“This is based on the outcome of some case, not the reasoning the went into it. It’s not the outcome that matters but how he got there.”
It is not “some case” it is many cases. The Bush administration was in favor of illegal immigrants. Kethledge was a Bush appointee.
Here is one example:
In Nguyen v. Holder Kethledge prevented the deportation of a criminal with a green card who, after lying about an earlier drug conviction on his citizenship application, committed grand theft auto. Kethledge agreed with Jimmy Carter-appointee and notoriously left-leaning Judge Gilbert Merritt that his conviction was not an “aggravated felony” mandating deportation.
Later, the Supreme Court addressed a very similar case involving residential burglary. Four justices relied on the very same Nguyen case. That law was struck down as unconstitutionally vague, allowing the convicted burglar to avoid deportation.
The post to which I was responding only objected to an outcome.
"The Bush administration was in favor of illegal immigrants. Kethledge was a Bush appointee."
It's overly broad to say the administration was in favor of illegal immigrants. Regardless, being a Bush appointee (of which there are many) does not mean that a person agrees with every position of the Bush administration. It's not a meaningful objection.
"Kethledge agreed with Jimmy Carter-appointee and notoriously left-leaning Judge Gilbert Merritt that his conviction was not an “aggravated felony” mandating deportation."
OK, some substance. So, was he wrong? If so, how? Perhaps following the law the right answer is that it wasn't an "aggravated felony". If the law as written led to that result then that's what we're supposed to want. Someone that follows the law. If it didn't and he was wrong, then you have a meaningful objection. But the only way to show that is to explain what was wrong about it.
Here's the decision: 'https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17769770680674522297&q=Nguyen+v.+Holder+6th&hl=en&as_sdt=2003&as_vis=1'
Quoting: "This appeal raises the issue of whether the unauthorized use of an automobile constitutes a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C."
On its face, it doesn't seem unreasonable to answer that question as "NO". The decision was 3-0.