Levin: Why Gorsuch teaming with the Left on immigration is disastrous to Trump's agenda

Conservative Review ^ | April 18, 2018 by | Nate Madden

[conservative98]

Trump’s first SCOTUS pick gave a HUGE gift to the open-borders crowd.

[conservative98]

Audio:

https://soundcloud.com/conservativereview/levin-discusses-what-gorsuchs-latest-ruling-means-for-trumps-immigration-agenda

[Az Joe]

Scalia had the same opinion as Gorsuch in this case. It was a vague law.

[FredZarguna]

Correct, and the talking heads and bloggers saying that he simply followed an 8-1 decision already written by Scalia are whistling past the graveyard, because 4 of the the judges who concurred with Scalia's decision did not believe that it applied to this case, and they didn't side with Gorsuch, either.

This decision is very, very bad news. It will make it virtually impossible to characterize illegal aliens who commit violent felonies as violent, even when their crimes are as egregious as armed robbery or murder.

The remedy, to pass a new immigration law, is completely beyond reach given the composition and rules of the Senate, and frankly, even if McConnell nuked the filibuster, I don't think we'd have enough votes to change the law even then.

I don't blame Trump, but it looks very much like we've been had, again.

[FredZarguna]

False.

Scalia wrote an opinion for an 8-1 majority, and was joined by all four of the conservatives currently sitting on the court.

NOT ONE of them agreed that Scalia's opinion in that case applied to this one.

The claim that this ruling is anything other than a complete disaster "because Scalia" is 100% BS.

[BillyBoy]

I don't recall Justice Scalia ever being the LONE GOP judge to side with the Ruth Bader Ginsburg wing of the court to give the left a narrow 5-4 win on SCOTUS.

That's more along the lines of what Justice Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor would do.

[Electric Graffiti]

What a fargin disaster.

[dirtboy]

Trump’s first SCOTUS pick gave a HUGE gift to the open-borders crowd.

Bullcrap. A Constitutionalist judge will sometimes return a ruling we don't like politically, such as in this case when the law is poorly written. You might like the end results of what that law intended, but due process still needs to be observed, lest we get another version of civil asset forfeiture.

[BillyBoy]

>> but it looks very much like we've been had, again. <<

GOP presidents keep setting up the "it doesn't matter what his background or PERSONAL views are, because the judge's JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY is originalist" football, and gullible conservatives keep trying to kick it.

After 40 years of being screwed by so-called "strict constructionist" judges on federal courts, its time to try something new.

[R_Kangel]

.... The swamp beasties more than likely have a vast array of FBI files on just about everybody by now so the denizens are using them to their advantage. It’s what they do.

[Helicondelta]

“HUGE gift to the open-borders crowd.”

Nope. This will force congress to change the law.

[BillyBoy]

>> Bullcrap. A Constitutionalist judge will sometimes return a ruling we don't like politically <<

Bullcrap. Justice Scalia was on the court for three decades and issued thousands of rulings in that time. Name one time Justice Scalia was the LONE GOP judge to vote with the Ginsburg-Breyer-Kagan-Sotomayor wing of the court because of "constitutional" reasons due to his "textualist" philosophy of the way a law was written.

And the ruiling you guys keep citing had an overwhelmingly 8-1 majority agreeing it was vaguely written, rather than all the Democrats judges + 1 maverick GOP judge.

[BillyBoy]

>> Nope. This will force congress to change the law. <<

Yep, and the Roberts betrayal on Obamacare that says "its a tax" will force Congress to abolish Obamacare, too! (so said the apologists at the time)

[Reno89519]

I think this is overwraught. The problem is the law is vague and Gorsuch is not interested in writing law from the bench. Embrace that and lets get the law re-written!

[Governor Dinwiddie]

#11: "Nope. This will force congress to change the law.

Har-dee-har-har! That's a good one, the "chuckle of the day"!

[GOPJ]

Well, so much for listening to the GOPE.... Our ‘establishment’ sucks...

[dirtboy]

I was never that much of a fan of Scalia. He would find meanings in the Constitution to support his authoritarian desires, the prime example being Raich, where he found a reason for his viewpoints in the Necessary and Proper Clause. I vastly prefer a justice who exercises restraint in this day and age of gross federal overreach. Apparently you have no problem with such.

[dirtboy]

A question - do you agree with Scalia or Thomas on Raich? Do you agree with civil asset forfeiture as currently exercised by many jurisdictions?