Gorsuch sided with liberal judges today

[BigmanPigman]

in court ruling over immigrants convicted of crimes being forced to leave the US.

"The court's 5-4 decision — an unusual alignment in which new Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices — concerns a catchall provision of immigration law that defines what makes a crime violent. Conviction for a crime of violence makes deportation "a virtual certainty" for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the court.

The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump's administration, which has emphasized stricter enforcement of immigration law. In this case, President Barack Obama's administration took the same position in the Supreme Court in defense of the challenged provision."
http://www.businessinsider.com/gorsuch-supreme-court-votes-immigration-case-2018-4

[MythosMaster]

1. the writing is on the wall

he know's he is illegitimate.

[louis-t]

2. Deplorables call for impeachment in 3...2...1..

[Cha]

3. Wow.. a rare occurence.

Thanks BP

[BigmanPigman]

8. I know. I am not putting too much faith

future liberal leanings, but I will take what I can get these days.

[Cha]

13. Yeah, I take what I can get, too.. not

over thinking it.

[yallerdawg]

4. Right and justice remain righteous and just.

Maybe that 'lifetime appointment' thing actually works a little.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. When will Spanky fire off an angry tweet about Gorsuch being ungrateful

and disloyal?

This demonstrates why lifetime appointment of justices is better than elections: once appointed, they no longer are constrained by any obligation to uphold the politics of whoever appointed them. Most of the time they are predictably liberal or conservative in accordance with their presidents, but sometimes they vote with the "other side" if they feel the law supports that position. A good example was Earl Warren - a Republican who was appointed by Eisenhower, who later became one of the most liberal justices (and eventually became loathed by Republicans). Gorsuch won't ever be an Earl Warren, but it will be fun to see how Trump reacts on occasions like this, when he doesn't toe the party line.

[honest.abe]

6. This is why there is still hope.

Last edited Tue Apr 17, 2018, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe when its all said and done the SCOTUS will play a role in stopping/removing the lunatic in the WH.

[TNLib]

7. I never thought he was a Scalia clone

And knew the conservative right would be very disappointed.

[FBaggins]

12. Scalia would vote against the other conservatives from time to time as well.

From "Antonin Scalia, part-time liberal"

In criminal cases, Scalia was the court’s leading protector of defendants’ rights under the confrontation clause. Because the testimony had not been subject to cross-examination, he disallowed the use of previous grand jury testimony by a witness who was unavailable at trial. He prevented screens to shield child witnesses in child abuse cases from seeing their alleged abusers. Likewise, Scalia was liberal in his interpretation of the double jeopardy clause and the prohibition against ex post facto judicial decisions under the due process clause. He insisted that indictments, to be valid, list all the elements of a crime, and consistently relied on the rule of lenity, which requires criminal statutes to be clear before they are enforced against a defendant. He also broadly supported the right to trial by jury in civil cases, protected by the Seventh Amendment.

Scalia took a similarly liberal approach on questions of what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure. He protected homes from searches by heat-detectors seeking signs of marijuana plants or dogs sniffing around a house to detect narcotics. He dissented when the court upheld the taking of a DNA sample from the mouth of someone arrested on one offense and then charged with another crime based on a DNA match. Invasive searches to detect the commission of other crimes, he said, violated the Fourth Amendment and due process. He insisted that any interference with personal property by law-enforcement officers amounted to a search that required a warrant or exigent circumstances, such as when the police affixed a GPS device on a suspect’s car without a warrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-part-time-liberal/2017/01/26/96ed337e-e28b-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.c0c3c5a97998

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. This is actually following a Scalia opinion on the phrase "a crime of violence"

From the Business Insider article:

The case turned on a decision from 2015 that struck down a similarly worded part of another federal law that imposes longer prison sentences on repeat criminals. The majority opinion in that case was one of the last written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 and whose seat Gorsuch filled.

From Wonkette (no, don't laugh, their writer "Five Dollar Feminist" is actually a lawyer):

Defendant James Dimaya was a legal immigrant from the Philippines who had been in America since he was 13. California courts convicted him twice of burglary, in 2007 and 2009. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows for deportation of a legal immigrant if he is convicted of a “crime of violence,” and the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated deportation proceedings against Dimaya in 2010.

“But wait,” you are saying. “Is burglary really a crime of violence?”

That was mighty clever of you! The California Penal Code defines burglary as entering an inhabited building with the intent to steal something. It specifically includes tents, outhouses, and mines. So under DHS’s interpretation of the INA, stealing a flashlight from your neighbor’s tent is a crime of violence and appropriate grounds for deportation. Which is pretty harsh!

See, when Congress wrote a law that referred to “crimes of violence,” without defining the term, it gave DHS sole discretion to decide what it meant. And that is not how due process works — a reasonable person should be able to figure out whether he’s breaking the law. Which is why Justice Scalia struck down a similar provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in 2014, ruling that the undefined term “crime of violence” was “void for vagueness.”

Read more at https://wonkette.com/632734/justice-gorsuch-accidentally-forgets-to-bone-immigrants-for-a-second-but-dont-worry-hell-get-better#D3qGeIebsyZgdy35.99

[marked50]

9. Gorsuch has another agenda and it isn't a liberal one

From Thinkprogress:

......"Which brings us to Tuesday’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, a 5-4 decision where Neil Gorsuch sided with the four liberals in favor of an immigrant convicted of burglary. Gorsuch’s vote, and his separate opinion in Dimaya, confirms that he is much more a Thomas than he is an Alito. He is willing to hand liberals a small victory on the path to a much larger effort to shift legal doctrines to the right".

.......

"Though Justice Elena Kagan wrote the Court’s primary opinion, and Gorsuch joined enough of that opinion to form a majority for the proposition that the immigration statute is unconstitutionally vague, Gorsuch also wrote a separate opinion that provides a great deal of insight into how he views his role as a judge. Moreover, when read in light of Gorsuch’s prior record, his separate opinion in Dimaya suggests that he sees this case as one step in a broader anti-regulatory journey."

......

"Gorsuch’s opinion in Dimaya, in other words, should not give even a moment of comfort to liberals. If anything, it should chill anyone who believes that a modern society must have robust labor and environmental regulation. Mr. Gorsuch does not outright endorse Thomas’ view of agency regulation, but Gorsuch’s opinion in Dimaya is another data point suggesting that he and Thomas have similar views on this subject. Gorsuch just chose to express his broader anti-regulatory view in a decision involving an immigrant."

https://thinkprogress.org/neil-gorsuch-voted-with-the-liberal-justices-ca1cc1e2fae0/

[alphafemale]

10. I am imaging straws being drawn this evening.

The loser has to tell the manic mango that he Cannot. Under any circumstances, "Fire" Gorsuch.

[oasis]

11. More like this will drive Trump and his deplorable scumbots crazy. nt