WWTBAM Bored

(So far, anyway)

The Supreme Court today handed down a decision in Sessions v. Dimaya in which a law was determined to be too vague to protect the rights of citizens. The interesting part was the judges who joined in the majority decision: Kagan (who wrote most of it), Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and ........... GORSUCH??!!??!!??!!

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissented.

Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

mrkelley23 wrote: Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

Lots of judges have particular idiosyncrasies in regard to certain aspects of the law. Hugo Black was one of the great all-time liberals on the Court, but he did not believe that the First Amendment always extended to symbolic speech. Antonin Scalia was a stickler for requiring the prosecution to prove its case in criminal trials and often sided with the liberals whenever some trial judge or prosecutor tried to take "shortcuts." He disagreed with Thomas in one case I remember in which the Supreme Court held that the defense had a right to challenge DNA testing by calling the lab techs who performed the tests as witnesses and that there was no "business records" exception. He felt this was necessary to give the defense a chance to show the technician might be dishonest or incompetent.

mrkelley23 wrote:(So far, anyway)

The Supreme Court today handed down a decision in Sessions v. Dimaya in which a law was determined to be too vague to protect the rights of citizens. The interesting part was the judges who joined in the majority decision: Kagan (who wrote most of it), Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and ........... GORSUCH??!!??!!??!!

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissented.

Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

No. Not actually. Don't be an sss and lump peeps...

silverscreenselect wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

Lots of judges have particular idiosyncrasies in regard to certain aspects of the law. Hugo Black was one of the great all-time liberals on the Court, but he did not believe that the First Amendment always extended to symbolic speech. Antonin Scalia was a stickler for requiring the prosecution to prove its case in criminal trials and often sided with the liberals whenever some trial judge or prosecutor tried to take "shortcuts." He disagreed with Thomas in one case I remember in which the Supreme Court held that the defense had a right to challenge DNA testing by calling the lab techs who performed the tests as witnesses and that there was no "business records" exception. He felt this was necessary to give the defense a chance to show the technician might be dishonest or incompetent.

I've read Gorsuch's opinion but I haven't yet had time to read the rest. I found interesting his direct response to what he describes (I haven't yet read Thomas's opinion) as Thomas's views re original intent and procedural due process. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:(So far, anyway)

The Supreme Court today handed down a decision in Sessions v. Dimaya in which a law was determined to be too vague to protect the rights of citizens. The interesting part was the judges who joined in the majority decision: Kagan (who wrote most of it), Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and ........... GORSUCH??!!??!!??!!

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissented.

Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

No. Not actually. Don't be an sss and lump peeps...

I can't think of one conservative on this Bored who fits into the category I cited above. Not lumping people. But I know many people (again, not here) who, if they ever bothered to read a Supreme Court decision that wasn't being used to generate outrage, would feel awfully betrayed by this decision. You probably know some, too.

I posted it here because I thought it might be of interest, not to call anyone out.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:(So far, anyway)

The Supreme Court today handed down a decision in Sessions v. Dimaya in which a law was determined to be too vague to protect the rights of citizens. The interesting part was the judges who joined in the majority decision: Kagan (who wrote most of it), Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and ........... GORSUCH??!!??!!??!!

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissented.

Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

No. Not actually. Don't be an sss and lump peeps...

I can't think of one conservative on this Bored who fits into the category I cited above. Not lumping people. But I know many people (again, not here) who, if they ever bothered to read a Supreme Court decision that wasn't being used to generate outrage, would feel awfully betrayed by this decision. You probably know some, too.

I posted it here because I thought it might be of interest, not to call anyone out.

Fair enuf

mrkelley23 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:(So far, anyway)

The Supreme Court today handed down a decision in Sessions v. Dimaya in which a law was determined to be too vague to protect the rights of citizens. The interesting part was the judges who joined in the majority decision: Kagan (who wrote most of it), Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and ........... GORSUCH??!!??!!??!!

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissented.

Not trying to get out the pointy sticks, and this decision is totally in line with Justice Gorsuch's documented decisions on similar issues, but for those who think everything is black/white, no shades of gray, "yer either with us or agin us," etc., this has to be disconcerting.

No. Not actually. Don't be an sss and lump peeps...

I can't think of one conservative on this Bored who fits into the category I cited above. Not lumping people. But I know many people (again, not here) who, if they ever bothered to read a Supreme Court decision that wasn't being used to generate outrage, would feel awfully betrayed by this decision. You probably know some, too.

I posted it here because I thought it might be of interest, not to call anyone out.

It might be more of a shock to those morons who think there is a single "Republican mindset."