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

Business Insider ^ | April 17, 2018

[AndyJackson]

This addresses people who were here legally.

[dfwgator]

The failure here is Congress’ for failing to define what that meant.

You don't think that's intentional? Make it look like we're doing something, only to get struck down by SCOTUS, but they can turn around to their constituents and say, "Hey, we tried!"

[AndyJackson]

I suggest you read Gorsuch’s opinion. He comes down solidly on civil liberties and the rule of law.

[nonsporting]

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.

Thank you for this concise summary. My understanding as well.

[rollo tomasi]

"The deportation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law” -- United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 290 (1904)

"Until today, this Court has never held that an immigration statute is unconstitutionally vague....And until today, this Court had never deemed a federal removal statute void for vagueness. Given this history, it is difficult to conclude that a ban on vague removal statutes is a “settled usag[e] and mod[e] of proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of our ancestors” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 277."

"If the vagueness doctrine has any basis in the original meaning of the Due Process Clause, it must be limited to case-by-case challenges to particular applications of a statute. That is what early American courts did when they applied the rule of lenity" (Void for Vagueness: An Escape From Statutory Interpretation, 23 Ind. L. J. 272, 274–279 (1948)).

"The Court’s decision today is triply flawed. It unnecessarily extends our incorrect decision in Johnson. It uses a constitutional doctrine with dubious origins to invalidate yet another statute (while calling into question countless more). And it does all this in the name of a statutory interpretation that we should have discarded long ago. Because I cannot follow the Court down any of these rabbit holes, I respectfully dissent." --Thomas, J in his dissent of the legal fallacies the majority put forth.

The vuagness in question of Section 16 of Title 18

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Keep in mind that Dimaya had two prior convictions for first-degree residential burglary. So all you cheerleaders of the majority's opinion favor the belief that immigrants can stay if they violate statutory frameworks?

[zeugma]

Rather than relying on the "press" to tell you what to think about something, you can read the decision itself here.[supremecourt.gov]

[SMGFan]

Liberals in the majority makes me believe bad decision.

But I will tune into Mark Levin. He tweeted Gorsuch blows it , big time.

[JudgemAll]

He completely errs. There is no such thing as civil liberties for immigrants, period. The limited government gamemanship is meant for citizens judging each other as peers.

Gorsuch just favored settling the country by looting or force of arms.