Posted on 04/17/2018 10:09:29 AM PDT by Leaning Right
Justice Neil Gorsuch provided the decisive vote Tuesday in a Supreme Court ruling striking down a key provision that made it easier to deport immigrants convicted of violent crimes, in a blow to the Trump administration.
President Trump's Supreme Court pick has largely sided with the conservative members of the bench since his appointment, but sided with the liberal wing on Tuesday.
The court said the part of the law in question is too vague to be enforced.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What a fool!
If he voted it down because it’s too vague, that’s not so bad.
Change the word “violent crime” in the statute to “felony,” and it should be fine.
“Since the Court said that the law was too vague, it just needs to be rewritten. “
Good luck with that, given that The Congress is a do nothing organization. Today, two of the three branches of government have ceased to function to facilitate the will of the people. There is not a nickel’s worth of difference between the lazy, worthless SCOTUS and the House and Senate. The country would be 100% better without both of them as they exist today.
Media making this a “man bites dog” story LOL!
(Scalia said the same as Gorsuch)
They have a list of specific crimes....they just need to do an add on.
> Change the word “violent crime” in the statute to “felony,” and it should be fine. <
Excellent suggestion.
We all say we want judges who apply the law without political or even policy considerations. That is what Gorsuch did here, it appears to me. Based only upon reading this article (maybe there is more to it): Gorsuch said that a law applicable to “crimes of violence” cannot be applied to a burglary in which there was no violence. The opposing position was that burglary is necessarily a crime of violence. IDK about that. I get it, but laws should be specific enough that it is reasonably clear when they do and do not apply.
Well maybe it is too vague. Rewrite it.
I believe this was an Obama provision that was struck down for being vague. And it was.
I think this was a good call.
I think this is proof (maybe on purpose) that Gorsuch serves the law not a political agenda.
I agree that if the statute under review says “violent crime” then it is indeed too vague.
Congress just needs to write a clear version ASAP.
Rewrite it to say convicted of any felony.
There is a positive way to look at this. When was the last time a lefty justice voted against the party line? Conservatives are far more likely to put the law before partisan orthodoxy. That, as hard to swallow as it may be sometimes is to their credit.
Well then they can deport all white folks since we all commit felonies by breathing air without a clean air mitigation on permit or some such nonsense. That is far worse, but it goes to the point of not wanting innocent citizens because you cannot control them.
MSM is attempting to portray this as a rebuke of Trump’s policies. Don’t fall for it. It is a minor correction sending it back to Congress and telling them they need to be more specific in their wording.
Yeah, and Roberts betrayal on Obamacare is actually a GOOD thing because he said its a "tax" and "rebuked the Obama administration" and now the GOP is gonna win in a landslide and Obama is gonna be a one-term President and Congress & future President Romney is gonna repeal Obamacare ASAP... blah blah blah....
The law IS too vague. That’s bad law. SCOTUS ruled correctly.
Sometimes, in interpreting the Constitution correctly you have to support results that you do not like.
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.