Posted on 04/18/2018 8:53:17 PM PDT by conservative98
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is dead wrong on deporting criminal aliens and that’s bad news for President Trump’s immigration agenda, explained LevinTV host Mark Levin on his national radio show Wednesday evening.
Levin addressed the chorus of “conservative” and libertarian legal commentators who have lauded Gorsuch’s decision to join with the Supreme Court’s leftist wing on a recent immigration case. Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion that the law in question was too vague. Put simply, Gorsuch equated federal immigration law with criminal law and, as a result, determined that a criminal alien couldn’t be automatically deported.
Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz then joined the show to discuss his latest article about the ruling. Horowitz explained the case in detail and pointed out why, contrary to Gorsuch’s ruling, immigration law is different from criminal law when it comes to due process rights. Horowitz further outlined what this means for the GOP’s ability to address America’s illegal immigration problem.
“A lot of people defending Gorsuch aren’t paying attention to the jurisprudential velocity of what’s taking place at the lower courts,” and what this court decision will likely mean in the long run, Horowitz explained.
“This is like pouring gasoline on a burning fire,” Horowitz added, because of how open-borders groups, judges, and politicians will now be able to use the ruling to fit their agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
Scalia had the same opinion as Gorsuch in this case. It was a vague law.
This decision is very, very bad news. It will make it virtually impossible to characterize illegal aliens who commit violent felonies as violent, even when their crimes are as egregious as armed robbery or murder.
The remedy, to pass a new immigration law, is completely beyond reach given the composition and rules of the Senate, and frankly, even if McConnell nuked the filibuster, I don't think we'd have enough votes to change the law even then.
I don't blame Trump, but it looks very much like we've been had, again.
Scalia wrote an opinion for an 8-1 majority, and was joined by all four of the conservatives currently sitting on the court.
NOT ONE of them agreed that Scalia's opinion in that case applied to this one.
The claim that this ruling is anything other than a complete disaster "because Scalia" is 100% BS.
That's more along the lines of what Justice Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor would do.
What a fargin disaster.
Bullcrap. A Constitutionalist judge will sometimes return a ruling we don't like politically, such as in this case when the law is poorly written. You might like the end results of what that law intended, but due process still needs to be observed, lest we get another version of civil asset forfeiture.
GOP presidents keep setting up the "it doesn't matter what his background or PERSONAL views are, because the judge's JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY is originalist" football, and gullible conservatives keep trying to kick it.
After 40 years of being screwed by so-called "strict constructionist" judges on federal courts, its time to try something new.
.... The swamp beasties more than likely have a vast array of FBI files on just about everybody by now so the denizens are using them to their advantage. It’s what they do.
“HUGE gift to the open-borders crowd.”
Nope. This will force congress to change the law.
Bullcrap. Justice Scalia was on the court for three decades and issued thousands of rulings in that time. Name one time Justice Scalia was the LONE GOP judge to vote with the Ginsburg-Breyer-Kagan-Sotomayor wing of the court because of "constitutional" reasons due to his "textualist" philosophy of the way a law was written.
And the ruiling you guys keep citing had an overwhelmingly 8-1 majority agreeing it was vaguely written, rather than all the Democrats judges + 1 maverick GOP judge.
Yep, and the Roberts betrayal on Obamacare that says "its a tax" will force Congress to abolish Obamacare, too! (so said the apologists at the time)
I think this is overwraught. The problem is the law is vague and Gorsuch is not interested in writing law from the bench. Embrace that and lets get the law re-written!
Har-dee-har-har! That's a good one, the "chuckle of the day"!
Well, so much for listening to the GOPE.... Our ‘establishment’ sucks...
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.