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

[TomSea]

I'm obviously, the only one here who respects the rights of the individual and doesn't worship the almighty state...  ... 

Obviously, Clarence Thomas probably judged this correctly, breaking and entering is serious, how about if someone was stealing a lawn mower from one's back yard? But this does not seem like a deal breaker with Gorsuch.

[Emjay]

Just so I understand you NTs, having vague laws which can be interpreted in different ways is a good thing.  That's what you all are saying?

Actually, I admire this decision by Gorsuch.  He actually studied the law and found it to be too vague to successfully enforce.

He could have just gone along to protect his conservative reputation but he read the bill carefully and realized its flaws.  Send him a better bill.

[txradioguy]

And why was Gorsuch's opinion inconsistent with "conservatism"?   Do you really believe that it is right and good and conservative for laws to be written with such vagueness that their application becomes a matter of selective and/or arbitrary enforcement? 

Gorsuch wrote

I agree!   Why don't you??

 

[driftdiver]

Not a valid comparison to this case.  Roberts decided that ObamaCare was a "tax" rather than ruling on how the law was actually written.

@Polly Ticks
In fact using ObamaCare is an example of what the Supreme Court should not be doing.   They should not be creating law but ruling on the law as written.  Which is what appeared to happen here.

Honestly, if someone is committing a crime such as burglary then the law needs to be changed anyway.  They shouldn't be here in the first place.

[Sanguine]

Gratuitous personal attack on all other members in this thread.

Oh, I didn't even see it.  I don't normally read Jazzhead's comments.  They make my eyes bleed.

[Emjay]

I'm not ready to pillory him over this quite yet.  I think that ruling on a case based on how the law is actually written isn't a bad thing, and Gorsuch did make comments when he was first nominated that he believed in that very thing.  I think we were all encouraged by those statements at the time, yes?

Go back, fix the law to be more specific, and try again.

In the meantime, as long as Gorsuch isn't "finding" things in laws which aren't directly stated, I'm not going to throw him under the bus.

Exactly, @Polly Ticks.  This shows that Gorsuch will be fair and not influenced by political concerns.  Obviously, this bill was poorly enough written that Gorsuch couldn't vote for it.  Send him a good bill.

[driftdiver]

Actually, I admire this decision by Gorsuch.  He actually studied the law and found it to be too vague to successfully enforce.

He could have just gone along to protect his conservative reputation but he read the bill carefully and realized its flaws.  Send him a better bill.

@Emjay
The people who write these usually know what they are doing.   This was probably put in as a way to eventually undermine the law, which is what was done.  We just don't know if the writers wanted the law overthrown or just make it unenforceable.

[Free Vulcan]

If the law is vague then it needs to be struck down. These kinds of things come back to bite down the road.

If it's just judicial activism using flimsy excuses, then Houston we have a problem.

I'm going to have to read more to form an opinion.

[ABX]

Gorsuch blows it, big time https://t.co/YJ3ECLfI4c

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 17, 2018

[Sanguine]

@Emjay
The people who write these usually know what they are doing.   This was probably put in as a way to eventually undermine the law, which is what was done.  We just don't know if the writers wanted the law overthrown or just make it unenforceable.

You're right.  It should be any felony.

[Emjay]

@Emjay
The people who write these usually know what they are doing.   This was probably put in as a way to eventually undermine the law, which is what was done.  We just don't know if the writers wanted the law overthrown or just make it unenforceable.

@driftdiver
Good point.  Although my faith in people 'knowing what they are doing' has been shaken lately.

[Polly Ticks]

@Polly Ticks
In fact using ObamaCare is an example of what the Supreme Court should not be doing.   They should not be creating law but ruling on the law as written. 

Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Slip18]

You're right.  It should be any felony.

If someone steals a hose from your yard, that is a misdemeanor burglary.

If they steal your home, that is a felonious burglary.

Burglary has a monetary amount.

OTOH, robbery does not.  If there is force or fear involved in any theft, it is a felony.

That is the difference.

[Taxcontrol]

Ummm, wasnt this law passed under Obama?  Am I missing a time line here?

[DCPatriot]

I'm obviously, the only one here who respects the rights of the individual and doesn't worship the almighty state...  ... 

Obviously, Clarence Thomas probably judged this correctly, breaking and entering is serious, how about if someone was stealing a lawn mower from one's back yard? But this does not seem like a deal breaker with Gorsuch.

Is breaking and entering (burglary) a home when nobody is home considered a violent felony?   


...asking for a FRiend.   

[Jazzhead]

I believe if someone was home at the time, it would be robbery, not burglary.

Burglary as I understand isn't a violent crime and doesn't have the potential to become violent because the owner isn't present.  The charges would need to include robbery as well for even the potential of violence.

I believe that is correct.  And hence the vagueness in the statute that Gorsuch criticized. 

Even an immigrant is entitled to the due process of law.   And when a man can be deported on the basis of a "violent" offense when his only offense is mere burglary,  the potential is created for the denial of due process, by allowing his liberty to be denied on the basis of arbitrary or selective criteria. 

Kudos for Gorsuch for his impartial and non-partisan approach to his job.       

[Jazzhead]

Actually, I admire this decision by Gorsuch.  He actually studied the law and found it to be too vague to successfully enforce.

He could have just gone along to protect his conservative reputation but he read the bill carefully and realized its flaws.  Send him a better bill.

Good post, @Emjay     I admire Justice Gorsuch as well. 

[LauraTXNM]

You're right.  It should be any felony.

Agreed, @Sanguine.  The law was too vague.  I think many of us tend to decry "activist judges" who rule against our wishes -- but I think often the laws are badly written.  Much like a lot of state ballot propositions.

[Slip18]

Is breaking and entering (burglary) a home when nobody is home considered a violent felony?   


...asking for a FRiend.   

If there is no one home, it is a burglary.  Always.  No exception.

It can be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the monetary value of what was stolen.

[Slip18]

Agreed, @Sanguine.  The law was too vague.  I think many of us tend to decry "activist judges" who rule against our wishes -- but I think often the laws are badly written.  Much like a lot of state ballot propositions.

Yep.

@Sanguine

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Just so I understand you NTs, having vague laws which can be interpreted in different ways is a good thing.  That's what you all are saying?

I actually really like clear understandable language that can't be interpreted hundreds of ways.

Long before I was a NeverTrumper, I always found the GOP's right fringe demonizing of illegal immigrants distasteful and detrimental.  It's one of the reasons I can't stand President Trump as a person. 

This ruling does not make me more Never Trumper, and if Gorsuch helps over turn RvW it will be better than what Clinton would do.