Gorsuch's Background

[Contumacious]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad awful news.


.

.
Well, that should make it a unanimous Democrat confirmation right there.

For the wrong fucking reason

I'd like to know who told DJT that he was the ideal "conservative"

.
Did you miss the part where the Democrats were opposing the confirmation?

They have presumed that DJT's hype is real.

.

 

[Staidhup]

The Democrats will appose all of Trumps judicial nominations for the simple fact is they despise the constitution, especially when the nominee demonstrates strict interpretation.

 

[percysunshine]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad awful news.


.

.
Well, that should make it a unanimous Democrat confirmation right there.

For the wrong fucking reason

I'd like to know who told DJT that he was the ideal "conservative"

.
Did you miss the part where the Democrats were opposing the confirmation?

They have presumed that DJT's hype is real.

.

Pretend land is not working out well, is it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The Democrats will appose all of Trumps judicial nominations for the simple fact is they despise the constitution, especially when the nominee demonstrates strict interpretation.

Apose. No...wait! Appose. Fucking perfect.

 

[g5000]

Trump must have used a Trite, Tired Phrase Generator when announcing his pick for the Supreme Court.

"...brilliant legal mind..." "tremendous..."

Nevertheless, whoever advised Trump knew what he was doing. I doubt Trump has ever read a legal opinion in his life. Not even any of the decisions in all the thousands of lawsuits against him. He probably nods off very quickly when reading legalese.

So let's take a look at what Gorsuch is really all about.

Some sources:

Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Neil Gorsuch

In the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poorcases, which challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on religious-liberty grounds and were eventually heard by the Supreme Court, Gorsuch sided strongly with the plaintiffs.

“The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong—on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty,” he wrote in a dissent in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. “ When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”

I am in total agreement with Gorsuch in that case.

Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch is also a critic of Chevron deference, a legal principle under which judges generally defer to administrative agencies when interpreting federal statutes.

In that case, I am with Scalia and opposed to Gorsuch.

For those unfamiliar with Chevron v NRDC, I will try to summarize.

The EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970. Believe it or not, protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. The EPA created the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress in 1972.

During the Carter years, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because there were some states which had not met the air quality standards established by the EPA.

From the court case: "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution."

Congress writes the legislation, the Executive fleshes out the regulations.

Under Carter, the EPA defined "source" as any device in a plant with caused pollution. And those sources had to meet EPA guidelines in order to get a permit to operate.

Reagan's EPA changed the regulation. They said a new device in a plant could be permitted as long as the plant as a whole did not increase its pollution output.

The hippies at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) didn't like that and sued. They won on the lower court level.

But Chevron took it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and they decided this:

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

What a great piece of deliberation that is.

This has become known as "Chevron deference". Scalia believed in it. Gorsuch does not, and that is worriesome.

More to come.

When/If the legislative statute empowers the/an administrative agency to interpret the law, THEN they have significant power to do so. Usually they then need to go through a public hearing process and acquiesce to the majority opinions of the public submissions.

The US Treasury Dept is a classic example under the Federal tax law.

So I disagree with Gorsuch on both issues.

However having been coached by Justice Kennedy I suspect he will become a swing voter like Roberts and Kennedy, ergo I think he will make a great SCOTUS justice.

Trump made an excellent choice for this nomination.

And when Ginsberg finally croaks, hopefully Trump will do the same next time as well.

So after Ginsberg croaks, then there should end up being 4 swing voters (Kennedy, Roberts, Gorsuch, and the 2nd Trump appointment), 2 extreme strict constructionists (Thomas and Alito -- bless their idealistic hearts) and 3 activist traitors (Breyer from Communist California), Sotomayor (from Communist NYC), and Kagan (also from Communist NYC).

Ginsberg who will someday soon croak is also from Communist NYC.

We need a constitutional amendment that no one may serve on the US Supreme Court who is from NYC.

Trump is from Communist NYC.

 

[g5000]

From Gorsuch's dissent in PPAU v. Herbert.

If the Governor discontinued funding because of the group’s affiliation with those accused of illegally selling fetal tissue — as he said he did — the parties agreed that no constitutional violation had taken place. But if the Governor discontinued funding for a different and secret reason — in retaliation for the group’s advocacy of lawful abortions — both sides accepted that a constitutional violation had occurred.

So it is that the question of preliminary relief on PPAU’s unconstitutional conditions claim hinged on a question of fact: what was the Governor’s intention in suspending funding? On the preliminary evidentiary record before it, the district court found that the Governor’s stated intention appeared to be his true intention and that PPAU hadn’t shown it was likely to prove otherwise at trial. Accordingly, it denied the motion for preliminary relief. But when the case reached this court, a panel disagreed and ordered the Governor to fund PPAU. In doing so, I respectfully submit, the panel acted inconsistently with this court’s previously uniform practice when it comes to questions concerning our standard of review and the burden of proof, questions of considerable legal significance.

The first amendment should pretty much void all religious claims before the SCOTUS.

Religion is for church, temple or mosque.

Law is for the workplace or hospital.

I find it fascinating the Tenth Circuit Court felt taxpayer funds are a constitutional right.

 

[Seawytch]

Gorsuch is another corporatist who will elevate corporations over individuals and workers.

 

[g5000]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights.

Link?

 

[g5000]

United States v. Ackerman

Gorsuch is the author of the majority opinion which decided that the government, or even a private agency endowed with police powers, accessing your emails constitutes a search.

The defendant (Ackerman) sent an email to someone. His internet service provider (AOL) had an automated filter that identified one of the attachments as child pornography. AOL then forwarded the suspected email to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). This is required by federal law.

The NCMEC opened the email and determined that all four of the attachments were child porn. They then notified local law enforcement where Ackerman lived.

From the decision:

We can appreciate why, for his motion raises (at least) two difficult constitutional questions. Mr. Ackerman alleges that NCMEC’s actions amounted to an unreasonable search of his email and its attachments because no one sought a warrant and no one invoked any recognized lawful basis for failing to seek one. But the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches undertaken by the government or its agents — not private parties. So Mr. Ackerman’s motion raises the question: does NCMEC qualify as a governmental entity or agent? Even if it does, a second hard question remains. The Supreme Court’s “private search” doctrine suggests the government doesn’t conduct a Fourth Amendment “search” when it merely repeats an investigation already conducted by a private party like AOL. Which raises this question: did NCMEC simply repeat or did it exceed the scope of AOL’s investigation?

<snip>

That an entity might be incorporated, as NCMEC is, doesn’t prevent it from also qualifying as a governmental entity: the dispositive question isn’t one of form but function, turning on what the entity does, not how it is organized. So, for example, a municipality may undoubtedly qualify both as a corporation and as a governmental entity.

<snip>


Meanwhile, when an actor is endowed with law enforcement powers beyond those enjoyed by private citizens, courts have traditionally found the exercise of the public police power engaged. Id. at 637.1 NCMEC’s law enforcement powers extend well beyond those enjoyed by private citizens — and in this way it seems to mark it as a fair candidate for a governmental entity.

 

[Contumacious]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights.

Link?

739 F.3d 481 (2013)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 31, 2013.


.

 

[g5000]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights.

Link?

739 F.3d 481 (2013)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 31, 2013.


.

Yeah, I started looking around after your post, and was just looking at that one.

The police received a 911 call about men showing each other handguns in a convenience store in a high crime area. Upon entering the store, they saw a handgun in the waistband under the shirt of a customer when he bent over for something.

The police asked the man to step outside since the store was cramped, and if anything went down, they would be safer outside. As they were leaving the store, one of the cops took the gun from Rodriquez's waistband.

They questioned him outside, and Rodriguez said he carried the gun because someone had shot at him at that location before.

When asked if he had a permit for the gun, Rodriquez said he did not.

The cops did a quick pat down of Rodriguez and then let him sit on the curb and have a smoke.

A check on the gun revealed it was stolen, and Rodriguez was arrested.

It also turns out Rodriquez was a convicted felon, and so that added more charges for being a convicted felon in possession of a gun and ammunition.

Rodriguez claimed his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated since the cops had no way of knowing if he was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon before they detained and searched him.


Rodriguez's argument:

[T]he officers would have had a sufficient basis to enter the store and engage [Defendant] in an inquiry as to whether he had permission or a permit for the gun he was carrying. Had [he] either refused to produce a valid permit or admitted to wrongdoing, the officers at that point might have had reasonable suspicion to detain him to investigate the situation further. But in this case, the officers exceeded their authority under the law and seized [his] weapon with[out] a reasonable suspicion that he was engaging in criminal activity and without an articulable basis to believe he was dangerous in any way.

The court's decision:

We disagree. Although Officer Munoz could have sought to engage Defendant in a consensual encounter, the law did not require him to do so—and for good reason.

Given the confined space in which the parties found themselves at the outset of their encounter, Officer Munoz exercised sound judgment in declining to question Defendant before detaining him. Officer Munoz explained, "I didn't want myself and Officer Miller or [Defendant], all of us, to be in that cramped area in case anything occurred[.]" Tr. vol. 3, at 16. No officer reasonably suspecting criminal activity—as Officer Munoz did here—"should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet." Terry, 392 U.S. at 33, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (Harlan, J., concurring). "The reasonableness of [an] officer's decision to stop a suspect does not turn on the availability of less intrusive investigatory techniques."


While Gorsuch did not write the majority opinion, he signed it without any additional opinion of his own.

 

[g5000]

I'm liking Gorsuch, even if I disagree with him on Chevron deference.

He is clearly pro-life, and I will be reading his legal opinions on that issue in the future with great interest.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The first amendment should pretty much void all religious claims before the SCOTUS.

As well as all forms of Political Correctness

 

[g5000]

The Democrats will appose all of Trumps judicial nominations for the simple fact is they despise the constitution, especially when the nominee demonstrates strict interpretation.

The Democrats oppose Trump's nominee because the Republicans stole the nomination.

 

[basquebromance]

Gorsuch's book after joining bench attacked Oregon's voter approved Death with Dignity law, believes state should overrule the people

Gorsuch promised in 2006 to not allow personal views to trump law and be governed by the Supreme Court - the record doesn't bear that out.

 

[Staidhup]

No G, your candidate, her party, and the same old vile in a different bottle approach to the issues facing this country lost the election. Time to face it.