https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch...gun-crimes

Quote:Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Davis, for which he wrote the opinion of the court. The law in question calls for longer sentences when a person uses a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence," which is defined as a felony "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." That definition is rather confusing, Gorsuch said.

"Even the government admits that this language ... provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague," he wrote. Vague laws leave it to unelected attorneys and judges to determine what acts qualify as crimes, Gorsuch said, when it is really Congress' job to make that decision with the laws that they pass.

In the current case, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, which covers robbery, attempted robbery, or extortion affecting interstate commerce. They were each hit with longer sentences because robbery and conspiracy were found to be "crimes of violence." An appeals court found that the clause in the statute defining crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court's opinion referred to two recent cases where they struck down similar laws for being too vague. In those cases, when determining if a crime qualified as a "violent felony" or "crime of violence," courts had to look at an "ordinary case" of such a crime, as opposed to what happened in the case in question.

The government argued that the courts should look at the specific case instead, but Gorsuch argued that an examination of the statute's text and history shows that Congress did not have a case-specific approach in mind. Therefore, he claimed the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.

(06-24-2019 05:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch...gun-crimes

Quote:Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Davis, for which he wrote the opinion of the court. The law in question calls for longer sentences when a person uses a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence," which is defined as a felony "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." That definition is rather confusing, Gorsuch said.

"Even the government admits that this language ... provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague," he wrote. Vague laws leave it to unelected attorneys and judges to determine what acts qualify as crimes, Gorsuch said, when it is really Congress' job to make that decision with the laws that they pass.

In the current case, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, which covers robbery, attempted robbery, or extortion affecting interstate commerce. They were each hit with longer sentences because robbery and conspiracy were found to be "crimes of violence." An appeals court found that the clause in the statute defining crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court's opinion referred to two recent cases where they struck down similar laws for being too vague. In those cases, when determining if a crime qualified as a "violent felony" or "crime of violence," courts had to look at an "ordinary case" of such a crime, as opposed to what happened in the case in question.

The government argued that the courts should look at the specific case instead, but Gorsuch argued that an examination of the statute's text and history shows that Congress did not have a case-specific approach in mind. Therefore, he claimed the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.

Agree and this precedent should be used to strike down the vague "hate crimes" designation when they are clearly covered under assault, battery, and murder laws. Nothing is more vague than trying to guess what is in another's mind or heart when violence occurs. The act itself is irrefutable and covered by existing laws.

(06-24-2019 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 05:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch...gun-crimes

Quote:Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Davis, for which he wrote the opinion of the court. The law in question calls for longer sentences when a person uses a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence," which is defined as a felony "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." That definition is rather confusing, Gorsuch said.

"Even the government admits that this language ... provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague," he wrote. Vague laws leave it to unelected attorneys and judges to determine what acts qualify as crimes, Gorsuch said, when it is really Congress' job to make that decision with the laws that they pass.

In the current case, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, which covers robbery, attempted robbery, or extortion affecting interstate commerce. They were each hit with longer sentences because robbery and conspiracy were found to be "crimes of violence." An appeals court found that the clause in the statute defining crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court's opinion referred to two recent cases where they struck down similar laws for being too vague. In those cases, when determining if a crime qualified as a "violent felony" or "crime of violence," courts had to look at an "ordinary case" of such a crime, as opposed to what happened in the case in question.

The government argued that the courts should look at the specific case instead, but Gorsuch argued that an examination of the statute's text and history shows that Congress did not have a case-specific approach in mind. Therefore, he claimed the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.

Agree and this precedent should be used to strike down the vague "hate crimes" designation when they are clearly covered under assault, battery, and murder laws. Nothing is more vague than trying to guess what is in another's mind or heart when violence occurs. The act itself is irrefutable and covered by existing laws.

I never understood hate crimes. I also don’t think I ever heard of a crime committed due to love.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-24-2019 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 05:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch...gun-crimes

Quote:Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Davis, for which he wrote the opinion of the court. The law in question calls for longer sentences when a person uses a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence," which is defined as a felony "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." That definition is rather confusing, Gorsuch said.

"Even the government admits that this language ... provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague," he wrote. Vague laws leave it to unelected attorneys and judges to determine what acts qualify as crimes, Gorsuch said, when it is really Congress' job to make that decision with the laws that they pass.

In the current case, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, which covers robbery, attempted robbery, or extortion affecting interstate commerce. They were each hit with longer sentences because robbery and conspiracy were found to be "crimes of violence." An appeals court found that the clause in the statute defining crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court's opinion referred to two recent cases where they struck down similar laws for being too vague. In those cases, when determining if a crime qualified as a "violent felony" or "crime of violence," courts had to look at an "ordinary case" of such a crime, as opposed to what happened in the case in question.

The government argued that the courts should look at the specific case instead, but Gorsuch argued that an examination of the statute's text and history shows that Congress did not have a case-specific approach in mind. Therefore, he claimed the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.

Agree and this precedent should be used to strike down the vague "hate crimes" designation when they are clearly covered under assault, battery, and murder laws. Nothing is more vague than trying to guess what is in another's mind or heart when violence occurs. The act itself is irrefutable and covered by existing laws.

I agree on both points. Common sense is in short supply these days and this is an exception so good.

Yep, common sense ruling. Good.

Agree with this ruling as well. One of the rare times it makes sense to side with the liberal judges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Gorsuch always seemed reasonable to me and was one of the Trump decisions I was pleasantly surprised by.

Somehow, I don't think these are the reactions the OP was expecting.

Sounds like an reasonable opinion to me.

From reason.com...

Quote:In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, attacked Gorsuch's ruling for taking the Court "off the constitutional cliff." Yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to "ensure that Congress acts within constitutional limits and abides by the separation of powers," Kavanaugh wrote. "But when we overstep our role in the name of enforcing limits on Congress, we do not uphold the separation of powers, we transgress the separation of powers."

In other words, Kavanaugh just called Gorsuch a judicial activist.

So much for that block of Trump SC appointments.

Still waiting for a liberal judge to side with the constitutionalist on anything....

(06-25-2019 01:33 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Still waiting for a liberal judge to side with the constitutionalist on anything....

It wasn't necessarily a conservative ruling (Gorsuch joined the dissenters) but you did say "anything"...

Ginsburg sides with conservative justices in ruling over prison sentence

(06-25-2019 12:54 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  From reason.com...

Quote:In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, attacked Gorsuch's ruling for taking the Court "off the constitutional cliff." Yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to "ensure that Congress acts within constitutional limits and abides by the separation of powers," Kavanaugh wrote. "But when we overstep our role in the name of enforcing limits on Congress, we do not uphold the separation of powers, we transgress the separation of powers."

In other words, Kavanaugh just called Gorsuch a judicial activist.

So much for that block of Trump SC appointments.

How so?

Do you think anyone expected the Justices to decide in lock step with each other on all rulings?

I know I certainly had no such expectation and fully expected and expect robust debates and disagreements on a whole slew of things.

Now, if you're talking about the left wing justices, there you've got a pretty predictable and rarely wavering groupthink.

Do they stray from time to time? Yea. Is it very often? No.

(06-25-2019 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 12:54 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  From reason.com...

Quote:In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, attacked Gorsuch's ruling for taking the Court "off the constitutional cliff." Yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to "ensure that Congress acts within constitutional limits and abides by the separation of powers," Kavanaugh wrote. "But when we overstep our role in the name of enforcing limits on Congress, we do not uphold the separation of powers, we transgress the separation of powers."

In other words, Kavanaugh just called Gorsuch a judicial activist.

So much for that block of Trump SC appointments.

How so?

Do you think anyone expected the Justices to decide in lock step with each other on all rulings?

I know I certainly had no such expectation and fully expected and expect robust debates and disagreements on a whole slew of things.

Now, if you're talking about the left wing justices, there you've got a pretty predictable and rarely wavering groupthink.

Do they stray from time to time? Yea. Is it very often? No.

Huh? You really haven't read any of the paranoid rantings that Trump's appointees would be a voting block that would authorize his corrupt takeover of America?

(06-25-2019 04:06 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 12:54 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  From reason.com...

Quote:In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, attacked Gorsuch's ruling for taking the Court "off the constitutional cliff." Yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to "ensure that Congress acts within constitutional limits and abides by the separation of powers," Kavanaugh wrote. "But when we overstep our role in the name of enforcing limits on Congress, we do not uphold the separation of powers, we transgress the separation of powers."

In other words, Kavanaugh just called Gorsuch a judicial activist.

So much for that block of Trump SC appointments.

How so?

Do you think anyone expected the Justices to decide in lock step with each other on all rulings?

I know I certainly had no such expectation and fully expected and expect robust debates and disagreements on a whole slew of things.

Now, if you're talking about the left wing justices, there you've got a pretty predictable and rarely wavering groupthink.

Do they stray from time to time? Yea. Is it very often? No.

Huh? You really haven't read any of the paranoid rantings that Trump's appointees would be a voting block that would authorize his corrupt takeover of America?

Oh, ok.

I read your comment as the people that supported Trump in part because of his SC nominees would be disappointed/disillusioned.

I get where you're coming from now, just didn't read your comment that way.

But, in that vein, did anyone else see/post on the Trump 4eva new campaign slogan gif he broke out over the weekend? Awe inspiring...

(06-24-2019 06:08 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 05:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch...gun-crimes

Quote:Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Davis, for which he wrote the opinion of the court. The law in question calls for longer sentences when a person uses a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence," which is defined as a felony "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." That definition is rather confusing, Gorsuch said.

"Even the government admits that this language ... provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague," he wrote. Vague laws leave it to unelected attorneys and judges to determine what acts qualify as crimes, Gorsuch said, when it is really Congress' job to make that decision with the laws that they pass.

In the current case, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, which covers robbery, attempted robbery, or extortion affecting interstate commerce. They were each hit with longer sentences because robbery and conspiracy were found to be "crimes of violence." An appeals court found that the clause in the statute defining crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court's opinion referred to two recent cases where they struck down similar laws for being too vague. In those cases, when determining if a crime qualified as a "violent felony" or "crime of violence," courts had to look at an "ordinary case" of such a crime, as opposed to what happened in the case in question.

The government argued that the courts should look at the specific case instead, but Gorsuch argued that an examination of the statute's text and history shows that Congress did not have a case-specific approach in mind. Therefore, he claimed the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.

Agree and this precedent should be used to strike down the vague "hate crimes" designation when they are clearly covered under assault, battery, and murder laws. Nothing is more vague than trying to guess what is in another's mind or heart when violence occurs. The act itself is irrefutable and covered by existing laws.

I never understood hate crimes. I also don’t think I ever heard of a crime committed due to love.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Crimes of passion