Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

Giantone · 06-24-2018, 03:46 PM

This is wrong. I didn't mind this guy he had a history of ruling on the side of Law and I have no problem with that but this is .............

https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-sa...-9238f5568313/

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump offered a vague promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific.” On Friday, Neil Gorsuch, who occupies the seat on the Supreme Court that Senate Republicans held open until Trump could fill it, brought a similar amount of thoughtfulness and coherence to the question of when police should be allowed to conduct a search without a warrant.

Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion in Carpenter v. United States is an odd piece of writing. It reads less like a judicial opinion and more like the sort of essay that an overworked law professor might toss off after they suddenly realize that they have a symposium paper due at the end of the week. After lecturing his colleagues for 20 pages about how he has uncovered a way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment that is more “tied to the law” than the last half-century of Supreme Court opinions on this subject, Gorsuch outright refuses to apply this mysterious new interpretation to the case at hand.

06-24-2018, 03:46 PM	#650
Giantone Gamebreaker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 14,429	Re: When is Enough ,Enough? This is wrong. I didn't mind this guy he had a history of ruling on the side of Law and I have no problem with that but this is ............. https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-sa...-9238f5568313/ As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump offered a vague promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific.” On Friday, Neil Gorsuch, who occupies the seat on the Supreme Court that Senate Republicans held open until Trump could fill it, brought a similar amount of thoughtfulness and coherence to the question of when police should be allowed to conduct a search without a warrant. Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion in Carpenter v. United States is an odd piece of writing. It reads less like a judicial opinion and more like the sort of essay that an overworked law professor might toss off after they suddenly realize that they have a symposium paper due at the end of the week. After lecturing his colleagues for 20 pages about how he has uncovered a way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment that is more “tied to the law” than the last half-century of Supreme Court opinions on this subject, Gorsuch outright refuses to apply this mysterious new interpretation to the case at hand. __________________ ....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.