[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Supreme Court Upholds Ohio's Ballot Integrity Law Keeping with their M.O. of ensuring the voting process is as open to abuse as they can make it, a leftwing advocacy group, the A. Philip Randolph Institute filed suit saying booting Harmon from the voter rolls was against federal law. The federal law say you can purge voting rolls, like by sending post cards, but you can’t use failure to vote as a reason to purge voters. Ohio prevailed in federal district court but 6th Circuit reversed saying that because the failure to vote triggered the mailing of the post card that it was actually Harmon’s failure to vote that got him booted and therefore violated federal law. The case was argued before the Supreme Court in January and just now the Supreme Court has ruled, 5-4, in favor of Ohio. Via SCOTUSBlog Live Blog: Alito says that the dissenting justices have a policy disagreement, but that’s a matter for Congress; it is not up to the justices to second-guess Congress or decide whether there is a better way to keep the voter roles up to date. Poster Comment: The Court has definitely taken a strict textualist turn since Gorsuch arrived. Gorsuch so far seems more of a strict textualist than even Scalia. He's out-Scaliaing Scalia. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Gorsuch so far seems more of a strict textualist than even Scalia. He's out-Scaliaing Scalia. But NOT unfortunately on a recent key illegal immigration issue.
#2. To: Liberator (#1) But NOT unfortunately on a recent key illegal immigration issue. If you look closely, that vote was based on a strict construction of the law as it is written. Gorsuch intends to enforce the laws. If people don't like that, then Congress needs to change the laws and stop dumping all this half-baked partisan-hackery legislation in the laps of the Court. The Court should not exist to "fix" the incompetence of Congress or its inability to conduct its lawful duties. If Gorsuch is marking out an area of judicial philosophy, that would be a succinct statement of it. And it is quite consistent with his record from his appeals court in Colorado. No one can claim it's a big surprise that he continues his established judicial philosophy on the Court.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2) If you look closely, that vote was based on a strict construction of the law as it is written. I did. And it appeared *to me* to be a matter of over-stretching the benefit of doubt.
#4. To: Liberator (#3) I did. And it appeared *to me* to be a matter of over-stretching the benefit of doubt. If given the chance, Gorsuch would probably spend some time to convince you that he judged the law as fairly and neutrally as he could, given the text of the law. Kind of a stickler. It could come back to bite us but Scalia wasn't perfect either. He was wrong about Chevron deference for instance. And Gorsuch is absolutely opposed to that (alleged) principle of law that was...just made of up out of thin air by the courts.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4) Scalia wasn't perfect either. I know...His rep was that he *was* perfect.
Roberts 0ZeroCare decision jaded me and made me hyper-cynical of supposed by-the-book "constitutional" justices. Fair or not, until push comes to shove on coming major issues, I'll probably reserve judgment on Gorsuch. I still feel his illegal invader interpretation of law was wrong.
Replies to Comment # 5. #6. To: Liberator (#5) (Edited) Roberts 0ZeroCare decision jaded me and made me hyper-cynical of supposed by-the-book "constitutional" justices. You may recall some of us always were suspicious of Roberts, "the perfect Bush judge". Two other Bush picks were Aunt Harriet (shot down by the Right) and Souter. Alito was the only good Bush judge but he isn't quite the jurist that Gorsuch is or Scalia was. Thomas is still greatly underestimated but he hits above his weight and has the merit of not having been a judge gunning for the Court his entire life. IOW, a little closer to being a regular American and more than a little suspicious of dictates delivered from On High by 9 hacks in robes. Every Court should have a skeptic.
Fair or not, until push comes to shove on coming major issues, I'll probably reserve judgment on Gorsuch. I still feel his illegal invader interpretation of law was wrong. You may recall that he warned us specifically of this during his Senate confirmation hearings. He said he would defer to following the plain meaning of the text and that there were likely to be times he would disagree with his own ruling (politically) and that he expected he would issue some (more) decisions that were not "conservative" in some people's opinion. That case you mention is the main example of him operating that way on the Court. And he'll keep doing it so you should get used to it. Or would you prefer to have Merrick Garland, like 0bama and Hitlery wanted?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|