• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gorsuch writes for a unanimous Court.

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

It's not a very interesting case. But what stood out to me was this:

And while it is of course our job to apply faithfully the law Congress has written, it is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that, on everyone’s account, it never faced.
Click to expand...

That's a major component of the ruling in the case, not just dicta. Every Justice joined in the opinion, so this is the opinion of the entire Court, not just a bloc of it.

It's also the same argument which was the crux of his much-maligned dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, so the Court has vindicated his reasoning in that dissent. This certainly doesn't overrule the majority in THAT case, but it does make his reasoning there rock-solid, proper jurisprudence. In other words, he was right.
 
Harshaw said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

It's not a very interesting case. But what stood out to me was this:



That's a major component of the ruling in the case, not just dicta. Every Justice joined in the opinion, so this is the opinion of the entire Court, not just a bloc of it.

It's also the same argument which was the crux of his much-maligned dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, so the Court has vindicated his reasoning in that dissent. This certainly doesn't overrule the majority in THAT case, but it does make his reasoning there rock-solid, proper jurisprudence. In other words, he was right.
Click to expand...
It's also why Trump travel ban is going to be overturned.
 
Harshaw said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

It's not a very interesting case. But what stood out to me was this:



That's a major component of the ruling in the case, not just dicta. Every Justice joined in the opinion, so this is the opinion of the entire Court, not just a bloc of it.

It's also the same argument which was the crux of his much-maligned dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, so the Court has vindicated his reasoning in that dissent. This certainly doesn't overrule the majority in THAT case, but it does make his reasoning there rock-solid, proper jurisprudence. In other words, he was right.
Click to expand...

Was that the case where if the trucker had followed orders he might have died from exposure?
 
Harshaw said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

It's not a very interesting case. But what stood out to me was this:



That's a major component of the ruling in the case, not just dicta. Every Justice joined in the opinion, so this is the opinion of the entire Court, not just a bloc of it.

It's also the same argument which was the crux of his much-maligned dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, so the Court has vindicated his reasoning in that dissent. This certainly doesn't overrule the majority in THAT case, but it does make his reasoning there rock-solid, proper jurisprudence. In other words, he was right.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting, indeed.
 
This court has tons of work to do to right its reputation, but this was nice.
 
Harshaw said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

It's not a very interesting case. But what stood out to me was this:



That's a major component of the ruling in the case, not just dicta. Every Justice joined in the opinion, so this is the opinion of the entire Court, not just a bloc of it.

It's also the same argument which was the crux of his much-maligned dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, so the Court has vindicated his reasoning in that dissent. This certainly doesn't overrule the majority in THAT case, but it does make his reasoning there rock-solid, proper jurisprudence. In other words, he was right.
Click to expand...

I read the ruling you linked. to Henson v Santander. When you see the situation you are , or at least I am, inclined to believe that the law ( Fair Debt Colletion Act) 'should' apply and that it appears like a loophole that the debt collector used. However at the end where it is stated that its not the job of the court to rewrite the law under speculator purposes.. well then it makes sense.
The law was flawed, but the courts job isn't to rule as to what the law should be but only to rule on what the law is. Good ruling. it should then be brought up with congress to amend the Fair Debt Collection Act to correct the issue.
 
katzgar said:
Since it was unanimous I suppose we have to figure that Gorsuch is a liberal
Click to expand...

This is one of the dumber things you've said, and that's quite a feat, comparatively.
 
Harshaw said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-349_c07d.pdf

It's not a very interesting case. But what stood out to me was this:



That's a major component of the ruling in the case, not just dicta. Every Justice joined in the opinion, so this is the opinion of the entire Court, not just a bloc of it.

It's also the same argument which was the crux of his much-maligned dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, so the Court has vindicated his reasoning in that dissent. This certainly doesn't overrule the majority in THAT case, but it does make his reasoning there rock-solid, proper jurisprudence. In other words, he was right.
Click to expand...

Hard to judge right from wrong when it's 9-zip. You need a dissent to evaluate in order to do that. Obviously the case was terrible. And, since Gorsuch's opinion reflected as much, we learned nothing except that he is certainly not the one lone wolf to turn this into a 1-8 ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom