Well there goes SCOTUS, we could be screwed if real issue make it the SC.

[223to45]

Justice Neil Gorsuch provided the decisive vote Tuesday in a Supreme Court ruling striking down a key provision that made it easier to deport immigrants convicted of violent crimes, in a blow to the Trump administration.*


Supreme Court strikes down key deportation provision, with Gorsuch help

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-deportation-provision-with-gorsuch-help.html

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[VARIABLE9]

What fcuking part of ‘illegal’, ‘guilty’, and ‘criminal’ don’t these people understand. JFC I’m so done with all this BS.

[Averageman]

If it is any solace, Sotto-Mayor fell and broke her shoulder.

[SHIVAN]

The law needs to be precise. Having that mumbo-jumbo wishy-washy vague language. If you commit these felonies, you are deportable. Period. They skimp on words where they need to be precise, and they over use words where brevity would be better. I think Gorsuch got it right.

[Doc Safari]

We are under the spell of looney tune lilly-livered libtards.

[TAZ]

Confused. In 2015 the SCOTUS pee pee slapped law authors to stop using vague language when they come up with these laws/policies. Yet we still have people write vague open ended crap that allows lawyers the ability to make a mint arguing the definition of is and potentially screwing folks who can’t afford high dollar lawyers to argue indefinitely. Yet it’s the SCOTUS that screwed up.

Rewrite the order detailing out which crimes = express route to the catapult, like the court asked 3 years ago.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What fcuking part of ‘illegal’, ‘guilty’, and ‘criminal’ don’t these people understand. JFC I’m so done with all this BS.

That's what I don't get? I thought anyone here illegally could get bounced? Was this for some special expedite processing or something?

Why is it that federal laws are mere suggestions and a point of negotiation when it comes to the left's causes? Don't see any daylight on the NFA act.

Goresuch is still kosher. If it's a poorly worded law, fix it. Don't know about Scalia taking the same vote like people are saying. If anything he tended to be more authoritarian biased than I'd like. That would seem to cover this. But like I said, why is deporting him even an issue?

[26 Inf]

Well there goes SCOTUS, we could be screwed if real issue make it the SC.

I believe this is his first break of any note from the Conservative side of the Court.

I'd rather have someone who, IMO, interprets what the law means in terms of what the framers of the Constitution wanted, than someone who decides what side of the issue they are on, and then twists logic to arrive at an opinion which agrees. I'd be willing to bet Justice Gorsuch would just as soon see this guy deported, but that isn't what this is all about, it is about the Constitution and the Law.

Did you read his concurring opinion?

The Justice Department argued his first-degree burglary conviction constituted a crime of violence, which is an aggravated felony that results in deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

However, the court said Tuesday that the law’s definition of a crime of violence is too vague.

In delivering the opinion of the court Justice Elena Kagan relied on a 2015 ruling in which the court said a similar clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) that defined a “violent felony” was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

In a concurring opinion, Gorscuh said vague laws invite arbitrary power.

Gorsuch said that before the American Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death.

"The founders cited the crown’s abuse of 'pretended' crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution," he said, citing the Declaration of Independence.

"Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same — by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up. The law before us today is such a law."

IMO on this one he is GTG.

[223to45]

Every law is vague in one way or another.

Very few are precise .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

As long as he understands what "unusual or dangerous" and "In common use" means. And even better if he uses this case to try to shame a lefty into joining a majority on striking down AWBs.

[26 Inf]

Every law is vague in one way or another.

Very few are precise .

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The California Penal Code which covers burglary is clown shoes and that is part of the problem.

This guy was convicted of residential, or first degree burglary, which is a felony. What isn't clear (at least to me) is whether the home was occupied.

What is bullshit is that second degree burglary, sometimes called commercial burglary, can be charged as a misdemeanor.

Burglary should be a felony regardless of whether it is business or residential. That way you can have a crime called Aggravated Burglary which means that someone was present when the burglary was committed.

[223to45]

.

This guy was convicted of residential, or first degree burglary, which is a felony. What isn't clear (at least to me) is whether the home was occupied.



Shouldn't that be all they need to deport him, " A Felony ".

Should it really matter if someone was home or not.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Hmac]

I believe this is his first break of any note from the Conservative side of the Court.

I'd rather have someone who, IMO, interprets what the law means in terms of what the framers of the Constitution wanted, than someone who decides what side of the issue they are on, and then twists logic to arrive at an opinion which agrees. I'd be willing to bet Justice Gorsuch would just as soon see this guy deported, but that isn't what this is all about, it is about the Constitution and the Law.



Yes. Exactly this.

[Pilot1]

If it is any solace, Sotto-Mayor fell and broke her shoulder.

lol! Saw that earlier. What she couldn't have fallen into a wood chipper with Ginsburg, and Kagan?

[C-grunt]

I gotta agree with the judge on this one.

[Dienekes]

I'm fairly familiar with the Immigration and Nationality Act. Some of the language is on the sloppy side, and it's continually nitpicked by "interpretations", "interim decisions", and "policy", not to mention court decisions. (And spare me anything out of the 9th Circus.)

Not to fear--there are lots and lots of unquestionably bad actors to be deported if Congress and the Executive would get their heads out. Therein lies the problem.

[Alex V]

I have to agree with Gorsuch on this one. A vaguely written law can be used both ways. Congress needs to write more succinct laws.

[HardToHandle]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, does anyone actually read and attempt to understand the issues in this case? The most major and recent precedent used in this case was a firearms-related case.

Fox News is a pretty bogus source of legal news.
Burglary was clearly not a crime of violence, which was Scalia’s assertion in a previous case.
No Dept. of Justice should be allowed to ignore stare decisis and go rogue, which is what got us into the Comey disaster, as an example from the last administration.

Gorsuch is correct in applying maximal due process rights against government action, as his predecessor Scalia demonstrated. It is in everyone’s interest for SCOTUS to default to conservative, constitutionally-based decisions. Gorsuch’s vote is based on a 2015 firearms case, which struck down the simple possession of an unauthorized short-barrel shotgun as a crime of violence - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-7120/opinion3.html

Much more accurate coverage of the case announced today - http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-faithful-scalia-gorsuch-may-deciding-vote-immigrant/

Gorsuch’s questions in the verbal arguments sum up what the real issue was, citing the Johnson short-barrel shotgun case:

Not long into the argument, Gorsuch began active questioning and seemed ready and willing to apply Scalia’s opinion in Johnson to this case. In language that Scalia would have loved, Gorsuch noted that the due process clause does not include the criminal/civil distinction embraced by the government: “I look at the text of the Constitution, always a good place to start, and the Due Process Clause speaks of the loss of life, liberty, or property. It doesn’t draw a civil/criminal line, and yet, elsewhere, even in the Fifth Amendment, I do see that line drawn, the right of self-incrimination, for example.”

[elephant]

I personally think this was a good thing. The law was going to cast its net too far and this will force the law to identify what constitutes as deportation.

[26 Inf]

Shouldn't that be all they need to deport him, " A Felony ".

Should it really matter if someone was home or not.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Well we could discuss that all day. As far as I'm concern any felony should do it, as should some misdemeanors. My idea is that there needs be some way that we can prioritize the order in which we deport folks. Violent felons should go to the front of the line, shoplifters more to the rear.

As far as the burglary, when you enter a structure, either day or night, when someone is home, you definitely have aggravating circumstances because you have increased the possibility of a violent outcome.

In most jurisdictions, someone walking into your open garage via the open overhead door, and taking a weedeater or bicycle, while you are away from the residence running an errand is guilty of burglary. On the other hand if they took the weedeater or bicycle as it lay in the driveway or the front lawn, it is theft.

So, yeah degrees matter IMO.

[Averageman]

Perhaps it should be a felony to enter the United States illegally?
Better yet, perhaps any felony should be a disqualifier for Citizenship.
So if you enter illegally, you'll never qualify to be a citizen, get a green card, or enter under any condition.
How hard is that to figure out?

[Moose-Knuckle]

How hard is that to figure out?

No caca, you either a.) legally entered the country or b.) illegally entered the country.

If someone commits a violent crime why would we want to deport them?

We should execute them.

[jethroUSMC]

That's what I don't get? I thought anyone here illegally could get bounced? Was this for some special expedite processing or something?

Why is it that federal laws are mere suggestions and a point of negotiation when it comes to the left's causes? Don't see any daylight on the NFA act.

Goresuch is still kosher. If it's a poorly worded law, fix it. Don't know about Scalia taking the same vote like people are saying. If anything he tended to be more authoritarian biased than I'd like. That would seem to cover this. But like I said, why is deporting him even an issue?

They still can be bounced because of immigration law. The determination of what constitutes a "violent crime" or a pattern of potential violence and danger IIRC, is where things went sideways from how many of us would think Gorsuch would vote. When I saw the first headline and beginning of the article I was like WTF? After reading further, I have to agree with Gorsuch's opinion in general. I don't like the fact immigration attorneys will use it as a way to hold up more and more deportations overall and drag out the entire process.