Posted on 04/19/2018 1:12:27 PM PDT by BillyBoy
Trump blasts immigration ruling made by SCOTUS pick Neil Gorsuch BY Chris Sommerfeld President Trump took a veiled shot at his own Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, on Tuesday, claiming that a ruling he made on immigration law perpetuates "a public safety crisis." The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling — an unusual alignment in which Gorsuch sided with the four liberal justices for the first time — concerns a catchall provision of immigration law that defines what makes a crime violent. Gorsuch and the four liberal justices found that a provision of the law that makes it easier to deport foreigners convicted of "a crime of violence" is too vague to be enforced. Trump wasn't happy. "Today’s Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons," Trump tweeted. "This is a public safety crisis that can only be fixed by Congress — House and Senate must quickly pass a legislative fix to ensure violent criminal aliens can be removed from our society. Keep America Safe!" The decision is a major loss for the Trump administration, which has pushed for stricter enforcement of immigration law.
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Tuesday, April 17, 2018, 6:11 PM
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
>
I support Gorsuch in the broader principle that we can’t let legislatures get away with writing sloppy, crappy catch-all laws which are SO open to interpretation that virtually anyone could be found to be violating them.
It’s a shame this case had to deal with immigration, but it raised a serious issue with our laws generally.
>
Of all the ‘precedent’, the one they’ll overlook time and time again: Void for Vagueness.
That’s if it would get past any A1S8 cases (HAahahaha...I kill myself. Courts, Legislature & Executive caring about THOSE constraints and authorities).
Yep - Gorsuch is expected to do the right thing - not be a partisan toady....besides, it’s Congress’ law that doesn’t come up to snuff - they always obfuscate and leave a dozen facets that can be ‘interpreted” to suit the political winds of the day instead of just coming out with clean and clear laws.
While I didn't read through the entire opinion and dissent, I scanned through it for the main arguments involved. As such, I'd have to say the dissenters had the right of the case overall. That said, there is also something to be said with slapping down congress for abdicating its responsibilities in actually writing clear and understandable law. Far too often they write some nebulous crap and let executive agencies and the courts actually define what the law means.
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.
Laws are not even laws if they are not enforced. If we enforced current immigration laws we would not need a fence.
If we enforced laws against aiding illegals there would be no problems with sanctuary politicians either.
If we enforced laws on handling classified documents we would have heard the last of Hillary long ago.
Trump got it right...Congress is the culprit.
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.