The above link is a video of the swearing in of Neil Gorsuch. He recently had a book published that enables anti-federalism. Evidently, an entire wall of federal law books in his office is distressful.
(Yates vs. United States-click here)
The link above is a FOX News interview with Neil Gorsuch that clearly spells out the activism of the Roberts’ Court to destroy the federal authority, hence regulation. He believes words are more important than the law.
Gorsuch wrote a book outlining real events in people’s live. I believe Gorsuch is wrong and a prime example of how the Roberts’ Court taylor makes litigation to its own meaning.
Gorsuch cites Yates v. USA, which was written by the Late Associate Justice Ginsberg.
I still need to look up the law cited in Yates v. USA, but, what astounds me is that the Roberts’ Court completely dismissed the law breaking to DEFINE ONE WORD.
Yates v. USA started as a function of a legal patrol of federal waters. I think the fish in question was Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.
The commercial fishermen had his boat boarded and a standard review of “the catch” was conducted. A number of fish, less than 100, were smaller than the size limit of 20 inches. The commercial fishermen was issued a summons and the smaller fish were placed in crates to be off loaded once the boat put into dock. That was federal evidence. When the boat arrived at the dock the fish in the crates were still somewhat under size but bigger than the ones the federal officer found. It would seem the captain the boat ordered the crates of fish to be thrown overboard and proceeded to replace them with larger fish to discredit the officer. This was witnessed by a member of the crew. Mistake number two was tampering with federal evidence.
In all fairness, the commercial fisherman could have had a good challenge to his tickets because the size allowed to “take” commercially was changed to 18 inches rather than 20 inches. BUT, at the time he was cited he was clearly breaking the law.
A note aside: Catch limits on fish size are very important. The fisheries have to maintain enough of properly sized fish to continue to spawn and reproduce, hopefully in large numbers so the American people have real and healthy food in their diets. Do, the violation of the law is taken seriously. Rightfully so.
All that aside, the justices didn’t dismiss the case at the Supreme Court level due to a change in the lawful size of the “taking” of Red Snapper. They went through this gigantic explanation of how one word in the law would disqualify the crimes committed. I don’t care if it was Ginsberg that wrote the opinion. The hideousness of the Supreme Court in these circumstances is just outrageous. They didn’t rule on the correct actions of the officer and notably the crimes committed, they USED the case to refine one word to diminish the capacity of federal law.
I find the self-righteousness of the Roberts Court dangerous to this country. This is not just one instance. This Supreme Court has now ruled repeatedly on federal authority to diminish the regulations and put danger back in the lives of Americans.
Gorduch refers repeatedly about children. It is nice if ADULTS would look the other way to allow a six year old to engage a capital enterprise for the sake of a happy and engaging childhood. But, the problem here is not the law, it is the grossly inappropriate ADULTS that are mean. This is about how the social structure of the USA has been demoralized by mean Americans that have nothing better to do but pick on children.
The fact the number of federal law statutes have grown to fill a wall in his office speaks to the needs of Americans. The protective laws of the EPA are vitally important to the well being of our country and its people. The protective laws of the Affordable Care Act and the Patient Bill of Rights has enormous volumes of law.
Gorsuch is an example of the hatred of this country notably by right wing politicians. The Roberts’ Court is highly political and I believe Gorsuch’s pandering to average Americans rather than academics and the legal society shows the self-righteous thinking of our current Supreme Court and its ATTACK on our legislature and Executive Branch and the path Americans have CHOSEN through elections.
Indeed, if Gorsuch was asked if the country would be better off the an autocracy, he might have the audacity to say, “Yes.”
