Sorry, I looked it up in the decision and i can’t agree. That there may be some things that are obviously crimes of violence, does not make the statute less vague nor less over inclusive on the other end. “I know it when I see it” ought not to be acceptable in the criminal context.

Kavanaugh’s quote of Judge Pryor sums up all you need to know.

Of the two, my own leanings side most frequently with Gorsuch. Kavanaugh’s seemingly expansive views on the power and authority of the Government – which he seems to share with certain of the more “statist” members of the Court often termed liberals – is contrary to my policy preferences.

Ayn Rand has her critics, but I think her Dr. Ferris character got this exactly right (Atlas Shrugged)

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”

It’s discouraging that this passage seems to apply so often to the more recently-enacted federal and state laws.

No, it’s not a turkey.

Congress would have had to work very hard to make the issue of what offenses the sentence enhancement at issue applies to any vaguer .