U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nationally syndicated radio talk show host and American lawyer Mark Levin (Screenshots)

On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Wednesday, host and American lawyer Mark Levin corrected libertarians and conservatives for their concern with a cult of personality in backing Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recent decision in the “all-important” Sessions v. Dimaya immigration case, Levin saying Gorsuch was “absolutely wrong.”

“So, Gorsuch could be a very, very good justice, but he could also be wrong,” stated Mark Levin. “And in this case, he’s absolutely wrong. Clarence Thomas is right; Sam Alito’s right. Believe it or not, John Roberts is right. And believe it or not, Anthony Kennedy got one right. And Gorsuch is wrong, and that’s why he’s on the side with all the leftists because he looks at this from the wrong perspective.”

Mark Levin’s remarks came after Neil Gorsuch sided with the four liberal-leaning members of the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor) in the Sessions v. Dimaya case on immigration (5-4 decision), Gorsuch concurring in part and concurring in the judgment with the plurality of the Court that 18 U. S. C. §16(b), as incorporated by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is unconstitutionally vague.

Below is a transcript of Levin’s comments from his show Wednesday:

“There are conservative and libertarian lawyers out there who are making excuses for Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and his decision in this all-important immigration case, and they’re trying to persuade you that Neil Gorsuch is the real originalist here, not Clarence Thomas, not Sam Alito, and – believe it or not – not John Roberts, and not Anthony Kennedy. “And the vote was 5-4. The score was tied 4-4 on this deportation statute. And I bet you’ve been hearing lawyers all day long, conservatives, libertarians, pseudo-conservatives, telling you that actually Gorsuch got it right. He didn’t join the five [actually four] progressive justices. He wrote his own opinion. But he had to vote with them to strike this statute and to go back to Congress and say, ‘Well, tighten it up because it’s too vague.’ And they compared it to criminal statutes. “Criminal statutes that are too vague—‘We can’t have the executive branch or administrative law judges or what have you making decisions about these, about you in the criminal context, and we need to be very specific. What kind of lawbreaking are we talking about here?’ And then they cite Justice Antonin Scalia, the Vagueness Doctrine in a case called Johnson. They say, ‘Even Scalia voted against such a statute for vagueness. And we should be concerned about this.’ “But there’s one problem with this entire analysis – it’s nonsense. It’s absolute nonsense. Why? Because as my guest in a few minutes is going to explain, Daniel Horowitz from Conservative Review, immigration law has never been akin to criminal law. Immigration law, the Supreme Court has given the executive branch maximum flexibility. We’re not talking about United States citizens and criminal law. We’re talking about illegal aliens, among others and immigration law. They are two different things. “And the case that went to the Court is called Sessions v. Dimaya, and he was ‘a foreign national who was convicted twice of burglary … was ordered to be deported by the Obama administration. The Ninth Circuit stepped in and said the clause of the law used to deport him was unconstitutional, because it is evidently unconstitutional,’ writes Horowitz, ‘to enforce our own immigration laws unless we spell out every possible crime in the statute so that foreign nationals know the entire laundry list of crimes for which they can be deported.’ “Nonsense.