Gun case: Gorsuch votes with liberal side of court

[internet troll]

And I agree that he made the right call.

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/sco...e-of-violence/

SCOTUS Shoots Down Law that Tacks on Prison Time for ‘Crime of Violence’
Asst. EditorJune 24, 2019
‘The court’s decision will thwart Congress’ law enforcement policies, destabilize the criminal justice system and undermine safety in American communities…’


IMAGE: Jim McPherson via Youtube

(David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times) The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a 1980s-era crime law that adds longer prison terms for offenders who carried a gun during a “crime of violence,” with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch speaking for the court and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in dissent.

The court by a 5–4 vote ruled for two Dallas men who were convicted of robbing several convenience stores and then were given an extra 25 years in prison for carrying a sawed-off shotgun during the crime.

The dispute highlights a sharp difference between President Donald Trump’s two appointees. Gorsuch is a libertarian who is skeptical of the government, and Kavanaugh is a more traditional law-and-order conservative.

Gorsuch, speaking for the court, said the justices should not uphold “vague” laws that do not “give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.”

Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robberies. In addition, they were charged with a “conspiracy” to carry a gun during an act that “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force will be used.”

That conviction added 25 years to their terms, for a total of 41 for Glover and 50 for Davis.

But Gorsuch, joined by the court’s four liberals, said law regarding a “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague.

“Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the law they are expected to abide,” Gorusch wrote in United States vs. Davis.

Kavanaugh, in dissent, called the ruling “a serious mistake” and said it would “likely mean that thousands of inmates who committed violent gun crime will be released far earlier than Congress specified.”

He said the federal crime laws of the 1980s “contributed to the decline of violent crime in America. … Yet today, after 33 years and tens of thousands of federal prosecutions, the court suddenly finds a key provision of [one law\ to be unconstitutional because it is supposedly too vague. That is a surprising conclusion.”

The justices also disagreed on what would happen next. Gorsuch said prosecutors could focus on specific crimes when seeking extra prison terms. And he said Congress could pass more specific laws.

Kavanaugh said the ruling could permit thousands of violent criminals to seek their release if they had already served part of their term. “The court’s decision will thwart Congress’ law enforcement policies, destabilize the criminal justice system and undermine safety in American communities,” he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined in dissent.

[Berncly]

I read about this earlier, not really sure what to make of it.
Would be very interested to know if Phil has an opinion on this one being good or bad for us in any particular context.

[staylo]

If indeed the language of the law was vague, then I am thankful it was held to be unconstitutional. We’ve got enough problems with police officers attempting to charge obstruction of justice simply because someone asserts their rights to not comply with unreasonable searches and seizures.

[jthrelf]

If indeed the language of the law was vague, then I am thankful it was held to be unconstitutional. We’ve got enough problems with police officers attempting to charge obstruction of justice simply because someone asserts their rights to not comply with unreasonable searches and seizures.

Those were my 'uneducated' thoughts as well. Seems like Gorsuch went the right way and the liberals were actually correct this time. I second Phil chiming in for this...

[Yoder]

I think the thread title is very deceptive. Not exactly a "gun case".

[Pilot321]

How come the liberal/progressive justices throughout history NEVER vote with the more conservative justices, but guys like Roberts, Gorusch, Suder (who was appointed by a Republican) always defect?

[staylo]

How come the liberal/progressive justices throughout history NEVER vote with the more conservative justices, but guys like Roberts, Gorusch, Suder (who was appointed by a Republican) always defect?

This is just a theory on my part, but perhaps it’s because the liberal justices are straight ideologues, and therefore always vote their ideology regardless of what the law or the constitution says, while the conservatives vote based on legal and constitutional principles, rather than straight ideology, which means that sometimes they would be required to cross the aisle and vote with the liberals If that’s where the law and the constitution take them.

[mixednuts]

How come the liberal/progressive justices throughout history NEVER vote with the more conservative justices, but guys like Roberts, Gorusch, Suder (who was appointed by a Republican) always defect?

it's really not an instance where gorsuch defected, the liberal justices made their decisions based on the impact of these cases on race where as gorsuch made the determination based on the wording of the law in relation to the constitution.

[Carnes]

Hurray for Trump appointing him, and hurray for Gorsuch applying the COTUS regardless of party. Hurray for Gorsuch fighting the lib-tard assassination attempts... it would have been easy for him to quit, but he is clearly passionate about doing what he thinks is best. So far, he seems to have the interests of the Founders in mind.

[Brick]

f"or carrying a sawed-off shotgun during the crime" But this in itself is a violation of yet another federal law! Was the violation of NFA '34 included in the indictment and conviction?