WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting non-citizens to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat — thanks to the vote of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
President Trump's nominee to the high court joined most of the ruling by the court's liberal minority, agreeing that the law failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime. He based his conclusion on a similar decision written in 2015 by his predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Vague laws, Gorsuch wrote, "can invite the exercise of arbitrary power ... 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."
I wouldn't get too used to it. The law as written was ambiguous and he is a letter of the law guy. He took the same position as Scalia on the matter. I would not hold out hope that he would side with more moderate positions overall.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/
I'm glad to see my impressions on Gorsuch seem to be correct. The division of justices on rulings seem like they've been close enough that this is where I feared Trumps legacy the most. Fortunately Gorsuch is a better justice than I thought we would get when the nomination process started.
I wouldn't get too used to it. The law as written was ambiguous and he is a letter of the law guy. He took the same position as Scalia on the matter. I would not hold out hope that he would side with more moderate positions overall.
More referring to him siding towards the center on "liberal causes".Not to nitpick, but is there anything innately immoderate about being a letter-of-the-law guy?
I wouldn't get too used to it. The law as written was ambiguous and he is a letter of the law guy. He took the same position as Scalia on the matter. I would not hold out hope that he would side with more moderate positions overall.
Not to nitpick, but is there anything innately immoderate about being a letter-of-the-law guy?
Not to nitpick, but is there anything innately immoderate about being a letter-of-the-law guy?
Well it's a common tool used by conservatives to reach extreme conservative results. The extremity of Gorsuch's 'letter of the law' opinion can be seen in that famous truck driver case:
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/...cargo-judge-neil-gorsuch-ruled-for-the-cargo/
Basically:
1) A truck driver had his trailer's brakes lock because of subzero temperatures outside. His cab could move, but the cargo could not.
2) Because he was in danger of freezing to death if he stayed with his cargo he drove the cab away and left the trailer. Basically his choice was to drive away or die.
3) The company had a policy that if you abandoned your cargo for any reason you were fired, and they fired him.
4) The state had a law that said you could legally refuse to operate your vehicle if doing so would result in harm to yourself or someone else.
5) Gorsuch ruled that because the law covered choosing NOT to operate your vehicle if it was unsafe and not OPERATING it to prevent yourself from being unsafe, the law didn't apply, therefore his firing was legal.
It's hard to imagine any reasonable interpretation of that law where choosing not to drive a truck because it was going to go over a cliff means you can't be fired but hitting the breaks to stop it from going over a cliff means you can. That's how you get the 'letter of the law' to reach extreme, extreme ends.
Theoretically if the law said jumping out of a 2nd story window is punishable by the death penalty and you did so to escape a house fire (and certain death) Gorsuch is the kind of jurist who would send you to the chair and blame it on the legislature.
Well, surely the "spirit of the law" side can lead to extreme ends too. That's how you get "penumbras and emanations."
I understand that objection, and I suppose this hits on a larger debate on the role of a judge, but wasn't Obamacare upheld in part on the grounds (as illustrated by Roberts I think) that the SCOTUS' role wasn't to protect people against the ill-advised actions of their representatives?
I understand that objection, and I suppose this hits on a larger debate on the role of a judge, but wasn't Obamacare upheld in part on the grounds (as illustrated by Roberts I think) that the SCOTUS' role wasn't to protect people against the ill-advised actions of their representatives?
The role of the court is to protect the people against unconstitutional legislation not bad legislation.I understand that objection, and I suppose this hits on a larger debate on the role of a judge, but wasn't Obamacare upheld in part on the grounds (as illustrated by Roberts I think) that the SCOTUS' role wasn't to protect people against the ill-advised actions of their representatives?
No, that had no role in the ruling?
”Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
privacy, an extreme end. you heard it here first, folks.Well, surely the "spirit of the law" side can lead to extreme ends too. That's how you get "penumbras and emanations."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/
I'm glad to see my impressions on Gorsuch seem to be correct. The division of justices on rulings seem like they've been close enough that this is where I feared Trumps legacy the most. Fortunately Gorsuch is a better justice than I thought we would get when the nomination process started.
privacy, an extreme end. you heard it here first, folks.
Better to ask: if a known criminal is elected President and commits felonies, would you support impeachment?Out of curiosity, if an immigrant comes to America and commits felonies, would you support a law forcing their deportation or not?
Out of curiosity, if an immigrant comes to America and commits felonies, would you support a law forcing their deportation or not?
Just straight felony? Not as a blanket statement because that definition is too vague - much like with the current law which is the crux of the issue. There are some very stupid felonies on the books in the US. Its a felony to commit adultery in Michigan. In Florida a man was charged with a felony for releasing balloons into the air. Holding small amounts of pot will get you a felony in some states but is perfectly legal in others.
I am talking about a felony where another human being was harmed. I have been burglarized 3 times and considered myself harmed.
At the risk of playing into a game of 'move the goal posts' (since we're apparently moving from a general 'felonies' to specific felonies) I would only say that the end or a single specific person does not justify a poorly constructed law. This is how we end up with things like civil forfeiture or three strikes resulting in people getting life in jail for small amounts of pot while murderers and rapists can get paroled. I'd rather a few 'slip through the cracks' than end up with some broad law easily stretched or inconsistently applied because of vague wording. While I've avoided burglaries I encountered more than a few transgressions when I lived in some not so nice areas of metro detroit. Would I feel differently if I had been burglarized 3 times? Perhaps but that doesn't make bad legislation a good idea. I suspect a more appropriately scoped and defined law would be upheld.