Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 10:40:00 GMT -5
www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-restricts-deportations-immigrant-felons-141221716.html
I said this when Gorsuch was nominated, and I'll say it again:
Yeah, I would have preferred Garland to Gorsuch. Yeah, I found McConnell's maneuvering to keep Garland off the court despicable and deeply problematic. Yeah, I am not going to like all of Gorsuch's rulings and actions. Yeah to all of that.
BUT -- I do not at all think he is the rubber stamp to Trumpism that Trump and the far right would like to see. I was expecting Trump to make a far worse choice of some ignorant, ill-qualified, alt-right yahoo (as, alas, he did for a good number of other open seats on the federal bench), and so I was frankly relieved when he chose someone who was a serious scholar.
ETA:
His stance in this ruling is being described on Twitter, etc., as a big shock.
And perhaps it is to many partisans on either side.
But color me (and I expect a lot of other legal types who've paid some attention to his past decisions) as not shocked. He may not come to the same conclusions I would on every case (he won't), but he does give a shit about the constitution, due process, etc.
Heh. I wonder if Trump is ranting about how he's going to fire Gorsuch now...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that an immigration statute requiring the deportation of noncitizens who commit felonies is unlawfully vague in a decision that could limit the Trump administration's ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling in which President Donald Trump's conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the court's four liberal justices, sided with convicted California burglar James Garcia Dimaya, a legal immigrant from the Philippines.
The court upheld a 2015 lower court ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act provision requiring Dimaya's deportation created uncertainty over which crimes may be considered violent, risking arbitrary enforcement in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling helps clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be expelled at a time of intense focus on immigration issues in the United States as Trump seeks to increase deportations of immigrants who have committed crimes.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court's ruling, delivering a setback to the Trump administration, which had defended the law at issue.
"Vague laws invite arbitrary power," Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion, adding that the American colonies in the 18th century cited vague English law like the crime of treason as among the reasons for the American revolution.
"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," Gorsuch added.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling in which President Donald Trump's conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the court's four liberal justices, sided with convicted California burglar James Garcia Dimaya, a legal immigrant from the Philippines.
The court upheld a 2015 lower court ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act provision requiring Dimaya's deportation created uncertainty over which crimes may be considered violent, risking arbitrary enforcement in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling helps clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be expelled at a time of intense focus on immigration issues in the United States as Trump seeks to increase deportations of immigrants who have committed crimes.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court's ruling, delivering a setback to the Trump administration, which had defended the law at issue.
"Vague laws invite arbitrary power," Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion, adding that the American colonies in the 18th century cited vague English law like the crime of treason as among the reasons for the American revolution.
"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," Gorsuch added.
I said this when Gorsuch was nominated, and I'll say it again:
Yeah, I would have preferred Garland to Gorsuch. Yeah, I found McConnell's maneuvering to keep Garland off the court despicable and deeply problematic. Yeah, I am not going to like all of Gorsuch's rulings and actions. Yeah to all of that.
BUT -- I do not at all think he is the rubber stamp to Trumpism that Trump and the far right would like to see. I was expecting Trump to make a far worse choice of some ignorant, ill-qualified, alt-right yahoo (as, alas, he did for a good number of other open seats on the federal bench), and so I was frankly relieved when he chose someone who was a serious scholar.
ETA:
His stance in this ruling is being described on Twitter, etc., as a big shock.
And perhaps it is to many partisans on either side.
But color me (and I expect a lot of other legal types who've paid some attention to his past decisions) as not shocked. He may not come to the same conclusions I would on every case (he won't), but he does give a shit about the constitution, due process, etc.
Heh. I wonder if Trump is ranting about how he's going to fire Gorsuch now...
