusing if they had stuck to their "principles" and were foaming at the mouth now that anyone who disagrees that Gorsuch sucks must "hate the founders and our beloved Republic"
Of course, I could say the same with Paulbots. If they had stood by their "principles", they'd be trolling the internet in droves to scream about how Donald Trump is a "neo-con Zionist controlled by Jewish bankers" after he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But the Paulbots have mercifully shut up about foreign policy now. Weird stuff.
These political cults never seem to last long. For example, I wonder what happened to the Buchanan brigadiers? I think Adam Andrejewski worshipers are still around though.
Unless the law has a severability clause, you can't pick and choose bits to get rid of.
That's legislating from the bench. As I said before, I thought we were agreed that is a bad thing.
So, one asshat can join the Lenin sisters and a brain-addled white buffoon to override the will of the people, and you are fine with that! The WHOLE DECISION is legislating from the bench. No wonder America is going down the sewer, and Soros is laughing.
Guys like you have reverence for people just b/c they don a black robe. I save my respect for those who follow our Constitution, and that’s it.
The rule of law does not allow a judge to uphold a law just because he agrees with its intent.
The void-for-vagueness rule protects you and me from "prosecutorial discretion" fueled by partisan animus. While the administration currently in power would (probably) enforce the law the way you would like, another administration could take the same law and beat you over the head with it.
The cure is not for judges to rewrite the statute or "blue pencil" it to remove offending verbiage. That is outside their jurisdiction. The cure is for the legislative branch to rewrite the law and clarify it.
So this is a separation of powers issue, a vagueness issue, AND a selective enforcement issue. The fact that the liberal justices voted the same way (probably for entirely different reasons) is irrelevant to whether Gorsuch voted correctly.
And the fact that you resort to over-the-top namecalling the first time a justice rules adversely to *your* opinion does not speak well of your knowledge of the law or the Constitution.
I believe that your opinion is legalistic. If a law is unfair, a disputed PORTION of s aid law may come before a court and be struck down. What Gorsuch did was put HIMSELF over the representatives of the people in making law by tossing it all aside. He is old enough to know not to side with the evil leftists. I suspect that this guy is another example of “growing” in Washington, just as Roberts and Kennedy often do!
Changing the law at whim to serve political circumstances is a Democrat trait. No Constitutional conservative should EVER countenance it.
It's not "legalistic" - or a "technicality" - or any of the other buzz-words that people who don't understand the law throw out there.
As Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace!) remarked, "If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong."
Only if there is a severability clause, otherwise, no.
Well, the severability clause is stupid. But my point is that it is the responsibility of the people and the people’s representatives to replace unworkable laws, NOT the freaking Court’s.
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.