The Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration a loss on immigration — and Gorsuch

AP ^ | 4/17/18 | AP

[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."

[HKMk23]

Good takeaway.

It is unknown to many — even HERE at FR — that the BEST judges will always rule within the bounds of the law as it exists on the books; that if a State Legislature, or Congress has left gaps in the Law, the good judge cannot hand down a ruling that asserts on the basis of ethereal “emanations of penumbras” what ought to fill those gaps. The only proper ruling in a case that seeks to act on the sense of verbiage that isn’t in the Law, or is so imprecise that its meaning cannot be exactly determined, is to rule against the Plaintiff and drive them back to the Legislature, or to Congress to appeal to campaign for a change to the Law.

[Jim W N]

SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DIMAYA

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) virtually guarantees that any alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” after entering the United States will be deported... The residual clause, the provision at issue here, defines a“crime of violence” as “any other 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.” ...[The residual clause] was unconstitutionally “void for vagueness” under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, ___. Relying on Johnson, the Ninth Circuit held that §16(b), as incorporated into the INA, was also unconstitutionally vague.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf

Two problems:

1) the decision is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not protect aliens, only U.S. citizens.

2) The Supreme Court does NOT MAKE NATIONAL LAW. The Constitution empowers ONLY CONGRESS to legislate. The constitutional and legitimate scope of SCOTUS decisions reach only to the PARTIES of the case.

Thus Trump is not bound by this decision regarding James Dimaya because it is an unconstitutional decision and is certainly not bound from continuing efforts to deport aliens under The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

[Nero Germanicus]

Here’s the story from a conservative source:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/17/neil-gorsuch-joins-liberals-in-5-4-scotu

[wardaddy]

Legislative branch do your job

[rockinqsranch]

So now to Congress let’s get the law written so it’s NOT vague, and get on with business. Granted with this lot in Congress today that’s not a snap of the finger, but it isn’t an insurmountable task.

[CottonBall]

There’s no need to be snotty, I never said it was going to be a cakewalk. I was responding to a post that said that Congress now needs to fix the law.

[CottonBall]

scary close. I have a feeling all of their major decisions are going to be nailbiter’s for us.

[Cboldt]

- bump -

It's hard work getting to the facts. Yes indeed, it is.

[BillyBoy]

As many FReepers know, I was one of those FEW naysayers on Gorsuch, arguing that he would vote similarly to Sandra Day O'Connor, while his legions of fans on this board were convinced he was Scalia 2.0., on the basis that a judge claiming to be an "originalist" means they will magically ALWAYS vote the right way in the future, regardless of their own personal views (cuz you know, that always worked SO well in the past with judges like Roberts, Souter, etc., etc. < sarcasm> )

I stand by my belief that Gorsuch will be another Sandra Day O'Connor, and will generally vote the "right away" but will NOT vote to overturn any "landmark" liberal precedents like a "right" to an abortion and gay marriage, and that nominating Gorsuch did NOT "keep Trump's campaign promise to nominate a proven pro-life judge"

Now that he just pulled an Anthony Kennedy and sided with the court's 4 RAT judges to strike down conservative laws, are his fanboys still having orgasms over Gorsuch?

[BillyBoy]

>> When has a Left appointed SCOTUS ever sided with our side on the key issues? <<

Google Justices James Clark McReynolds and Byron "Whizzer" White

[veracious]

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
— Thomas Jefferson

Inter-branch issues are not decided by judges. Branches just operate around each other. The executive could arrest members of the other branches. Judges don’t decide.

[Syncro]

This is about ILLEGAL INVADERS, not citizens.

---

So it won’t change what Trump and us patriots want done

Good

[Syncro]

Who is any court to tell the president he cannot deport anybody?

_________________________________

True. Trump can just continue to do what is Constitutional his right to do as President of the United States.

Let them scream and snowflake out all they want.

MAGA

[Labyrinthos]

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment.
Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution,
the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously
construed that the mere expression of disfavored
opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders
cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as
one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of
Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as
invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary
power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark
about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and
courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a
lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject
to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration
and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine
that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction
involves a substantial risk that physical force may be
used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at
issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to
everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door
salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast
spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case
and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical
force? The truth is, no one knows. The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their
fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more...

I begin with a foundational question. Writing for the
Court in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___ (2015),
Justice Scalia held the residual clause of the Armed Career
Criminal Act void for vagueness because it invited
“more unpredictability and arbitrariness” than the Constitution
allows. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 6). Because the
residual clause in the statute now before us uses almost
exactly the same language as the residual clause in Johnson,
respect for precedent alone would seem to suggest
that both clauses should suffer the same judgment.

[BillyBoy]

>> Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning is completely different and distinct from that of Kagan and the libtard klan. You might disagree with him, but his reasoning is tied to the Constitution and is based on an original reading of the document. <<

Justice Anthony Kennedy would make the same argument when he sides with the court's liberal bloc and strikes down laws with a 5-4 vote, then publishes a concurrence and explains that he reached the same decision for DIFFERENT reasons than the Democrats on the court.

[caww]

Te point is Congress can’t fix the law when congress is broken to begin with.

[caww]

Te point is Congress can’t fix the law when congress is broken to begin with.

[CottonBall]

Why don’t you respond to the person I was responding to. You’re arguing with me when I said the exact same thing you are.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Arthur Wildfire! March.

[Davy Crocket]

Write the Statute more plainly where it defines what a crime is..