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 guess we’ll have to wait for the stooges in Congress to rewrite this law. This doesn’t look good at all. Congress is not on our side despite the destruction to our country in contravention to spirit of the Declaration and Constitution.
Gorsuch was supposed to be conservative...hahahaaha! SAD. HRC must have blackmailed him too, like Roberts, or these SCJerks are just as leftist as half the country!
May God remove those in SC, that Trump could actually replace with a REAL CONSERVATIVE without a bleeding heart for insanity!
Couldn’t crimes of violence be defined within one page or even one sentence? It implies bodily harm. If it was simply stated as rape, assault, aggravated assault, manslaughter and murder, would that not be enough? I personally think the bar should be quite low and this isn’t necessarily a low bar.
*
Not to mention, the whole case, all the way from the deportation proceeds through the filing of the petition for cert in the Supreme Court, happened during the Obama Administration. The only thing the Trump Administration did was have its solicitor general’s office argue the case and, maybe, file the brief.
So you want judge’s to act like the liberals but just come down on the conservative view of things? The Liberals clearly look at the result they want and build come crazy logic to get it. I know why we’d want “our guys” to do the same but I also know why it’s not a good idea”
If I am not mistaken, this ruling only applies to legal resident immigrants; NOT illegal aliens. Unlike the mass media headlines, this appears a very minor loss that could be easily legislatively reconciled...
So let me get this straight....”crimes of violence” is too vague but “hate crimes”, which are unconstitutionally used to stiffen sentencing, is crystal clear. Right - got it...
Aliens who are here illegally are deportable, regardless of whether they committed any other crime or not. The statute at issue in this case only applied to aliens here legally (on a student visa, a green card, etc.).
ouch!
8 US Code 1182
He can’t deport me because I was born here to American-born citizens.
Do illegal aliens have the right to due process that you and I enjoy? What does Mexico do with illegal entrants?
The intent of the first ten amendments is not to grant a list of rights - they are already pre-existent per the Declaration of Independence. They are a sampling of rights the feds are not to violate as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Aliens did not delegate the powers to the feds via the Constitution. "We the People" did via the States. Aliens are not under the purview of the Constitution. They are like U.S. territories, under federal authority but outside the purview of the Constitution.
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.
The Constitution trumps whatever uncited portion of Federalist 78 you are referring.
However, Federalist 78 does say, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."
An invalid law or unconstitutional decision may be ignored by any other branch of government and/or the sovereign states. However, good faith demands they give a reasoned constitutional basis for their rejection of such federal acts.
Someone is going to offer a $2 bounty on illegals & nothing the USSC can do will stop it. Then the Genie will be out of the bottle.
The law needs to be rewritten with more specificity, so that’s what the lawmakers need to get at ASAP before November. Gorsuch’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to deliver victories for Trump or any other President.
Re: 86
Best post of the thread. Thanks.
In reading on the case the term violence was used too broadly, they had use that term to deport someone who committed burglary. These are legal residents by the way.
Trying to show his independence from the President who appointed him! Nothing Ruth B. Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, S. Sotomayor, or E. Kagan ever have done
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.