Posted on 04/17/2018 8:03:55 AM PDT by BOARn
I warned every one. The guy has been affected by the “New Natural Law crowd. Doggone.
It is not always possible to avoid some vagueness, because the number of hypothetical exceptions can seemingly approach infinity.
That is where the notion of "reasonable person" standard comes in.
That four reasonable justices interpreted our Constitution correctly argues against tossing around terms such as "moron" and "dumb".
This RINO congress? The same people that voted to repeal Obamacare when it had no chance of being repealed, then voted to fund it when Trump came aboard? They spent $1.3 trillion and couldn’t even fund part of the wall? Sadly it will never happen.
“Until we have conservatives that will fight as hard a Democrats do for what they believe we will never win. It’s that simple.”
We need begin our fight with guillotines.
Congress should rewrite this provision to say that an immigrant can be deported for a felony regardless of that vague "substantial risk" nonsense.
Well Trump never promised this would be a cake walk with Congress, as you appear to seem it should be. He did however say he would fight hard for this country and it’s people... and that’s exactly what he’s doing. To expect Congress to support what he wants, in the condition it is, is just wishful thinking. Be glad for what has been accomplished ....and these are really just the first rounds.
5-4 decision.
This hideous imbalance is razor-close.
I didn’t say that the other Justices were dumb or morons. I said that the ASSPRESS is writing one-line headlines and spinning for the benefit of people who are morons and too dumb to read beyond the headline or seek out the actual opinion.
Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning is completely different and distinct from that of Kagan and the libtard klan. You might disagree with him, but his reasoning is tied to the Constitution and is based on an original reading of the document.
Kagan’s approach is not.
The ASSPRESS looks only to the results, and people who want Justice Gorsuch to waive a wand and magically deport all immigrants are also looking to results.
This case dealt ONLY with the residual clause under 18 U.S.C. §16.
It did not deal with deporting illegals generally, nor did this decision have anything to do with any of the listed felony offenses outlined by Congress as qualifying Felonies.
Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is very clear that Congress could simply make ALL felony convictions qualify for expedited deportation. It just can’t have a vague residual catch all clause that might or might not apply to a given law.
Justice Scalia ruled exactly the same way in regards to the residual clause under 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B) in Johnson v. United States in 2015.
The language in the two sections of the USC was virtually identical.
Bingo. And that’s precisely what Gorsuch suggested in his opinion.
Why didn’t Congress simply say, “ANY FELONY.”
The answer is that Congress likes to play act on immigration but doesn’t want to actually do anything on immigration.
Hate crimes whatever that means are never too vague though, for the elites in the USA. Just being in the USA as an illegal should be a felony.
So now Congress has to define “crime of violence” with specifically enumerated crimes, such as murder, rape, felony assault, etc. A simple enough task, but watch the Dems and RINO’s obstruct.
The DOJ loses so much that is reason enough to fire Sessions and his clan
“In Sessions v. Dimaya, the Court has been asked to decide whether burglary under California law meets federal “crime of violence” standards for deporting a permanent legal resident.
“The decision allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to continue, in most parts of the country, to act as both jailer and judge in deciding whether to continue to hold an asylum seeker or migrant in a detention facility for longer than six months.
https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-orders-re-argument-two-immigration-cases/
Despite AP (All Propaganda), I’m not sure this is a defeat for Trump.
The big issue here and for EVERY SCOTUS decision is this: SCOTUS DOES NOT MAKE NATIONAL LAW. The Constitution empowers ONLY CONGRESS to legislate. The constitutional and legitimate scope of SCOTUS decisions reach only to the PARTIES of the case.
AP = All Propaganda
Don’t believe these Lying Leftist Media outlets that proved themselves during the 2016 campaign to be operatives of the DNC and intentional liars. They are presumed to be lying and we should presume what they publish is a lie. The presumption can only be rebutted with the outlet providing clear and convincing evidence they are not lying.
Why not post the TRUTH about the lies? You don't have to use the liar as the source to post a headline that alerts readers to a published lie. Use yourself as the source or a reasonably reliable source that addresses what the Lying Leftist source is saying. That way you have a headline and a source that your readers can reasonably rely on and they go away more informed about the lie AND the truth.
If this story is true and has some redeeming value, at least get the story from a reasonably reliable source, not from a known Lying Leftist operative posing as a “news” organization. You’ve done the Patriotic Right a service. Much better than the mindless repetition of lying sources and their lying headlines.
If we’re told a lie, don’t repeat it. Neutralize the lie by speaking the truth. Lies aren’t defeated by repeating the lie. Lies are defeated by repeating the truth. We should have our eyes on the prize - in this case, politically, what it takes to recover our Free Constitutional Republic. That should be what we major on and focus on.
IMO, if a poster can't be bothered to do that, then they shouldn't post. If they're going to be bothered to post, do it right. We're on a mission here.
Am holding my fire; just hope we didn’t nominate a Justice “Souter” Gorsuch.
Make it a crime of violence to invade another person’s home, auto, RV.
Gorsuch [Trump’s appointee] ought to have dissented because illegal aliens are outside the courts’ jurisdiction except maybe sometimes in the matter of treaties.
I hope that he gets his act together.
[And darnit, I slipped, and you were too polite to point it out.]
So the four liberals also agreed with Scalia and four other conservatives didn’t?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/neil-gorsuch-immigration-against-trump-case
‘Both the Trump administration and the Obama administration had defended the “crime of violence” standard in court as a lawful measure that bolstered public safety.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.