I support Gorsuch in the broader principle that we can’t let legislatures get away with writing sloppy, crappy catch-all laws which are SO open to interpretation that virtually anyone could be found to be violating them.
It’s a shame this case had to deal with immigration, but it raised a serious issue with our laws generally.
Sharp and reasonable post. Well stated.
Not drinking today? :) jk
Well said. I agree with you 100%.
Bingo! Gorsuch is acting like a Constitutionalist.
He’s simply saying that laws written by morons are useless.
>
I support Gorsuch in the broader principle that we can’t let legislatures get away with writing sloppy, crappy catch-all laws which are SO open to interpretation that virtually anyone could be found to be violating them.
It’s a shame this case had to deal with immigration, but it raised a serious issue with our laws generally.
>
Of all the ‘precedent’, the one they’ll overlook time and time again: Void for Vagueness.
That’s if it would get past any A1S8 cases (HAahahaha...I kill myself. Courts, Legislature & Executive caring about THOSE constraints and authorities).
Laws are not even laws if they are not enforced. If we enforced current immigration laws we would not need a fence.
If we enforced laws against aiding illegals there would be no problems with sanctuary politicians either.
If we enforced laws on handling classified documents we would have heard the last of Hillary long ago.