Comments on: Did the Neil Gorsuch vote on an immigration case constitute a betrayal of the right?

By: HC68

HC68 — Wed, 25 Apr 2018 19:48:40 +0000

Neo-neocon wrote:
That tweet is still another example of my contention that Twitter tends to bring out the worst in people. There are many things wrong with that tweet, even if you ignore its puerile nature.

It’s not twitter bringing out the worst in Podhoretz. It’s already ‘out’.

While there were certainly people who opposed DJT for serious, principled reasons, a lot of the big-name GOP ‘intellectuals’ and ‘thought leaders’ have never forgiven the voters for their insolence in rejecting the elite GOP consensus.

‘It was supposed to be Jeb, dammit!’

They’ve never gotten over it, and can’t let it go, and it’s turning into something like congealed hatred that’s eating them alive.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 19:15:23 +0000

skeptic: He is not "reaching across the aisle." He has a point of view that is in accord with Scalia's (Scalia's in the past, of course). And a liberal justice sometimes votes with the conservatives on a particular case (in fact, many SCOTUS decisions on unanimous, but of course those aren't the big ones ordinarily). Just as an example, we have this instance of Kagan "crossing the aisle." In general, however, the blocs vote as expected, and I predict that Gorsuch will do likewise and will not turn into the next Souter.

By: skeptic

skeptic — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:52:54 +0000

Like my Dad used to tell me, just because some kid does something stupid like jumping off a cliff does not mean you have to do it.

Seriously, you never see the leftist judges reaching across the aisle on highly politically charged issues like illegal entry to the US. That Gorsuch would choose this issue to burnish his reputation with the DC crowd makes me pessimistic as to how strong he will be on other other important issues.

Time will tell and I do agree that SO FAR he has been better than any Hillary or for that matter Jeb but not Ted Cruz appointee.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 04:54:55 +0000

skeptic:

No doubt you think Scalia betrayed the right, too, and was cozying up to the left-wing crowd in DC when he opined similarly to Gorsuch. I certainly disagree.

By: skeptic

skeptic — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 04:47:43 +0000

Neo writes: “The short answer is no:”

After reading Paul Mirengoff’s analysis at Powerlineblog, sorry, Neo, the answer is yes. Especially read the dissents by Roberts and Thomas. It is clear to me that Gorsuch is playing to the left-wing crowd in DC trying to prove his independent bona-fides. Sad to see him turned so fast. It usually takes Republican appointees at least a year to start “growing in office.”

As an aside I heard an interview of John Sununu where the nomination of David Souter was brought up. He still stuck up for Boyden Gray who was the head of the committee who selected Souter but admits it was a disaster. I hope Reince Priebus is not forced to admit a similar mistake.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344480-priebus-neil-gorsuch-is-my-greatest-accomplishment-in-the-white-house

By: CBI

CBI — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 21:58:19 +0000

For what it’s worth, my take when reading the background of the decision was similar to Ms. Neo’s, and with some similar–but not as much–surprise as Mr. Ira. This really is vague, and normally I think that vagueness should be decided in favor of the defendant.

By: Ira

Ira — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:21:56 +0000

To me the surprise is that the so-called conservative justices did not vote along with Gorsuch. They had the precedent (Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)), and letting statutes be interpreted so that they become vague, let alone tolerating statutes that are vague as drafted, is a bane of conservatives. So, I say shame on the other "conservative" justices. Off topic: Clinton delenda est.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:25:30 +0000

One of Gorsuch’s points during the confirmation hearings was that the legislature should make competent, clear laws and not depend on the courts to figure it out.
He also said that if you’re a good judge, you will make decisions you don’t like. Preach it!

By: RigelDog

RigelDog — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 04:23:58 +0000

Whether burglary is or is not a crime of violence is an ongoing issue. It really is a question that comes up a lot in the implementation of criminal law. I can tell you for a fact that we’ve gone back and forth on this in Pennsylvania criminal law. Right now, the question comes up because we have a “strikes” law that provides for mandatory sentences if you are convicted of certain serious felonies and if you have prior convictions for certain “crimes of violence.” The only time that burglary convictions count as “crimes of violence” is if you entered a residence (i.e., not a store, or an outbuilding) where someone was present at the time. So, no—it’s not cut and dried as to whether or not burglary is a crime of violence. I fully support the S. Ct’s ruling here, where the relevant statute was not clear.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 04:08:56 +0000

“The third is that even if Gorsuch ends up somewhat more liberal than originally thought (and I don’t think he will, actually), it would not mean that Hillary Clinton’s pick would have been the same or better rather than worse. Her pick would ~~almost~~ certainly have been far far worse.”

I hope you are a prophet, but we had high expectations for lots of justices that weren’t borne out.