A New SCROTUM Traitor - Gorsuch Sides With Libtards on Immigration

[prambo]

Gitmo, NOW!!!

How many supposed "strict constructionists" were, and are, Marxist stooges?

The Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration a loss on immigration — and Gorsuch was the tiebreaking vote

 

[livingston]

Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it."

This is what could be needed to overturn the safe act ?

 

[Phauxtoe]

i trust Gorsuch, i want to read more about why he did what he did!
a Bad law should not ever be used because it can then be used for BAD!

 

[Phazer]

Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it."

This is what could be needed to overturn the safe act ?

Damn! I thought THE EXACT SAME THING when I read that passage.

 

[libertysnake]

Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it."

This is what could be needed to overturn the safe act ?

Will never happen. The feds are dickless, which has emboldened the DAs in NY to shit on the constitution. None of the other states want to actually stand up and defend the union when one member shits on it.

 

[C3D]

Gorsuch is every bit sticking with his espoused philosophies, even if you don't like the outcome...

Scalia was well known for the exact same thing. What distinguishes men like Scalia and Gorsuch is they stick to their principles even if they don't like the outcome.

 

[Steal2B]

Gorsuch is every bit sticking with his espoused philosophies, even if you don't like the outcome...

Scalia was well known for the exact same thing. What distinguishes men like Scalia and Gorsuch is they stick to their principles even if they don't like the outcome.

Gorsuch's appointment was over celebrated and he will not be as enlightened, bold or consistent as Scalia.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Look at the catalog of Bad 2A laws that are too vague and can and will be used in a

Gorsuch's appointment was over celebrated and he will not be as enlightened, bold or consistent as Scalia.

Okay then, its great to see you have a open mind!

 

[C3D]

Gorsuch's appointment was over celebrated and he will not be as enlightened, bold or consistent as Scalia.

I don’t know about your first point but the second is correct: only the rarest of jurists would rival Scalia’s raw intellect and principled ruling. Claiming otherwise is just jiggery pokery.

 

[Celt]

Dont like the outcome but it seems he stood on solid ground in making his decision. Now, lets get some 2a cases there and see if his principles remain intact.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Gorsuch is every bit sticking with his espoused philosophies, even if you don't like the outcome...

Scalia was well known for the exact same thing. What distinguishes men like Scalia and Gorsuch is they stick to their principles even if they don't like the outcome.

Scalia was brilliant all right. He injected a Trojan Horse into the Heller decision to allow them to limit the 2A when he defined the 2A. A traitor in my book. This below allows them to limit AW's and handgun carry.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

[BDinPutnam]

Gorsuch is every bit sticking with his espoused philosophies, even if you don't like the outcome...

Scalia was well known for the exact same thing. What distinguishes men like Scalia and Gorsuch is they stick to their principles even if they don't like the outcome.

Nailed it.

I didn't read the whole decision but this got "vacated for vagueness" and while I don't have the text handy he had another good line in there about expecting the law to be written with specificity if the .gov wants to deprive you of your freedom/liberty.

 

[Shadow2]

He doesn't like Vague laws ... I'm sure he'll rule in favor of 2A if a case ever makes it there. Ginsburg has a date with Scalia ... Id like to know if these judges are required to take cognitive tests after a certain age.

 

[Steal2B]

Look at the catalog of Bad 2A laws that are too vague and can and will be used in a

Okay then, its great to see you have a open mind!

When he was nominated, right leaning talking heads, spin doctors, commentators, and press offices were full of over the top back slapping enthusiasm comparing Gorsuch to Scalia in absolute terms. This was not supported by Gorsuch's written opinions, some of which were unanimously overturned. Although he was a safe choice for President Trump (and I hope a good choice to support the Bill of Rights), Gorsuch opinions are not as stubborn as Scalia's textualism and are not as consistent in applying lex naturalis. RIP Justice Scalia.

 

[Redshirt]

Did you even read the decision? He voted against a enforcing a law that was so vague that it had no limitations. Read a little more than the inflammatory headline next time. If you're going to call the guy a traitor and a marxist you at least should read the decision first. His decision makes perfect sense.

 

[Grimscale]

…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Is it possible that Scalia meant that someone could not keep and carry whatever weapon they wanted for illegal purposes?
if he was truly the Constitutionalist others claim, then maybe he was trying to say that breaking the Law would limit your Right.

Then again, if so, he should have worded it better!

 

[spat]

Is it possible that Scalia meant that someone could not keep and carry whatever weapon they wanted for illegal purposes?
if he was truly the Constitutionalist others claim, then maybe he was trying to say that breaking the Law would limit your Right.

Then again, if so, he should have worded it better!

I bet there was some backroom deal to get the votes needed whereby he promised to put in some language like that in the decision.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I read that as he was upholding NFA, the GCA, FOPA, etc while striking down DC's draconian bullshit (and also avoiding overturning Marshall).

 

[prambo]

Did you even read the decision? He voted against a enforcing a law that was so vague that it had no limitations. Read a little more than the inflammatory headline next time. If you're going to call the guy a traitor and a marxist you at least should read the decision first. His decision makes perfect sense.

Nope, didn't. My bad. Guess I'm just sick to death of being sold out. Nothing surprises me anymore, regardless of how ridiculous or unbelievable it is.

Thanks for the smack in the noggin.

 

[Mosinitis]

None of the 9 Supreme Fixers are pro-gun. Minority opinions they tease you with are worthless. They screw you on what counts. All 9 are complicit. They are very conservative when they are appointed. Then they adjust to fit "DIVIDED court" narrative. Never mind that there is a republican appointed majority for God knows how long. They had the nose count to do everything we were promised.
They fuck you because you believe in this shit.

 

[Burzum]

Gorsuch is every bit sticking with his espoused philosophies, even if you don't like the outcome...

Scalia was well known for the exact same thing. What distinguishes men like Scalia and Gorsuch is they stick to their principles even if they don't like the outcome.

You are correct, but the problem is if "Conservatives" keep playing high minded as the activist Lefties keep changing the law with their decisions we lose.

Much of the rubbish changed during the Warren Court should have been walked back, but it was not, so Lefties are winning, they keep moving the ball, and we just sigh.