Gorsuch is dead wrong on immigration

Conservative Review ^ | April 18, 2018 | Daniel Horowitz

[Labyrinthos]

No, the "conservative"/originalism side concerning immigration is defaulting to the plenary power doctrine."Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will." Justice Robert H. Jackson as quoted by Justice Scalia in a 1994 case.

You are correct in that Scalia wrote this, but you have take the quote out of context to support your agenda, which makes you no better than CNN. And if we decide to give due process to aliens, then we ought to do so in a way that complies with the 5th Amendment.

[rollo tomasi]

How is it out of context? Read his full dissent of Zadvydas v. Davis. It's pretty short and sweet.

"We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal–which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed–has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry." Part of Scalia's context.

[rollo tomasi]

Scalia’s point has always been Congress and the Executive have the authority and due process does not necessarily protect immigrants *targeted* for deportation or jail. He was hands off in terms of immigration policies. If they can’t deport, jail, if they can deport, deport.

[napscoordinator]

I thought so too until I read Scalia voted the same way awhile back when he was alive.

[napscoordinator]

You saying this, makes me comfortable with his decision.

[Labyrinthos]

To quote Mark Levin: “Listen and I will teach you something.”

Zadvydas v. Davis concerns procedural due process — a person’s rights once they are lawfully within the judicial system. Sessions v. Dimaya (the “Gorsuch case” at issue) concerns substantive due process — whether the person should be within the judicial system in the first place. The difference is significant.

[rollo tomasi]

Wrong guy to quote since even Levin stated Gorsuch screwed the pooch in his opinion.

The point was what would Scalia rule. The tell was his promotion of plenary power aided by the Law of Nations Clause concerning the legislative and Executive positions concerning immigration. Again, he did not believe in judicial limits concerning immigration laws. He most likely would of ruled with Thomas and the rest based on his enumerated positions on immigration which were widely known.

I would think aggravated felony carrying a sentence of more than one year, plus case law stating that first degree burglary constituted a violent act under section 16(b) would be cause for deportation.

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Wonder if he has been compromised in some way...

[conservative98]

I also thought so too until I heard the Mark Levin show tonight. Scalia was voting on a criminal law, and Gorsuch voted on immigration and totally messed it up. People are not being honest on the comparison. I’ll see if there is audio later.

[sushiman]

Michael Savage predicted Gorsuck was going to be a disappointment and he was right , yet again .

[Teacher317]

I also thought so too until I heard the Mark Levin show tonight. Scalia was voting on a criminal law, and Gorsuch voted on immigration and totally messed it up. People are not being honest on the comparison. I’ll see if there is audio later.

The requirement for laws to not be vague applies to all areas of law. Immigration law does not get an exception just because it is a political football today.

In this case, the question is: is burglary a "violent crime"? As it happened, no person was present at the time of the crime. Clearly, different judges can reasonably differ in their answers as to whether this is "violent"... thus the law is unnecessary vague. It has NOTHING to do with Trump, Left vs Right, or any other political nonsense. Congress screwed up in the wording of the law. Congress needs to fix it. Period.

[conservative98]

The other 4 justices found the law specific enough. Congress is insane. They don’t fix anything. The other I’ll get the Levin audio later to show what a screwup Gorsuch did.

[Hugin]

Gorsuch will be the swing vote on the Court for the next 20 years.

Hopefully not. There's a good chance Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer will be gone before Trump is, and we can get a 7-2 majority.

[napscoordinator]

Thank you. So much information out there and a lot of it is muck. Makes me so mad. However, having you set the story straight is so helpful.

[Electric Graffiti]

Mark Levin Show Podcast Wednesday - April 18, 2018 | Levin Show 04/18/2018 [Youtube 1:51:47]

[ExGeeEye]

It is not necessary for illegal aliens to be convicted of other crimes, violent or not, for them to be removed.

^^THIS^^

The only crime that needs a specific definition here is the crime of being inside the borders of the United States of America without citizenship or permission.

[ExGeeEye]

And, permission can and should be revoked upon conviction of any crime, vaguely violent or not.

[BillyBoy]

>> I suspect these attacks against Gorsuch are part of a coordinated NeverTrump attack to undermine one of Trump’s major wins. <<

Trump blasts immigration ruling made by SCOTUS pick Neil Gorsuch

Wow, even President Trump is on the NeverTrump backwagon now! Shame on President Trump for smearing President Trump by question Gorsuch's "conservative" decision!

[BillyBoy]

>> I suspect these attacks against Gorsuch are part of a coordinated NeverTrump attack to undermine one of Trump’s major wins. <<

Trump blasts immigration ruling made by SCOTUS pick Neil Gorsuch

Wow, even President Trump is on the NeverTrump backwagon now! Shame on President Trump for smearing President Trump by questioning Gorsuch's "conservative" decision!

[gogeo]

It’s 5-D chess, don’t you know?