Brett Kavanaugh just got into a massive fight with the last person he ever suspected

When Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court he was expected to cement a five-justice conservative majority.

But things quickly changed.

And Brett Kavanaugh just got into a massive fight with the last person he ever suspected.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were on opposite sides of a high-profile case involving overturning a defendant’s conviction on a gun crime because of the vagueness of the statute in question.

Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals to deliver the decisive vote in handing a victory for criminal defendants.

The Daily Caller reports:

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc to deal victory for criminal defendants Monday, striking down a federal law that punishes gun crimes as unconstitutionally vague.

The law at issue authorizes heightened penalties for individuals who use firearms to a commit a “crime of violence.” In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the decision would undermine public safety.

“Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.”

“Vague laws transgress both of those constitutional requirements,” Gorsuch added. “They hand off the legislature’s responsibility for defining criminal behavior to unelected prosecutors and judges, and they leave people with no sure way to know what consequences will attach to their conduct.”

Kavanaugh sided with Justices Alito, Roberts, and Thomas in the minority.

“The Court’s decision will thwart Congress’ law enforcement policies, destabilize the criminal justice system, and undermine safety in American communities,” Kavanaugh argued in his dissent.

Some conservatives agreed with Gorsuch’s ruling because it prevents prosecutors from using hazy laws to punish firearms owners.

Others agreed with Kavanaugh’s traditional law-and-order approach.

We will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this current Supreme Court term.


  1. Gorsuch and Roberts both have turned out to be terrible disappointments. It’s as if they have not read the U.S. Constitution.

  2. How is “using a gun in a crime of violence” vague? First, the action must be a crime. Breaking a law is not a vague concept. Second, the gun has to be “used” in the crime. That means that jaywalking, even assaulting someone, while carrying a concealed gun is not “using a gun” in the crime. The gun must be an active part of the crime. Actively using a gun in a crime is not a vague concept.

    Third, violence is not a vague concept. Using a gun as a paperweight while committing the crime of embezzlement is not “violence”. A human victim is obvious, and that human having violence inflicted upon him/her is obvious. The gun must play an active role in the violence. Even being threatened with a gun is an act of violence.

    This SCOTUS ruling is just another example of five justices making the Constitution mean what they prefer it to mean.

  3. There several things here that are not addressed. If he was on probation or had his rights restored. If not then there’s several other things that come into play. If the law is that vague it needs to be fixed. We all know that this do nothing Congress is not able to get anything done so it will have to wait for a while.

  4. I don’t believe the law is the problem, it’s the idiots that use the weapon for the wrong reason. You can’t tell me the people in Chicago that shoot the place up every weekend are geniuses. They probably can’t even read much less understand a law.

  5. Ann I agree. I’m giving Gorsuch and Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. The liberal justices aren’t always wrong. If a law is not clear then what can they do? And the case of the sex offender, everyone has a right to face a jury if they wish. As for liberal justices, they are wrong more than they are right. I’m no lawyer, but I will have to give them a pass this time.

  6. Taken over a wide range of ethnicity, age, race, religion or financial situations gun owners as a whole are the most respective of the rule of law and individuals rights of ANY group of persons. That should speak volumes to any anti gun fevered people. However when this whole firearm paranoia began it was never a matter of reality but fear as we slowly became a nation no longer dependant upon guns for food on the table. Disuse led to lack of knowledge and training. When you have the highest court in the land turning over a solid law to prevent and deter the use of a firearm in a criminal manner one needs to question why and to what purpose such a ruling could achieve. I sense a far darker motive. As for myself and adult children, friends and aquaintances, a lot of people are.going to die trying to enforce ANY draconian laws preventing us to stand up to a tyrannical government or to defend lives or property. Anyone having observed so many of our “leaders” becoming mouth pieces for the unthinking liberal left should promptly notify them in writing of their attempts to subvert the Constitution and will of the people and make them understand they are fomenting a civil war and it is they who will have to live with the blood on their conscience.

  7. What’s up with Gorsuch? We should invite him on the TV show and ask him what the heck he was thinking. Fishy. ????

    It could be a precedent for the future cases. May not be good for the gun owners. Let ask the other conservative judges/lawyers how this decision would affect about many things soon in the future.

    I hope Gorsuch is not another Souter. I would sure hate to see that happen.

  8. Dunno. Seemed clear to me and I’m a dumbass. What would that make a Chief Justice? Use a gun in a crime, get a harsher penalty. Don’t know Neil. Think they’re trying to pull a fast one on us. REALLY? A law gun owners and anti gunners agree on and it ain’t good enough. Huh.


  10. Ann is correct. Laws that are too vague can easily be argued by clever lawyers in order to convict the innocent. That is the purpose of “Legal Language.” Laws need to be written in plain English that everyone can understand.

  11. I can see how Justice Gorsuch would come to this conclusion. Clarity is one of the values of the Constitution. This could also protect others who may or may not be guilty of so-called gun law. Not all black and white.

  12. There’s nothing wrong with this decision. The Legislatures should be on notice EVERY TIME that they can’t write Statutes that are overly broad or vague, which they do all the time. The Constitution is neither Conservative or Liberal. Conservatives have never picked a decent Justice since Scalia.

  13. This is wrong I meant Gorsuch and I can’t erase this. I have tried please forgive me. I meant Neil Gorsuch has disappointed us.

  14. It sounds like maybe Neil Gorsuch is just another Jeff Sessions. That not a compliment. No. I have not “already said that.”

  15. sounds like maybe that Christine Blasey Ford might have done us a favor. Although the premise is absolutely wrong, Brett Kavanaugh has done us a disservice. Another Jeff Sessions? Disappointing.

  16. Oh dear Gorsuch why would you do such a thing????? I had so hoped you would not lose your conservative values when you got on the court. I am embarrassed for the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.