Posted on 04/18/2018 4:09:15 PM PDT by conservative98
The “but Gorsuch…” rallying cry for voting GOP is starting to run out of gas as the judiciary gets worse and worse and even “our” appointees find some convoluted reason to go along with the left-wing judicial supremacists who make a mockery of the will of the people.
In case you thought courts granting new rights to criminal aliens was a pastime only of the left-wing judges on the Ninth Circuit, think again. Yesterday, Neil Gorsuch joined with the four most extreme-left justices to rule that an entire statute of Congress mandating deportation for criminal aliens convicted of a crime of violence is “unconstitutionally vague.” While many conservative commentators defending and even championing his opinion are focusing on the regulatory aspect of Gorsuch’s rationale as it applies to general criminal law, they fail to observe that this is truly unprecedented and divorced from our entire history of immigration jurisprudence on deportations.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
This commentary is moronic, all he said was that “violent crime” is too vague and he sent it back to the court to define what “violent crime” was. Make it a felony, or something else defined, and it’ll be good to go.
What did anyone expect from a guy that lived and socialized in the republic of boulder colorado?
What exactly did Gorsuch find vague ? There must be some substance to his ruling...I HOPE.
I think we are in the minority, but I agree with you.
Because “violent crime” is something left up to the judgement of the judge or deporting authority. What’s “violent?” If the judge or deporting authority is a democrat that’s probably only rape or murder 1. Just make it something defined by law, like a felony, and judgement of the judge or deporting authority doesn’t even come into the equation. I really can’t believe I need to explain this.
“Gorsuch really screwed us on immigration.Most of the commentary has been bad on this and here is why”
Gorsuch didn’t screw anyone. He stood up for sound constitutional principles, but most people have attacked him without reading him.
Here is where you can find Gorsuch’s concurring opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Here is what Gorsuch wrote:
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution,
the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously
construed that the mere expression of disfavored
opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders
cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of
Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as
invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary
power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark
about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and
courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a
lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject
to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration
and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine
that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction
involves a substantial risk that physical force may be
used. But what does that mean? 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.”
At what point does it become mandatory, for our own survival, to just tell the judiciary to GFY.
I happen also to agree with you and I don’t think we are actually in the minority. See my post #8 on what Gorsuch actually said. To someone who believes that the Constitution should have sharp edges that cut deeply (to quote WFB) Gorsuch sounds pretty good.
If you can’t deport them send them to California
Gorsuch will be the swing vote on the Court for the next 20 years.
Daniel Horowitz is now on my list of idiots useful to the other side. This isn't about granting rights to criminals. This is about restricting the powers of the federal government and limiting the reach of arbitrary and capricious bureaucrats [cf. our hero Scott Pruitt doing in the deep state conspiracy called the EPA].
Have you read Gorsuch’s concurring opinion? If so, then should know that the late, great Justice Scalia ruled the same in a similar case. If not, then you are an idiot for criticizing something you haven’t read.
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power,” he writes, “leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.”
Justice Gorsuch writes that Congress is free to define 16b with more specific crimes. But until it does the vague statute violates the due process right of individuals by giving license to police and prosecutors to interpret laws as they wish. This defense of individuals against arbitrary state power was a Scalia staple. Justice Gorsuch adds that vague laws also threaten the Constitution’s ordered liberty because they “risk allowing judges to assume legislative power.”
That sounds a lot like Scalia to me.
This is a very disturbing line of argument. Gorsuch is suggesting that it is automatically the court’s job to control the permissibility of a deportation.
Gorsuch suggested no such thing.
I hope you are right about us not being in the minority. However, based on some of the comments I have seen on this site regarding Gorsuch’s concurring opinion, I am not at all confident that we are.
It’s the legislatures who screwed up. It’s not like there aren’t actual crimes listed. This was just one of those kitchen sink clauses. The legislature now has an obligation to fix it.
Scalia doesn’t sound like Gorsuch. That was criminal law, and this is for immigration. To compare the two is dishonest.
Hope you’re right, and my gut says you are though I haven’t studied the ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.