Replies

The ruling was not about “immigration” per se. It was about a federal law - was it clear & transparent, or opaque and easily interpreted sometimes strictly and sometimes not by different choice/interpretations of the executive branch at different times. It is common error that Congress makes, which has the affect of making law what the DOJ interprets it to be, instead of having that explicit definition in law by Congress. It is another form of Congressional abdication of its authority and responsibility.

Few also noticed that the case involved not an illegal immigrant but a legal resident.

I am tough on ILLEGAL immigration. I am also tough on runaway executive power which is often handed to the executive by Congress abdicating its duties and responsibilities, in more than one way.

It’s funny all the “Conservatives” caught on the catch-word “immigration” and ignoring that Gorsuch was aligned with the same judicial logic that Scalia used in a case that was cited by the court’s majority in the case - another case about a law with too little transparency to it, leaving too much wiggle room for a “nation of men, instead of a nation of laws”.