Gorsuch sides with liberal wing in SCOTUS decision involving immigration/civil right

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[PolishHeadlock]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...h-supreme-court-votes-immigration-case-2018-4

• The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants convicted of crimes is too vague.
• The 5-4 ruling handed the Trump administration a loss on a signature issue.
• Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, joined the court's more liberal justices to cast the deciding vote.

WASHINGTON - 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," a conviction of which 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 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 for repeat criminals.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the 2015 decision "tells us how to resolve this case."


The decision is a loss for the Trump administration, which, like the Obama administration before it, had defended the provision at issue before the Supreme Court. And it comes amid a focus on immigration by President Donald Trump.

The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him, arguing, among other things, that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.

The case was initially argued in January 2017 before a court that was short a member because the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016, had not been filled. The eight-member court didn't decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4.

After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the courtlast April, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.

 

[Rod1]

I think people opposed Gorsuch for his stances on religious "freedom" and big money.

 

[sangreporsangre]

For such a serious matter, this thread deserves a better title.

 

[Prime Rib]

Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm shocked. The incompetence of this administration.

 

[bobgeese]

If you’re fighting for people who commit crimes to stay in America, you can go fuck yourself.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

For such a serious matter, this thread deserves a better title.

Damnit

 

[PolishHeadlock]

If you’re fighting for people who commit crimes to stay in America, you can go fuck yourself.

No, just found it interesting that Trump's handpicked man went to the Left on this.

 

[Black Helicopters]

Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm shocked. The incompetence of this administration.

I was expecting right wingers to be the first to react without knowing what they're saying but you're holding it down for the libs

This law has been challenged since '92 and has been around since '65

Even the Obama administration defended it according to the article

If you’re fighting for people who commit crimes to stay in America, you can go fuck yourself.

This is the kind of post I was expecting. It isn't about protecting immigrants but about the language of a law.

 

[bobgeese]

I was expecting right wingers to be the first to react without knowing what they're saying but you're holding it down for the libs

This law has been challenged since '92 and has been around since '65

Even the Obama administration defended it according to the article

This is the kind of post I was expecting. It isn't about protecting immigrants but about the language of a law.

You’re pretending a large portion of the left doesn’t do exactly what I stated.


No shit it’s a wording issue with the law.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

Gorsuch follows the law to a tee. He really isn't liberal or conservative nor does he have an agenda. With that being said i don't like this decision but it is what it is. If Gorsuch thinks the law is too vague then it probably is.

 

[kpt018]

It's still mind boggling to me that so many of these SC decisions fall along partisan lines and that a departure is news. Can the reading of the law have a political bias? It still bugs me.

 

[Prime Rib]

I was expecting right wingers to be the first to react without knowing what they're saying but you're holding it down for the libs

This law has been challenged since '92 and has been around since '65

Even the Obama administration defended it according to the article

This is the kind of post I was expecting. It isn't about protecting immigrants but about the language of a law.

My mistake. When I read "handed the Trump administration a loss on a signature issue" I assumed it came from them.

 

[Prime Rib]

It's still mind boggling to me that so many of these SC decisions fall along partisan lines and that a departure is news. Can the reading of the law have a political bias? It still bugs me.

 

[Seano]

How could this be? I thought Gorsuch was bought and paid for and in Trump's pocket?

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Sounds like a poorly written law. I'm shocked. The incompetence of this administration.

I would venture that the vagueness is on purpose so there can be wiggle room in applying it as broadly as desired.

 

[PureDominance]

Incredible! Fantastic development. What a week for Trump and the deplorables! If you listen carefully enough you can hear their cries of anguish. Seriously, I'm starting to think the Trump presidency was a better outcome for us than Hillary winning. This guy is single-handedly ripping the GOP to shreds. Simply incredible.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Gorsuch follows the law to a tee. He really isn't liberal or conservative nor does he have an agenda. With that being said i don't like this decision but it is what it is. If Gorsuch thinks the law is too vague then it probably is.

Could really be this, if I read it correctly, this law was used by trump and Obama, so it doesn't seem so much a partisan decision.

 

[Lord Coke]

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

Here is the opinion how about you guys try reading it before posting. I haven't yet so I don't have any opinion on this at this time.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It's still mind boggling to me that so many of these SC decisions fall along partisan lines and that a departure is news. Can the reading of the law have a political bias? It still bugs me.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe a more deep understanding of legal theory would change my mind but I can't trust a system like that. How a supreme court holds such power, how they can stretch meanings that sound so clear to me.

I don't mean this case in particular.