Posted on 04/17/2018 8:07:34 AM PDT by SMGFan
It did not take Gorsuch to turn.
Hell no, I don't want Judge Nap as a Supreme Court Justice!
He's a Libertarian so we don't know WTF kind of Liberal crap he agrees with + I heard him say building The Wall is unconstitutional!
So, they’re saying breaking into my home is no big deal? Bull feathers.
[[and if he is is badly worded or poorly constructed it shouldn’t be enforced as such.]]
What i don’t understand is, why can’t these supposedly brilliant lawyers representing the cases word their arguments more precisely so that they don’t get thrown out or ruled against? What are the lawyers getting paid the big bucks for if they bring stuff that is ‘too vague’?
Sloppy law-writing has always been a pet peeve of mine.
Like the Pennsylvania law that makes it illegal to drive with excessive amounts of snow on your car (but fails to define “excessive”, freeing every traffic cop to make up his own mind on the subject and fine you).
The failure here is Congress’ for failing to define what that meant.
Roberts find new friend.
Not only that, but the libtards are now using “words” as a premise for violence. Say the “wrong” (intolerable) things, and they act violently to counter. Do the “wrong” things, and they act violently again. This also supports Gorsuch in that these legal terms need to be better defined, rather then left to some liberal judge to interpret.
“Conviction for a crime of violence makes deportation “a virtual certainty” for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States, Justice Elena Kagan”
Credit for non-violent time is a legal standard?
So if someone spends the first 40 years of their life without being violent, they can kill who they want?
Good to know.
Exactly!
Not if he has taken the necessary legal steps to become a U.S. citizen.
WTF is vague about crime of violence”
Well, for starters, burglary is not inherently a crime of violence. The government tried to make the argument that this statute was vague enough to allow the agency to define certain crimes including burglary as “violent” regardless of any likelihood of violence or actual violence involved. The Court determined that if the statue was vague enough to be defined that arbitrarily, then it was too vague to be enforceable. Which is almost certainly what Scalia would have decided. Congress can easily rewrite the law to make it more specific. The agency could have just as easily tried to deport the guy under another statute, they could have accused him of a crime of moral turpitude and achieved the same outcome under the same facts. Having conservatives on the court doesn’t mean the courts will back whatever outcomes seem the most conservative. It’s not their job to back the government on policy issues.
[b]What i don’t understand is, why can’t these supposedly brilliant lawyers representing the cases word their arguments more precisely so that they don’t get thrown out or ruled against? What are the lawyers getting paid the big bucks for if they bring stuff that is ‘too vague’?[/b]
It was not the lawyers’ arguments that were found to be too vague. It was the underlying statute. This is the fault of congress, not the lawyers arguing in front of the court. Congress made the drafting errors.
You are correct.
Reading is fundamental.....this type of narrow interpretation is IN our interest and the badly written legislation she be re done.
In the case of an illegal who seeks to settle the land by looting it, yes, it is in fact terrorism.
An invasion by a foreigner looting our country should not be a matter of civil law but a military matter. This is where is whole thing is going wrong. There is no limited government or representativeness or legal bagging limits of police that apply in this case.
It is a matter of national self defense, not a matter of limited governance of own people.
the court has completely erred and the liberals on the court perfectly jnow that, because to the Keagan et al, being a conservative coming to a liberal America is a crime of violence.
thanks for clearing that up- I thought it was trump’s lawyers bringing it to the supreme court because federal judges were trying to block his immigration policy
Ask a cop whether burglary is a crime of violence. Burglary is a very dangerous, if not violent crime. Was the home/edifice occupied? How do you know? Was the burglar armed, with anything?
An especially high number of burglaries turn into violent confrontations between the burglar and the occupant and the occupant generally loses unless he/she/they is/are armed.
From my perspective, I don’t really give a shit how you define it. You’re not a US citizen and you’re a criminal - violent or otherwise, you’re outta here.
Standing for civil liberties and rule of law rather than the arbitrary and capricious judgment of government bureaucrats is a pretty good outcome to me.
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.