Connect with us

Published

on

President Trump’s two Supreme Court picks, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were on opposing sides once again Monday in a case centering on whether a law that slaps harsher penalties on certain gun possession cases is unconstitutionally vague.

Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Davis, for which he wrote the opinion of the court. The law in question calls for longer sentences when a person uses a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence,” which is defined as a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” That definition is rather confusing, Gorsuch said.

“Even the government admits that this language … provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutionally vague,” he wrote. Vague laws leave it to unelected attorneys and judges to determine what acts qualify as crimes, Gorsuch said, when it is really Congress’ job to make that decision with the laws that they pass.

In the current case, Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, which covers robbery, attempted robbery, or extortion affecting interstate commerce. They were each hit with longer sentences because robbery and conspiracy were found to be “crimes of violence.” An appeals court found that the clause in the statute defining crimes of violence was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court’s opinion referred to two recent cases where they struck down similar laws for being too vague. In those cases, when determining if a crime qualified as a “violent felony” or “crime of violence,” courts had to look at an “ordinary case” of such a crime, as opposed to what happened in the case in question.

The government argued that the courts should look at the specific case instead, but Gorsuch argued that an examination of the statute’s text and history shows that Congress did not have a case-specific approach in mind. Therefore, he claimed the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.

Kavanaugh penned a scathing dissent, where he was joined by the other conservatives. He warned of the repercussions the court’s ruling could have.

“The Court’s decision today will make it harder to prosecute violent gun crimes in the future,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Court’s decision also will likely mean that thousands of inmates who committed violent gun crimes will be released far earlier than Congress specified when enacting §924(c).”

Kavanaugh addressed the two recent cases Gorsuch referenced where laws were held to be vague, saying those laws applied to gun cases where defendants had committed violent crimes in the past. The law in the current case adds harsher sentences for the same offense where the gun was used. As a result, he claimed, it makes sense to look at the specific offense.

“Why would we interpret a federal law that criminalizes current-offense conduct to focus on a hypothetical defendant rather than on the actual defendant?” he asked, calling this a “gaping hole” in the majority’s analysis.

This case is the latest in several this term where Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were at odds in close decisions.

Gorsuch sided in May with the court’s liberal wing, giving a narrow majority in support of a Native American man convicted for hunting in a national forest. Kavanaugh opposed the ruling. A week earlier, Kavanaugh sided with liberals in a 5-4 decision that he wrote, ruling that Apple could be sued by iPhone owners over high prices in their App Store. Gorsuch opposed the ruling.

Advertisement
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. WEF

    June 24, 2019 at 6:46 pm

    A cortect ruling by the SCOTUS

  2. Jeremiah

    June 24, 2019 at 7:00 pm

    Juries are expected to be unanimous. The People should demand the Supreme Court to be unanimous. If the Supreme Court cannot decide on the law, the law should be thrown out.

    • Samuel Hay

      June 25, 2019 at 1:21 am

      Jeremiah, that is an excellent point. I agree with you 100%.

  3. Elinor Ann DeMendonca

    June 24, 2019 at 7:34 pm

    Why is Gorsuch’s opinion so public? Aren’t the participants supposed to keep to themselves and rule as a group representing the people of the country?

    Such a Liberal nitpicker so soon? UGH

  4. Mari Brenner

    June 24, 2019 at 10:59 pm

    Than you, good SCOTUS!!

  5. Pasquale Gelardi

    June 25, 2019 at 1:56 am

    Military coup

  6. mike dar

    June 25, 2019 at 5:50 am

    Perhaps Gorsuch needs to taken to a 7-11 in Chicago for a couple weeks, and watch a robbery in progress, guns waved around and threats made. For it seems the law wording isn’t the problem, but the experience of the situation and THEN what the words mean is missing.
    I highly suspect the common citizen understands this… while a lofty Judge never having seen the dark side does not. by defining the phrase too closely to a individual circumstance the bulk of circumstances may not apply- micromanaging law application results in ever more layers of laws, ever more interpretations, ever more criminals escaping social retribution.

  7. Tom Stark

    June 26, 2019 at 12:56 pm

    Seems to me that Congress should have simply stated it: If a firearm is possessed or used during the commission of any felony, then the sentence is XXXX. If you commit any felony crime with a firearm in your possession, you deserve an extra 5-10 years away from society with no opportunity for the sentence to run concurrently with the primary offense sentence. Hit them hard enough and they will stop using firearms or die trying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CF

News

Nikki Haley Breaks with Trump: ‘We Shouldn’t Have Followed Him, and We Shouldn’t Have Listened to Him’

Published

on

Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, believes that former President Donald Trump “let us down.”

Haley’s remarks come as the former president’s legal team prepares to present its defense of Trump during his second impeachment trial in the Senate.

In a Politico interview published Friday, Haley, former South Carolina governor, said that “we shouldn’t have followed” Trump.

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she said in an extensive profile. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

She also told the outlet that she has not spoken to Trump since the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, and takes issue with his remarks condemning former Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to reject the Electoral College vote.

“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” she expressed. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”

The former ambassador, who many people are speculating may run for the White House in 2024, also added that Trump will never accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“There’s nothing that you’re ever going to do that’s going to make him feel like he legitimately lost the election,” she explained. “He’s got a big bully pulpit. He should be responsible with it.”

Haley also warned that many people still love the former president and will not stop supporting him just because he is out of office.

“I know how much people love Donald Trump,” she admitted. “I know it. I feel it. Whether it’s an RNC room or social media or talking to donors, I can tell you that the love they have for him is still very strong. That’s not going to just fall to the wayside. Nor do I think the Republican Party is going to go back to the way it was before Donald Trump. I don’t think it should.”

Haley added that people, instead, should “take the good that he built, leave the bad that he did, and get back to a place where we can be a good, valuable, effective party.”

“[I]t’s bigger than the party,” she insisted. “I hope our country can come together and figure out how we pull this back.”

Referring to Haley’s possible 2024 ambitions, Politico’s Tim Alberta wrote, “Since last fall, I’ve spent nearly six hours talking with Haley on-the-record. I’ve also spoken with nearly 70 people who know her: friends, associates, donors, staffers, former colleagues. From those conversations, two things are clear. First, Nikki Haley is going to run for president in 2024. Second, she doesn’t know which Nikki Haley will be on the ballot.”

Haley also said that she didn’t believe Trump had a chance of winning in a 2024 election scenario.

“I don’t think he can,” she admitted. “He’s fallen so far.”

“I think his business is suffering at this point,” she added. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have. I think he’s lost his social media, which meant the world to him. I mean, I think he’s lost the things that really could have kept him moving.”

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump’s Defense Team Absolutely Ruins Democrats With 13 Minute Montage of “Fight” Word Like Trump Did

Published

on

The Democrats demonized President Trump for using the word ‘fight’. Trump’s attorneys responded today with a collage of clips from each of the Democrats in the room using the word ‘fight’.

This portion of today’s events on Capitol Hill was excellent. The Democrats claim that because President Trump used the word ‘fight’ in his speech on January 6th in Washington D.C. However, what every Democrat in that room forgot was that they too had used the word previously in political speech.

The montage went on for 13 minutes. (The video montage starts at 7:10 timeframe.)

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: Trump Attorneys Destroy House Managers on Lying to American Public and Using Manipulated Tweet as Evidence

Published

on

President Trump’s defense team took the floor of the US Senate on Friday in defense of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump Attorney David Schoen absolutely destroyed the House Managers when he took to the floor of the US Senate.

At one point Schoen played video of the Democrat lawmakers lying about a Trump tweet.

House Impeachment Manager Eric Swalwell gave a riveting performance on Wednesday reading off Trump’s tweets with emotional appeal.

During this theatrical performance, Swalwell read off a Trump retweet by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.

But there was one problem with the tweet. It was photoshopped.

Jennifer Lynn Lawrence has never been verified by Twitter. Democrats faked that to make it look more important.

On Friday Trump Attorney David Schoen destroyed Democrats for lying about this to the American public.

WATCH:

Continue Reading

News

White House Suspends Deputy Press Secretary For Allegedly Sexually Harassing, Threatening Reporter

Published

on

The White House announced on Friday that it was suspending Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo after a report surfaced alleging that he sexually harassed and threatened a female reporter who was getting ready to publish a report revealing that he was dating a reporter who had previously been tasked with covering Democrat Joe Biden.

“The confrontation began on Inauguration Day, January 20, after [Politico reporter Tara] Palmeri, a coauthor of Politico’s Playbook, contacted [Axios political reporter Alexi] McCammond for comment while one of her male colleagues left a message for Ducklo,” Vanity Fair reported. “Ducklo subsequently called a Playbook editor to object to the story, but was told to call the Playbook reporters with his concerns. But instead of calling the male reporter who initially contacted him, Ducklo tried to intimidate Palmeri by phone in an effort to kill the story. ‘I will destroy you,’ Ducklo told her, according to the sources, adding that he would ruin her reputation if she published it.”

“During the off-the-record call, Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments, accusing Palmeri of only reporting on his relationship—which, due to the ethics questions that factor into the relationship between a journalist and White House official, falls under the purview of her reporting beat—because she was ‘jealous’ that an unidentified man in the past had ‘wanted to f***’ McCammond ‘and not you,’” the report added. “Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being ‘jealous’ of his relationship with McCammond.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said following the report that Ducklo has been suspended for a week over the incident.

“TJ Ducklo has apologized to the reporter, with whom he had a heated conversation about his personal life,” Psaki wrote on Twitter. “He is the first to acknowledge this is not the standard of behavior set out by the President.”

“In addition to his initial apology, he has sent the reporter a personal note expressing his profound regret,” she continued. “With the approval of the White House Chief of Staff, he has been placed on a one-week suspension without pay. In addition, when he returns, he will no longer be assigned to work with any reporters at Politico.”

Reporters called out the administration over the incident, highlighting how the Trump administration did not treat reporters that way as well as issues with the timeline of events with regard to the White House taking action to address the incident.

“The Vanity Fair piece indicates that Politico editors reached to the WH after the incident first occurred and the WH acknowledged it was inappropriate,” Spectator editor Amber Athey wrote on Twitter. “But they clearly didn’t have any interest in disciplining Ducklo until his behavior was made public.”

New York Magazine reporter Olivia Nuzzi wrote on Twitter: “I covered Donald Trump for 6 years. It is saying something that this behavior — from a Biden official — shocks me.”

Grabien founder Tom Elliott highlighted the following remarks that Biden made a few weeks ago: “If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot, on the spot. No if, ands, or buts. Everybody — everybody is entitled to be treated with decency & dignity.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper responded to the quote, writing: “Standards that are not upheld are not standards. They’re lies.”

Continue Reading

Trending Today