Gorsuch Joins With Liberals To Make Deportations Harder – IOTW Report

Gorsuch Joins With Liberals To Make Deportations Harder

Tuesday, 17 April 2018, 16:00 MJA Uncategorized 28

Daily Caller: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of federal law Tuesday that allows the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of certain felonies.

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the court’s four liberals to strike down the law, in keeping with longstanding conservative anxieties about sweeping and imprecise grants of power to bureaucrats and regulators.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a five-member majority.

At issue in the case was a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that permits the deportation of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The law lists a number of convictions that qualify as “aggravated felonies,” then includes a catchall provision for “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.”

James Dimaya, a lawful permanent resident, was slated for deportation to the Philippines following two convictions for first-degree burglaries. An immigration judge ordered his removal under the INA’s catchall provision, as first-degree burglary does not appear on the list of qualifying offenses. In turn, Dimaya challenged the provision, arguing it is unconstitutionally vague.  more here

28 Comments on Gorsuch Joins With Liberals To Make Deportations Harder

  6. You might be right @tsunami.

    But it looks like this Supreme Court Justice is another swampy mcswampface.

    Criminals that come to this country do not deserve permanent residence. They need a ride halfway home.

    18

  7. At first glance I thought, just great, John Roberts 2.0. Drill down and it’s a legit ruling. The onus is on congress (shocking) to clean up poorly written language that bureaucrats along the way twisted to mean whatever they wanted it to mean.
    At issue “violent crime”. Clear as mud. Given the ❄️ definitions of what constitutes violence, it needs to be clarified, otherwise we’re subjected to… whatever David Hogg’s offense du jour.
    Gorsuch may be Congress’ biggest pain in the arse, expecting them to work.

    22

  11. PHenry,

    What if this ruling leads to a reformation of the deportation laws so they aren’t “vague” at all?

    See, on the surface he looks like he caved. Below the surface however…….

    11

  14. Here’s an idea… Don’t expect judges to be political. Write better laws without weasel terms in them, which makes them unclear and easily overturned in the SCOTUS.

    7

  16. @cato April 17, 2018 at 4:50 pm

    > If it weren’t for ambiguity most laws would be Constitutionally illegal.

    Good thing the Constitution used such plain language about regulation in lieu of legislation.

    1

  18. BFH I agree with you 100 is congress that needs to fix that law people need to read that . He is going by the constitution. Like I said that congress needs to fix that.

    4

  23. the Kagan decision states “The combination of “indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime [and] indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony,” id., at ___, resulted in “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,”
    the whole Kagan decision hinges on their interpretation of a ‘violent crime’ where the main illegal alien ‘defendent’ was caught for burglary (again & again) & even though he had a firearm, it wasn’t sufficiently ‘violent’ enough … so the whole law is ‘vague’. basically, nothing under this determination is can be defined as a ‘crime’ .
    (Kagan also does a hatchet job on Thomas’ opinion)
    Gorsuch writes “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. ”
    uh … isn’t that what Judges are for, in the first place? … as I noted before … under this logic, ‘basically’ nothing is truly a crime …. because ….. ‘no one knows’! he goes on a quest for ‘vagueness’ by citing Krazy Kali law about pushy door-to-door salesmen?
    I look to the day when, according to Kagan’s & Gorcuck’s ruling that one will be unable to actually commit crime because lawmakers didn’t specify the exact time & day that the crime could not be committed
    & I shudder when Gorcuck’s ambiguity about ‘vagueness’ starts interpreting the Second Amendment

  25. @Tony R April 17, 2018 at 6:07 pm

    “How about congress re-write the law to include ANY felony or misdemeanor? Would that make the liberals on the SC happy?”

    No that would not make them happy. They would scream that it is too exact and has insufficient nuance.

    2

  26. A guy burgles a house; he should be shot dead.
    That violent enough?

    Deportation would probably save the maggot’s life.

    And as for “laws” being written vaguely, that’s pretty much done on purpose, to provide latitude for lawyers.

    izlamo delenda est …

Comments are closed.

iOTWreport.com ©2024 ----- iOTWreport is not responsible for the content of comments. All opinions in comments are solely the commenter's.