Gorsuch isn't a Rubber Stamp...
Apr 18, 2018 05:57:27 #
Interesting that Gorsuch isn't going to be a rubber stamp...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/immigration-ruling-gorsuch-528749
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose confirmation President Donald Trump has long touted as one of his crowning achievements, cast the deciding v**e against the administration Tuesday on an issue long at the center of the president's agenda: deporting immigrants who commit crimes in the U.S.
The ruling was the first in which Gorsuch sided with the court's liberal justices in a 5-4 decision, providing the swing v**e for a result that could make it more difficult to deport immigrants who have committed violent crimes.
In a decision that ruffled feathers at the White House, Gorsuch agreed with the court's four Democratic-appointed justices that a clause in federal law allowing the deportation of foreigners found guilty of "a crime of violence" is unconstitutional because it is overly vague.
"What does that mean?" Gorsuch asked in a concurring opinion. "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 t***h 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," Gorsuch added.
The law does add a bit more definition to the standard, covering crimes that include actual violence, attempted violence or a threat of violence, but goes on to sweep in crimes that involve "a substantial risk [of using] physical force against the person or property of another." That last portion requiring an assessment of how likely a crime is to involve violence is too vague to be enforced, the high court ruled Tuesday.
Some seven and a half hours after the ruling came down, Trump offered his reaction on Twitter, overlooking — for the momen t— his appointee's role in the decision. Instead, the president, who was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for meetings with the Japanese prime minister, called for fast action by Congress to tighten the rules.
"Today’s Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons," wrote Trump. "This is a public safety crisis that can only be fixed by...Congress – House and Senate must quickly pass a legislative fix to ensure violent criminal aliens can be removed from our society. Keep America Safe!"
The Department of Homeland Security offered some criticism of the high court‘s action, saying it made Americans “more vulnerable.“
“Today‘s ruling significantly undermines DHS’s efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary, from the United States,“ DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton said. “By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us more vulnerable as a result.“
A Justice Department spokesman did not directly address the justices‘ opinions or legal rationale, but emphasized that the administration wanted Congress to step in to make it easier to deport immigrants who commit crimes.
“The Justice Department believes that certain crimes committed by an i*****l a***n, visa holder, or an alien otherwise granted lawful status in the United States, should trigger their removal,“ department spokesman Devin O'Malley said. “Therefore, we call on Congress to close criminal alien loopholes to ensure that criminal aliens who commit those crimes — for example, burglary in many states, drug trafficking in Florida and even sexual abuse of a minor in New Jersey — are not able to avoid the consequences that should come with breaking our nation’s laws.”
While the ruling on Tuesday could anger Trump, the argument that Gorsuch developed does advance his claim as an heir to the legal legacy of the conservative jurist he replaced: Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia wrote a similar opinion for the court in 2015, striking down a parallel provision that imposed minimum mandatory prison sentences of 15 years or greater on criminals who‘d committed three “violent felonies.“
The immigration case that was decided on Tuesday, Sessions v. Dimaya, was first argued at the Supreme Court in January 2017, three days before Trump‘s inauguration. The court — shorthanded because of Scalia's death and Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Barack Obama‘s nominee, Merrick Garland — apparently deadlocked.
The case was re-argued before the justices last October, once the court was back to full strength.
The Obama administration took the issue to the Supreme Court after a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that the clause was too vague to be used to deport James Dimaya, an immigrant from the Philippines who was convicted of two burglaries deemed to be aggravated felonies under the law even though there was no evidence of violence.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/immigration-ruling-gorsuch-528749
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose confirmation President Donald Trump has long touted as one of his crowning achievements, cast the deciding v**e against the administration Tuesday on an issue long at the center of the president's agenda: deporting immigrants who commit crimes in the U.S.
The ruling was the first in which Gorsuch sided with the court's liberal justices in a 5-4 decision, providing the swing v**e for a result that could make it more difficult to deport immigrants who have committed violent crimes.
In a decision that ruffled feathers at the White House, Gorsuch agreed with the court's four Democratic-appointed justices that a clause in federal law allowing the deportation of foreigners found guilty of "a crime of violence" is unconstitutional because it is overly vague.
"What does that mean?" Gorsuch asked in a concurring opinion. "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 t***h 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," Gorsuch added.
The law does add a bit more definition to the standard, covering crimes that include actual violence, attempted violence or a threat of violence, but goes on to sweep in crimes that involve "a substantial risk [of using] physical force against the person or property of another." That last portion requiring an assessment of how likely a crime is to involve violence is too vague to be enforced, the high court ruled Tuesday.
Some seven and a half hours after the ruling came down, Trump offered his reaction on Twitter, overlooking — for the momen t— his appointee's role in the decision. Instead, the president, who was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for meetings with the Japanese prime minister, called for fast action by Congress to tighten the rules.
"Today’s Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons," wrote Trump. "This is a public safety crisis that can only be fixed by...Congress – House and Senate must quickly pass a legislative fix to ensure violent criminal aliens can be removed from our society. Keep America Safe!"
The Department of Homeland Security offered some criticism of the high court‘s action, saying it made Americans “more vulnerable.“
“Today‘s ruling significantly undermines DHS’s efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary, from the United States,“ DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton said. “By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us more vulnerable as a result.“
A Justice Department spokesman did not directly address the justices‘ opinions or legal rationale, but emphasized that the administration wanted Congress to step in to make it easier to deport immigrants who commit crimes.
“The Justice Department believes that certain crimes committed by an i*****l a***n, visa holder, or an alien otherwise granted lawful status in the United States, should trigger their removal,“ department spokesman Devin O'Malley said. “Therefore, we call on Congress to close criminal alien loopholes to ensure that criminal aliens who commit those crimes — for example, burglary in many states, drug trafficking in Florida and even sexual abuse of a minor in New Jersey — are not able to avoid the consequences that should come with breaking our nation’s laws.”
While the ruling on Tuesday could anger Trump, the argument that Gorsuch developed does advance his claim as an heir to the legal legacy of the conservative jurist he replaced: Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia wrote a similar opinion for the court in 2015, striking down a parallel provision that imposed minimum mandatory prison sentences of 15 years or greater on criminals who‘d committed three “violent felonies.“
The immigration case that was decided on Tuesday, Sessions v. Dimaya, was first argued at the Supreme Court in January 2017, three days before Trump‘s inauguration. The court — shorthanded because of Scalia's death and Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Barack Obama‘s nominee, Merrick Garland — apparently deadlocked.
The case was re-argued before the justices last October, once the court was back to full strength.
The Obama administration took the issue to the Supreme Court after a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that the clause was too vague to be used to deport James Dimaya, an immigrant from the Philippines who was convicted of two burglaries deemed to be aggravated felonies under the law even though there was no evidence of violence.
Apr 19, 2018 17:53:52 #
Apr 19, 2018 23:18:34 #
Ya think he may be a Constitutionalist? How unique. Mike
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Evidently, Gorsuch isn't Scalia. He's the New Neutral Justice.
Apr 20, 2018 02:18:32 #
Apr 20, 2018 07:36:51 #
woodguru wrote:
Trump would get rid of him if he could.
He was too accommodating to the lefties during his hearing. I was disappointed, even more so now.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.