Gorsuch: "But the bottom line is that, for all those reasons, any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct."
Jackson: "And the text of §666 clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment Snyder…
Gorsuch: "But the bottom line is that, for all those reasons, any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct."
Jackson: "And the text of §666 clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment Snyder solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."
I think you’re stretching there. He’s with the majority. How is he “going out of the way” to emphasize something he doesn’t even explicitly say when what he does say is essential to his reading of the majority opinion? Like, I think this is pretty much as anodyne of a concurrence as he could have written. The most offensive line is that he is “pleased” to join Kavanaugh’s opinion.
He explicitly says, "any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt." Him doing so in a quick statement makes it stand out.
The dissent thinks it is obvious the other way. He didn't have to concur separately. His statement underlines the belief that the dissent is not a fair reading. It isn't just -- like he did in multiple opinions lately -- saying there is a reasonable difference of opinion. Any "fair" reader would go his way.
I see it differently from you, but a fair reader can disagree with me.
He didn't have to concur. He joined the majority in full. He could have tossed in a "I respect" bit -- he did that repeatedly. He did not.
His concurrence emphasizes that he thinks the dissent, written by Jackson, was not a fair reading. I know it's the rule. It was not "literally" necessary for him to do the rest. Gorsuch twice finds a way not to play nice with the same justice while doing so with others in about a week, and it concerns me.
I'm saying he did so by implication.
Gorsuch: "But the bottom line is that, for all those reasons, any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct."
Jackson: "And the text of §666 clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment Snyder solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."
I think you’re stretching there. He’s with the majority. How is he “going out of the way” to emphasize something he doesn’t even explicitly say when what he does say is essential to his reading of the majority opinion? Like, I think this is pretty much as anodyne of a concurrence as he could have written. The most offensive line is that he is “pleased” to join Kavanaugh’s opinion.
He explicitly says, "any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt." Him doing so in a quick statement makes it stand out.
The dissent thinks it is obvious the other way. He didn't have to concur separately. His statement underlines the belief that the dissent is not a fair reading. It isn't just -- like he did in multiple opinions lately -- saying there is a reasonable difference of opinion. Any "fair" reader would go his way.
I see it differently from you, but a fair reader can disagree with me.
That’s literally necessary for the rule of lenity to matter. He’s describing a standard, not attacking Jackson.
He didn't have to concur. He joined the majority in full. He could have tossed in a "I respect" bit -- he did that repeatedly. He did not.
His concurrence emphasizes that he thinks the dissent, written by Jackson, was not a fair reading. I know it's the rule. It was not "literally" necessary for him to do the rest. Gorsuch twice finds a way not to play nice with the same justice while doing so with others in about a week, and it concerns me.