Posted on 04/18/2018 8:53:17 PM PDT by conservative98
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is dead wrong on deporting criminal aliens and that’s bad news for President Trump’s immigration agenda, explained LevinTV host Mark Levin on his national radio show Wednesday evening.
Levin addressed the chorus of “conservative” and libertarian legal commentators who have lauded Gorsuch’s decision to join with the Supreme Court’s leftist wing on a recent immigration case. Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion that the law in question was too vague. Put simply, Gorsuch equated federal immigration law with criminal law and, as a result, determined that a criminal alien couldn’t be automatically deported.
Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz then joined the show to discuss his latest article about the ruling. Horowitz explained the case in detail and pointed out why, contrary to Gorsuch’s ruling, immigration law is different from criminal law when it comes to due process rights. Horowitz further outlined what this means for the GOP’s ability to address America’s illegal immigration problem.
“A lot of people defending Gorsuch aren’t paying attention to the jurisprudential velocity of what’s taking place at the lower courts,” and what this court decision will likely mean in the long run, Horowitz explained.
“This is like pouring gasoline on a burning fire,” Horowitz added, because of how open-borders groups, judges, and politicians will now be able to use the ruling to fit their agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
Gorsuch wants laws to be crystal clear and solid - leaving them vague and “open to interpretation” sucks the big one - he was pretty much telling them to clean it up and properly define it.
I really think you have this wrong.
Gorsuch wrote a 31-page opinion of his own dissecting the reasons he voted the way he did.
Stop being so hysterical and think for yourselves. Bad cases make bad law.
well he did when “Clarence Thomas Miraculously Joins Supreme Court Ruling Against North Carolina Gerrymandering”. remember that one?
“Then,Congress needs to change that law.”
It seems like nearly all of our problems go back to Congress actually doing it’s job.
They manage never to get around to the difficult problems, because that requires hard work, and they are averse to anything that approaches hard work.
I thought we hated Mark Levin. Why are we now agreeing with his views on an opinion by a Donald Trump appointee? Did I miss a memo?
“Deportation is NOT a punishment. Deportation is an EXTENSION OF SOVEREIGNTY, the constitutional right of a people to determine for themselves who they are and who can enter the country, who can stay and who must go.”
Bingo
I guess getting your balls cut off is now part of the SCooTUS initiation....
What the hell is wrong with you, dude? Vague laws that can be abused are bad news, even when you agree with the outcome.
Put the word “immigration” in something and too many “Conservatives” have an immediate knee jerk reaction that stops reading, or thinking any further and let’s them think they already know the immediate issue and the problem - even from a guy like Mark Levin.
Gorsuch was not agreeing with the Left on immigration. He was agreeing with Scalia on the error and hazards of vague (opaque, not transparent) law.
Although you can get the word “immigration” in the case, it also was about a legal resident, not an illegal alien.
If Congress would quit writing laws they don’t really complete, and with them hand the executive branch legal blank checks to do with as they please, cases like this one wouldn’t come up.
Actually, he did just that recently in the gerrymandering decision. Nice try, tho.
A legal resident is still a foreign national.
Gorusch agreed with the liberals that foreigners are entitled to due process with respect to immigration law, this is a radical position to take on a matter when it was established precedence that immigrant visa violations would treated to cancellation and deportation.
This can have far reaching impact and the activist liberals in the judiciary will try to weaken the immigration system.
Never mistake an Episcopalian for a Christian.
IF Goresuch is consistent in this line of reasoning, it's ultimately a win for us. (imagine some of the really vague EPA stuff for example) If, however, he is only interested in applying that reasoning for cases involving illegals, then not so much. Ultimately, it's going to take time to get a handle on his judicial philosophy.
I think people interested in restraining the scope of government are freaking out prematurely, and the left is crowing prematurely as well.
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.