Gorsuch sides with liberal justices in finding gun law to be 'vague'

[Jose Garcia]

Source: The Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that a federal law allowing for gun convictions relating to "a crime of violence" was too vague.

The case involved a pair of men who were convicted on several felony robbery charges, but were also convicted under another federal statute that required significant mandatory minimum sentences for a "crime of violence."

The men in question—Maurice Davis and Andre Glover—argued that the federal law was too vague. The justices on Monday were split in their decision, but ultimately sided with the men.

 Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/449998-gorsuch-sides-with-liberal-justices-in-finding-gun-law-to-be-vague

[greymattermom]

1. Maybe blanket immunity

is too vague too.

[Scoopster]

3. Kavanaugh's dissent is a little interesting.

I'm not sure if he's trying to make a case FOR gun control or not.

[pecosbob]

4. NAL, but I am a criminal justice reform advocate

There are a number of statutes like this one that were enacted in the war on crime and the war on drugs and the war on poor people. Good riddance. I imagine Gorsuch ruled they way he did for all the wrong reasons, but the result is good in this case.

[FM123]

5. This is what the world has come to - someone makes the right choice and we are shocked!

I try to keep in mind what MLK said, but sometimes it is hard.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

[LonePirate]

7. Right wingers must be fuming at Gorsuch. This is not the first time he's sided with the liberals.

Surely they knew what sort of justice he would be before he was nominated. It makes me wonder what hard right dogma he believes or in whose pocket he resides. We know Kavanaugh is owned by someone but what do they know or have control over Gorsuch?