This commentary is moronic, all he said was that “violent crime” is too vague and he sent it back to the court to define what “violent crime” was. Make it a felony, or something else defined, and it’ll be good to go.
What did anyone expect from a guy that lived and socialized in the republic of boulder colorado?
What exactly did Gorsuch find vague ? There must be some substance to his ruling...I HOPE.
“Gorsuch really screwed us on immigration.Most of the commentary has been bad on this and here is why”
Gorsuch didn’t screw anyone. He stood up for sound constitutional principles, but most people have attacked him without reading him.
Here is where you can find Gorsuch’s concurring opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Here is what Gorsuch wrote:
“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.”
At what point does it become mandatory, for our own survival, to just tell the judiciary to GFY.
If you can’t deport them send them to California
Gorsuch will be the swing vote on the Court for the next 20 years.
Daniel Horowitz is now on my list of idiots useful to the other side. This isn't about granting rights to criminals. This is about restricting the powers of the federal government and limiting the reach of arbitrary and capricious bureaucrats [cf. our hero Scott Pruitt doing in the deep state conspiracy called the EPA].
Have you read Gorsuch’s concurring opinion? If so, then should know that the late, great Justice Scalia ruled the same in a similar case. If not, then you are an idiot for criticizing something you haven’t read.
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power,” he writes, “leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.”
Justice Gorsuch writes that Congress is free to define 16b with more specific crimes. But until it does the vague statute violates the due process right of individuals by giving license to police and prosecutors to interpret laws as they wish. This defense of individuals against arbitrary state power was a Scalia staple. Justice Gorsuch adds that vague laws also threaten the Constitution’s ordered liberty because they “risk allowing judges to assume legislative power.”
That sounds a lot like Scalia to me.
It is not necessary for illegal aliens to be convicted of other crimes, violent or not, for them to be removed.
The ruling was not about “immigration” per se. It was about a federal law - was it clear & transparent, or opaque and easily interpreted sometimes strictly and sometimes not by different choice/interpretations of the executive branch at different times. It is common error that Congress makes, which has the affect of making law what the DOJ interprets it to be, instead of having that explicit definition in law by Congress. It is another form of Congressional abdication of its authority and responsibility.
Few also noticed that the case involved not an illegal immigrant but a legal resident.
I am tough on ILLEGAL immigration. I am also tough on runaway executive power which is often handed to the executive by Congress abdicating its duties and responsibilities, in more than one way.
It’s funny all the “Conservatives” caught on the catch-word “immigration” and ignoring that Gorsuch was aligned with the same judicial logic that Scalia used in a case that was cited by the court’s majority in the case - another case about a law with too little transparency to it, leaving too much wiggle room for a “nation of men, instead of a nation of laws”.
BS....look into it a little more.
Trump’s appointees sure do go out of their way to go against the conservative wish.
Everything that I have read indicates that Gorsuch did not rule that Trump is wrong.
He ruled that the law was poorly written and could lead to abuse by the government.
We are at present about to lose our freedom because of all of the poorly written laws that are open to abuse are are being abused. The forfeiture law, the rash of ant-gun laws, the Patriot Act, which is certainly misnamed, the EPA act, on and on and on.
Why would any truly conservative person want another poorly written law?
It appears that if the law is re-written with very clear guidelines and penalties, the law would pass the court.
To the above list of bad laws....add the special counselor. That should be a lesson to all.
Arguments over what constitutes a “violent crime” in federal criminal law and sentencing guidelines has been going on for years. I deal with it all of the time. It’s extremely complex stuff that some authors have no business even commenting on. Then for the news to print headlines like “Trump dealt huge blow on immigration” is absolutely absurd. Those people have no idea about the crime of violence argument in federal criminal law. It has nothing to do with Trump at all. Ridiculous.
What a disgrace.
I thought so too until I read Scalia voted the same way awhile back when he was alive.
Wonder if he has been compromised in some way...