everyone wants to be liked.
it is human nature.
Becoming more and more rare that I judge or politician that is #MAGA. Deep state is real...
Scalia solution tames the justices.
Jeezus, not again.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-faithful-scalia-gorsuch-may-deciding-vote-immigrant/
Hard to call on this one - the press is Gaga “ooh Trump lost feel the burrrrn “ but Obama supported this law too and brought the case originally. So Obama is the ultimate loser here.
That said - the ruling looks correct - burglary isn’t inherently “violent” and if he is is badly worded or poorly constructed it shouldn’t be enforced as such. (Wish that Roberts had been consistent here with obamacare...)
Souter II?
WTF is vague about crime of violence or the intent of a foreign prototerrorist to access America via crime instead of work?
These morons are breeding terrorists
There is no right to become American, it is an earned privilege.
Gorsuch is obviously another scumbag scam globalist
WTF?!?!?!?!
We’ve been duped again.
Anything that the ASSPRESS writes is most likely, and should be presumed to be, a lie, unless and until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise.
Justice Gorsuch did NOT join Kagan’s opinion in full. He wrote a an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
HIS opinion, is actually the controlling opinion under the Marks rule, because it provided the narrowest grounds needed to get to the 5 votes on the judgment.
Read his opinion, NOT the ASSPRESS rendition of his opinion, and you will see that the ASSPRESS is lying, as usual.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Unlike Kagan, Gorsuch bases his reading of the law and the void for vagueness doctrine on an ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING of the Constitution and Constitutional principles.
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution,
the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously
construed that the mere expression of disfavored
opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders
cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of
Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as
invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary
power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark
about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and
courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a
lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject
to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration
and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine
that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction
involves a substantial risk that physical force may be
used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at
issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to
everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door
salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast
spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case
and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.”
Can it be any more clear that if Americans want their country back, it’s not going to happen WITHIN the system?!
We usually see "felony"....or a real crime.
Break into my house and I make it a crime of violence. Fool. These ivy league judges are fools.
The Supreme Court has absolutely NO SAY on matters of immigration.
That is solely the purview of the Executive Branch.
Gun laws are also usually vague. Is Gorsuch setting a standard for future challenges to gun laws?
It did not take Gorsuch to turn.
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.