Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Levin: Why Gorsuch teaming with the Left on immigration is disastrous to Trump's agenda
Conservative Review ^ | April 18, 2018 by | Nate Madden

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gorsuch; immigration; levin; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
Trump’s first SCOTUS pick gave a HUGE gift to the open-borders crowd.
1 posted on 04/18/2018 8:53:17 PM PDT by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservative98

Audio:

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


2 posted on 04/18/2018 8:54:27 PM PDT by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

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


3 posted on 04/18/2018 9:00:23 PM PDT by Az Joe (Gloria in excelsis Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98
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.

4 posted on 04/18/2018 9:00:48 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward 5th Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Az Joe
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.

5 posted on 04/18/2018 9:02:26 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward 5th Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Az Joe
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.

6 posted on 04/18/2018 9:02:30 PM PDT by BillyBoy (States rights is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

What a fargin disaster.


7 posted on 04/18/2018 9:02:38 PM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Jeff Sessions IS the insurance policy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98
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.

8 posted on 04/18/2018 9:08:36 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; Impy
>> 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.

9 posted on 04/18/2018 9:11:00 PM PDT by BillyBoy (States rights is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

.... 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.


10 posted on 04/18/2018 9:12:25 PM PDT by R_Kangel ( "A Nation of Sheep ..... Will Beget ..... a Nation Ruled by Wolves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

“HUGE gift to the open-borders crowd.”

Nope. This will force congress to change the law.


11 posted on 04/18/2018 9:14:41 PM PDT by Helicondelta (Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
>> 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.

12 posted on 04/18/2018 9:15:22 PM PDT by BillyBoy (States rights is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta
>> 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)

13 posted on 04/18/2018 9:18:56 PM PDT by BillyBoy (States rights is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

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!


14 posted on 04/18/2018 9:22:00 PM PDT by Reno89519 (No Amnesty! No Catch-and-Release! Just Say No to All Illegal Aliens! Arrest & Deport!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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

15 posted on 04/18/2018 9:23:04 PM PDT by Governor Dinwiddie (MAGA in the mornin', MAGA in the evenin', MAGA at suppertime . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

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


16 posted on 04/18/2018 9:23:33 PM PDT by GOPJ ( "Universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance." - Harvard professor Steven Pinker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
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.
17 posted on 04/18/2018 9:25:06 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
A question - do you agree with Scalia or Thomas on Raich? Do you agree with civil asset forfeiture as currently exercised by many jurisdictions?
18 posted on 04/18/2018 9:27:27 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson