Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration a loss on immigration — Gorsuch was tiebreaking

Business Insider ^ | April 17, 2018

[Tanniker Smith]

I don’t have a problem with saying that “crimes of violence” is too vague — especially when I can envision some lib arguing so-called “hate speech” is violence against X.

[vespa300]

Break into my house and I make it a crime of violence. Fool. These ivy league judges are fools.

[sailor76]

We’ve been duped again.
======================

It sure looks that way.Why Trump picked this privileged princeling has always puzzled me.

Judge Nap would have delivered the goods, but now we're stuck with this turd for the next 40+ years.

[Delta 21]

The Supreme Court has absolutely NO SAY on matters of immigration.

That is solely the purview of the Executive Branch.

[Nifster]

Or it was a crap law not well written. Congress is notorious for that as are agencies

[Hawthorn]

>> Is simple burglary a crime of violence? <<

If the burglar kicked in your door, then yes, it was a violent entry.

But if you left the door unlocked, or if the burglar picked your lock and entered with damaging the door, then the entry and the crime were not violent.

[dfwgator]

Justice Gorsuch did NOT join Kagan’s opinion in full. He wrote a an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

The bottom line is, his vote was the same as hers'.

[Hawthorn]

>> Judge Nap would have delivered the goods <<

I get the impression that you don’t know much about the extreme libertarian (and out-of-the-closet homo) Judge Nap.

[ScottfromNJ]

Gun laws are also usually vague. Is Gorsuch setting a standard for future challenges to gun laws?

[Hawthorn]

>> The bottom line is, his vote was the same as hers <<

Sure. Only the result counts. Legal reasoning has no place in SCOTUS decisions.

[teeman8r]

That too

[rxsid]

"Typically misleading media interpretation. Gorsuch ruling mirrored Scalia's 2015 ruling in a similar case that ruled "crimes of violence" is unconstitutionally vague. If anything Gorsuch was upholding Scalia's brand of judicial conservatism and limiting government overreach. A good synopsis of what really happened and Gorsuch's legal reasoning can be found here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-faithful-scalia-gorsuch-may-deciding-vote-immigrant/

This bears repeating.

There is a remedy here....Congress.

They could make the law(s) less "vague."

Now, as long as we can hold the Congress after this fall, it can be done with enough pressure on them.

[dfwgator]

We went through this BS with Judas Roberts.

I don’t care what his reasoning was, the bottom line is he voted FOR ObamaCare.

[ek_hornbeck]

limiting government overreach

You deserve an A for effort for trying to make a gem out of a cow patty. Deporting people who are here illegally, whether they have committed additional crimes or not, is not "government overreach." It's the government doing its job.

[Rinnwald]

Sounds like a reasonable decision that cleaves to the Constitution.

Media gloating aside, the ruling does not strike down the law, only one clause. As Gorsuch said, all listed crimes are still in effect in speeding up the process.

[Spitzensparkin1]

Thank you and Apilar for unspinning this.

[TexasGurl24]

An opinion concurring in the judgment is not “the same” vote. By definition, concurring on the judgment means that the vote is on different grounds.

Supreme Court decisions are more complex than the picture ASSPRESS tries to paint to feeble minds.

[mass55th]

"burglary isn’t inherently 'violent.' ”

It should be if the burglar is armed with anything that can be deemed a weapon.

[rxsid]

Yup, and he certainly wasn’t voting the way Scalia did.

[sailor76]

How is Judge Nap an "extreme libertarian"?

As for his personal life, that's his business not mine.