To: Fai Mao
Even more “wow” is that Sotomayor wrote the opinion.
The decision by the 9th was that bad. They just threw out any law that contravened their feelings and went with it.
4 posted on
05/24/2021 8:34:52 PM PDT by
Regulator
(It's Fraud, Jim)
To: Regulator
Its the technical; nature of the case, not a anti-immigration ruling: He lost that status in 1991 following a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction in California state court, which, at the time, was deemed a crime of violence and therefore, an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that warranted deportation. He was deported in 1998.... In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Leocal v. Ashcroft that DUI crimes that lack mens rea, or criminal intent, or merely require negligence for a conviction, aren’t crimes of violence or aggravated felonies under federal law that necessarily require the convicted alien to be deported. “Palomar-Santiago’s removal order thus never should have been issued,” Sotomayor wrote.... During a telephonic hearing on the case on April 27, Erica L. Ross of the Department of Justice said Palomar-Santiago’s arguments would create a “significant loophole” in the law. He should have previously made the case in court, as other individuals did, that his prior offense wasn’t an aggravated felony, instead of raising it as a defense to the illegal reentry charge, she said.
15 posted on
05/26/2021 7:03:29 AM PDT by
daniel1212
(Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save + be baptized + follow Him!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson