SCOTUS invalidates part of fed law requiring mandatory deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes

[TitanTiger 20,511]

And just to make both liberal and conservative heads explode, Gorsuch sides with the more liberal wing of the court in a 5-4 decision.

Quote

(CNN) The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague. 

As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

More detail:

Quote

(CNN) The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague. 

The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations. 

As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute. In doing so, Gorsuch was continuing the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who also sided with liberals when it came to the vagueness of statutes used to convict criminal defendants. 

Only eight justices heard the case last term after Scalia's death, and in late June, the court announced it would re-hear arguments this term, presumably so that Gorsuch could break some kind of a tie.

Dimaya, a native of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2007 and 2009, he pleaded no contest to charges of residential burglary in California and an immigration judge determined that Dimaya was removable from the US because of his two state court convictions. 

The court held that the convictions qualified for an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes removal of non-citizens who have been convicted of some violent crimes and defines aggravated felony to include "crimes of violence."

Lawyers for Dimaya appealed the removal arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague and that their client never had fair notice that his crimes would result in deportation.

They suggested the reasoning of a 2015 Scalia opinion, which struck a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague, should extend to their case.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html

 

[AUDub 11,184]

I was just about to comment on the Scalia comparison in your article.

So does Trump tweet about how much of a loser Gorsuch is now?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If we're going to compare intellect and credibility on matters of law between Trump and Gorsuch, Trump would be best off just pretending this ruling didn't even happen and move on to more advantageous territory.  He'd be so far out of his league it would be like a 6-year old tee-baller facing down a Nolan Ryan fastball.

[AUDub 11,184]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If we're going to compare intellect and credibility on matters of law between Trump and Gorsuch, Trump would be best off just pretending this ruling didn't even happen and move on to more advantageous territory.  He'd be so far out of his league it would be like a 6-year old tee-baller facing down a Nolan Ryan fastball.

Has that ever stopped him before?

We're in the midst of the Leeroy Jenkins presidency.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Has that ever stopped him before?

We're in the midst of the Leeroy Jenkins presidency.

No.  You're right.  Nothing stops this incompetent boob from holding forth on any matter that bothers him, regardless of his actual competency or knowledge level on the matter.

[AUDub 11,184]

Well Matt Drudge is taking the news well.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5-4 votes are rare, and understandably so. Usually the most complex of cases 

 Scalia, at times, was the most liberal voice on the Court. (Example Crawford case, 2004). 

[AUDub 11,184]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

5-4 votes are rare, and understandably so. Usually the most complex of cases 

 Scalia, at times, was the most liberal voice on the Court. (Example Crawford case, 2004). 

That wasn't liberalism. That was Scalia knowing his s***.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-21/dookhan-case-gives-21-000-reasons-scalia-was-right

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

45 minutes ago, AUDub said:

That wasn't liberalism. That was Scalia knowing his s***.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-21/dookhan-case-gives-21-000-reasons-scalia-was-right

It was certainly an opinion with a liberal bend. Justice Scalia was an avid proponent of originalism and formalism-and the Constitution strongly protects criminal defendant's rights - his decisions did not always reflects conservatism. In fact, they sometimes (like in Crawford) appeared in an entirely different light. Crawford was a monumental case in the realm of Evidence. The Confrontation Clause requires that the accused in a criminal case be confronted with the witness against him. In Crawford, per Scalia, it was decided that testimonial hearsay may not be admitted unless (1) the declarant takes the stand at trial or (2) the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the out-of-court statement. Testimonial hearsay may not be admitted against the criminal defendant unless those requirement are satisfied, even when the declarant is unavailable. I think it undoubtedly reflected Justice Scalia's adaptability and flexibility, much like this case does for Gorsuch. 

Read the Crawford case. I think you'll get my point.

[stoic-one 1,549]

So let me get this straight, this guy has been here ~26 years and is now ~39 years old. Too bad besides for being not so good at "criminalling", he also didn't bother to achieve citizenship, which would make deporting him moot...

So much for immigrants assimilating, wait, he did learn some "criminalling", kinda.

Guessing not bothering with the citizenship thing probably never stopped him from voting in California...

This was not your typical split result either:

Quote

KAGAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, IV–B, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and an opin- ion with respect to Parts II and IV–A, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and ALITO, JJ., joined as to Parts I–C–2, II–A–1, and II–B

Full opinion here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf

[AUDub 11,184]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It was certainly an opinion with a liberal bend. Justice Scalia was an avid proponent of originalism and formalism-and the Constitution strongly protects criminal defendant's rights - his decisions did not always reflects conservatism. In fact, they sometimes (like in Crawford) appeared in an entirely different light. Crawford was a monumental case in the realm of Evidence. The Confrontation Clause requires that the accused in a criminal case be confronted with the witness against him. In Crawford, per Scalia, it was decided that testimonial hearsay may not be admitted unless (1) the declarant takes the stand at trial or (2) the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the out-of-court statement. Testimonial hearsay may not be admitted against the criminal defendant unless those requirement are satisfied, even when the declarant is unavailable. I think it undoubtedly reflected Justice Scalia's adaptability and flexibility, much like this case does for Gorsuch. 

Read the Crawford case. I think you'll get my point.

I have read the majority opinion. I think we're talking past each other. Does every piece of reasoning necessarily fall on a left/right spectrum? I would argue that it does not.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

43 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I have read the majority opinion. I think we're talking past each other. Does every piece of reasoning necessarily fall on a left/right spectrum? I would argue that it does not.

I agree with you.

Oh my gosh we agreed on something!

[AUDub 11,184]

On 17/04/2018 at 10:07 AM, TitanTiger said:

No.  You're right.  Nothing stops this incompetent boob from holding forth on any matter that bothers him, regardless of his actual competency or knowledge level on the matter.

Found this little nugget hidden in this article. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-hires-giuliani-two-other-attorneys-amid-mounting-legal-turmoil-over-russia/2018/04/19/8346a7ca-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a62913b9d42

Trump also complained this week about Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, saying the judge had proved too liberal in recent cases, according to administration officials who heard about the complaints. Associates said he was incensed that Gorsuch had voted against the administration on an immigration case and said it renewed his doubts that Gorsuch would be a reliable conservative. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Trump wouldn't know a conservative if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

[AUDub 11,184]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Trump wouldn't know a conservative if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

"I am conservatism!"

-Trump, probably

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

Scalia and Gorusch are very similar in their legal views. I think this ruling was a surprise to the Journalist who are trying to make this he joined the libs instead of looking at what he said and why. Many legal experts who have studied Grousch were not that surprised by this ruling.  Basically he is saying you need to base your Law on the constitution and because it was vague it was a no go. Gorusch did not feel the way this Law was written that it met what the constitution says. Unlike many Judges neither Scalia or Gorusch try to bend the constitution to fit what they would like as an outcome. They have both shown that they will vote against something even if they might like what the law is trying to do if it does not meet constitutional standards.

[AUDub 11,184]

3 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Scalia and Gorusch are very similar in their legal views. I think this ruling was a surprise to the Journalist who are trying to make this he joined the libs instead of looking at what he said and why. Many legal experts who have studied Grousch were not that surprised by this ruling.  Basically he is saying you need to base your Law on the constitution and because it was vague it was a no go. Gorusch did not feel the way this Law was written that it met what the constitution says. Unlike many Judges neither Scalia or Gorusch try to bend the constitution to fit what they would like as an outcome. They have both shown that they will vote against something even if they might like what the law is trying to do if it does not meet constitutional standards.

This is pretty much what I was getting at in the discussion with Nola.