Posted on 04/17/2018 8:03:55 AM PDT by BOARn
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants who have been convicted of crimes is too vague to be enforced.
The court's 5-4 decision concerns a provision of immigration law that defines a "crime of violence." Conviction for a crime of violence subjects an immigrant to deportation and usually speeds up the process.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco previously struck down the provision as too vague, and on Monday the Supreme Court agreed. The appeals court based its ruling on a 2015 Supreme Court decision that struck down a similarly worded part of another federal law that imposes longer prison sentences on repeat criminals.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the 2015 decision "tells us how to resolve this case."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I had qualms about Gorsuch too, maybe because he is a Coloradan, and many there are full-blown socialists.
He wants Congress to pass the Law
I'm OK with that decision I guess
The court's 5-4 decision concerns a provision of immigration law that defines a "crime of violence."
Congress can't write legislation worth **** - they're too busy preening for the cameras. They need to do their jobs and legislate a specific list of crimes.
What’s your take, Auh?
While this is politically “bad” this doesn’t seem to be an ideological slip up by Gorsuch.
He says in a concurring option that the law is vague as to what a “violent” crime is. He says
“no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it.”’
Is he right or full of it? Should he have voted “the right way” politically despite misgivings about the law?
In anycase I don’t imagine this is an Obamacare-level “betrayal”.
All rights listed in the first ten amendments ARE pre-existing rights.
Read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Determining whether a law conflicts with the Constitution is EVERYONE’s job. The Constitution does not say otherwise. Any Branch or State may validly reject an unconstitutional act of any other branch but good faith requires notification with a rational constitution-based explanation. This is not as difficult as you make it out to be.
For example, Roe v. Wade. There is NO constitutional basis for that decision whatsoever. It would not be hard for the states and the executive and legislative branch reject the decision with notification as to why. The best way would be for Congress to affirm states rights in the matter of abortion. But they won’t, so the states and executive branch must act accordingly, again with notification.
You forget that the ONLY legitimate authority of the feds, whether SCOTUS, POTUS, or Congress, is the Constitution. The feds have NO other basis of authority. So if the feds commit an especially clearly unconstitutional act, they have strayed beyond their legitimate power and MUST be ignored. Unconstitutional federal acts are acts of tyranny and it is the right and DUTY of every free man to reject and defeat tyranny.
And regardless of the constitutionality of the decision, the Constitution does NOT give SCOTUS the power to make national law. Even if their decision is constitutional, it reaches only to the parties of the case.
“ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.
I actually agree with Gorsuch on this one. “Crime of violence” certainly is a vague term, and it’s pretty weak tea to trigger a deportation of an otherwise legal alien. Had the guy been convicted of a clearly violent crime such as murder, I would have been tempted to look the other way and rule that, while the term “crime of violence” is vague, it unambiguously applied to the crime committed and thus the convict was properly warned of the repercussions of his actions. But burglary is not necessarily a violent crime (one may commit a burglary by picking a lock of an unoccupied house or vehicle without even breaking anything), so ICE basing its deportation on that law would be quite arbitrary. I agree with Gorsuch that Congress should amend the law to state unambiguously what crimes would subject an otherwise legal alien to deportation, and I would add that, in addition to mentioning “burglary” by name, attempting to vote or attempting to register to vote in violation of state or federal law should be from and center in the list of crimes that get an otherwise legal alien deported.
With all the respect to which you, Justice Thomas, et al are due, prior judicial interpretations of the phrase “crime of violence” is not sufficient to give the accused proper notice of the repercussions of his actions. The definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S. Code §16(b) is an “offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing
the offense.” What the heck does that mean? And even if a prior court had ruled that the average first-degree residential burglary met the test, it doesn’t follow that all first-degree residential burglaries fall under the definition. Congress should amend the law and use more specific language so that we aren’t at the mercy of what the Executive Branch in the first instance, and the Judicial Branch ultimately, decide that they want the law to mean on that particular day.
If such a vague standard was upheld in a law mandating the deportation of an otherwise legal alien who has committed a felony (and served his time), what’s to say that next time a similarly vague standard won’t be upheld in a law that takes away the right to keep and bear arms of an otherwise legal gun-owner who has committed a felony (and served his time)? Criminal laws require specific descriptions, not vague and broad brushstrokes to be filled in later by those enforcing the law and those interpreting the law.
Yeah, but it’s been a while . . . .
“Also, the immigrant in this case was not illegal. He was a permanent legal resident.”
I don't see this particular decision as being an Obamacare-level betrayal either. Take by itself, its actually a pretty minor legal decision.
Rather, I see it in the first in a long line of decisions where Gorsuch will turn out to be a Sandra Day O'Connor type "swing vote" on the court that will give the Dem bloc on a court a 5-4 victory on social issues.
If you judged on O'Connor solely by her first year or two on the court, you'd conclude that Reagan made a great conservative pick. She voted with Rehnquist 90% of the time her first year on the court, more than any other judge on the court at that time. None of those decisions were particularly important legal matters, but she certainly proved to be more ideologically Republican than Democrat.
After a few years, she began voting with the Dems on a handful of minor cases, being the deciding vote on a number of 5-4 decisions. Then the dam broke in the late 80s/early 90s when some MAJOR precedents had to be decided, and O'Connor remained the 5th vote to deliver a leftist victory on numerous "landmark" decisions on social issues, though she remained overall "conservative" on her track record on the court.
I don't recall any 5-4 decisions where Scalia was the LONE GOP appointee to join the Ruth Bader Ginsburg bloc of the court. Hpwever, I do remember numerous times where that was an Anthony Kennedy/Sandra Day O'Connor type move.
For what its worth, the current SCOTUS justice who really IS a "Scalia type nominee" (namely, Justice Alito, who was nicknamed "Scalito" when he was a lower court nominee) stood with the conservative justices and AGAINST Gorsuch and the Democrat judges on this one.
There's also the fact that RAT presidents haven't had the opportunity to pick nearly as many SCOTUS judges in recent years. Carter got 0, Clinton and Obama got 2 each. So that's a total of 4 RAT judges in the last 40+ years, and their track record was a perfect 4-0 in getting ideological leftists.
If we looked at lower court federal judges, I'd be willing to bet Obama or Clinton "accidentally" appointed a judge who turned out to be far more conservative than they expected.
Supposedly Illinois Supreme Court justice Anne Burke (wife of a powerful Chicago Democrat alderman) was on Obama's short list. Had she ultimately been his nominee, I think she would have turned out to be a Byron White type judge who issued some pretty good rulings. She's been surprisingly good for a partisan Chicago RAT on the Illinois Supreme Court.
The bottom line is that its impossible for any President to tell how judges will vote after a lifetime appointment to a federal court. All the more reason why I'm in favor of term limits and mandatory retirement ages for federal judges, and vehemently against Senators rubber-stamping ANY judicial nominee the moment the candidate is announced.
Hey, can we count Stevens as an honorary Carter pick ?
Heh. He DOES seem like the kinda judge that would make ol' Jimmah tear up with pride.
That being said, after reading Bob Woodrow's The Brethren , I can kinda understand why Gerald Ford went with Stevens. He was in the awkward position of having to replace an a "progressive" icon on the court who had been there for many decades (William O. Douglas), and the heavily RAT controlled Senate pretty much told him they would destroy ANY nominee who was to the right of Nelson Rockefeller. Ford's initial thoughts was to appoint a GOP woman so he could play the sexism card against the RATs, but the only qualified woman was one of his cabinet members, and they would destroy her over charges of cronyism. Ford finally came up with two prominent GOP figures in legal circles who were considered to be apolitical centrists - he interviewed both and the first guy was quick-witted, flashy and full of himself. The second was humble, quiet, and self-depreciating. That guy was Stevens and that's who Ford went with.
That being said, over his many decades on the court, Stevens ended up veering so far left he began to make Darth Bader Ginsburg blush. Ford STILL claimed he was "pleased" with the pick and no regrets years later, which was inexcusable.
Now, I don't think Gorsuch is nearly as bad Stevens, but I'm seeing a lot of Stevens in Gorsuch with the low-key, modest, aw shucks, mainline protestant WASP convincing a bunch of gullible Senators that he only cares about following the rule of law and doing what's best for this country.
Seems to me this his vote on this, while resulting in an outcome that is unfortunate politically, is legally very defensible from a strict constructionist POV and despite how the others voted may even be correct (Justice AuH is no O’Connor). As a layperson I would not assume burglary fits under “a crime of violence”.
So I’m not taking it as evidence of your terrifying thesis. :o
Yes, I recall the interview with Ford when he was given the opportunity to say appointing Stevens was a mistake, at least in the long run, but he stood by him. I don’t know what it is about DC that makes people who go there lose their minds and their morals/principles (especially center-right people). Power and corruption, perhaps.
Wild Bill Douglas, a real treasure himself (*snort*) actually could’ve served until 1980. It would’ve been interesting to see if there would’ve been a similar Scalia-replacement style battle during an election year to stop Carter from choosing a successor. I imagine had Carter been successful, he probably would’ve picked his former AG, Griffin Bell. Bell might’ve been marginally better than Stevens.
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.