Neil Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deport

[The Barbarian]

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."

The decision did not please the president, who called it a "public safety crisis"

Politicized court appointments sometimes backfire, as Justices realize their responsibilities to the Constitution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Neil Gorsuch’s Long Game
Why the justice sided with the Supreme Court’s liberals to protect immigrants from deportation.
Now Gorsuch has broken the tie in Dimaya’s favor, joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in striking down the law. In her opinion for the court, Kagan explained that this decision flows logically from the court’s ruling in 2015’s Johnson v. United States. That decision, written by Scalia, found that a similarly worded criminal statute was too vague to comport with due process. The government argued that this case is different from Johnson because it involved a civil statute rather than a criminal one. But, Kagan noted, the court has long held that deportation statutes are subject to the same vagueness rules as criminal laws—“in view of the grave nature of deportation,” a “drastic measure” that amounts to “banishment or exile.”
...
Regardless of where Gorsuch takes this idea in the future, he deserves credit for following his principles to a fundamentally liberal result. The justice channeled his inner Scalia, drawing upon a deep skepticism of the government’s power to capriciously punish citizens and immigrants alike. Will his reasoning help a future court annihilate the administrative state? Maybe! But it might rein in overzealous police and prosecutors, too. Progressives should savor their SCOTUS wins where they can find them. And Dimaya is, without a doubt, a landmark liberal victory.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...he-liberal-justices-in-sessions-v-dimaya.html

Be careful what you wish for...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Wasn't he the SCOTUS Justice that was supposed to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?
Real conservatives warned people about Gorsuch, now the country is starting to see his how he rules.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wasn't he the SCOTUS Justice that was supposed to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?

Yep. Turns out, he's not the politically-driven hack some of the right thought he was. He's pretty conservative, but not so conservative as to completely ignore the Constitution.

Real conservatives warned people about Gorsuch, now the country is starting to see his how he rules.

He's conservative, but not that conservative. He takes the most extreme statist position he can, within the boundaries of the Bill of Rights. But that means he's going to swing liberal from time to time.

 

[patrick jane]

Yep. Turns out, he's not the politically-driven hack some of the right thought he was. He's pretty conservative, but not so conservative as to completely ignore the Constitution.



He's conservative, but not that conservative. He takes the most extreme statist position he can, within the boundaries of the Bill of Rights. But that means he's going to swing liberal from time to time.

Yes, of course. We see another genius decision by Donald J. Trump.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, of course. We see another genius decision by Donald J. Trump.

If he intended to further liberal constitutionalism, yes.

But his stated willingness to set aside due process and to overturn the 2nd Amendment doesn't square up with that idea, does it?

 

[patrick jane]

If he intended to further liberal constitutionalism, yes.

But his stated willingness to set aside due process and to overturn the 2nd Amendment doesn't square up with that idea, does it?

The 2nd Amendment will never be overturned. It's a moneymaker for both sides.

 

[The Barbarian]

The 2nd Amendment will never be overturned. It's a moneymaker for both sides.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Wasn't he [Neil Gorsuch] the SCOTUS Justice that was supposed to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?

Yep. Turns out, he's not the politically-driven hack some of the right thought he was. He's pretty conservative, but not so conservative as to completely ignore the Constitution.

Stating that "Obergefell v Hodges is settled law"
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=4964359&viewfull=1#post4964359

and now siding with ultra liberal Justices on something as simple as refusing to deport those who commit crimes while here illegally doesn't make Gorsuch conservative.

If SCOTUS ever gets around to deciding 'Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission' you can bet that rainbow flag waver Neil Gorsuch won't rule on the side of religious liberty.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Wasn't he [Neil Gorsuch] the SCOTUS Justice that was supposed to overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?

Stating that "Obergefell v Hodges is settled law"
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=4964359&viewfull=1#post4964359

and now siding with ultra liberal Justices on something as simple as refusing to deport those who commit crimes while here illegally doesn't make Gorsuch conservative.

If SCOTUS ever gets around to deciding 'Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission' you can bet that rainbow flag waver Neil Gorsuch won't rule on the side of religious liberty.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

Don't know how he'll rule on that, but it's very clear that he's not a conservative in the alt-right ideological Weltanshauung. He is more libertarian, in insisting that such laws should be unambigous, so that authorities can't use them capriciously.

Edit: If the law was clarified to make it unambigous, I have no doubt at all that Gorsuch would find that it passed constitutional tests.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If SCOTUS ever gets around to deciding 'Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission' you can bet that rainbow flag waver Neil Gorsuch won't rule on the side of religious liberty.

Don't know how he'll rule on that,

I'm speculating that Gorsuch will see how the other Justices will be voting and side with religious liberty if the Kennedy swing vote sides with the LGBTQ movement, just to appease those who think he's conservative.

BTW, the law firm defending Masterpiece Cakeshop isn't using religious liberty as it's basis of defense, it's using artistic freedom.

but it's very clear that he's not a conservative in the alt-right ideological Weltanshauung.

The alt right is not conservative.

He is more libertarian,

Which is by no means conservative either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If SCOTUS ever gets around to deciding 'Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission' you can bet that rainbow flag waver Neil Gorsuch won't rule on the side of religious liberty.

I'm speculating that Gorsuch will see how the other Justices will be voting and side with religious liberty if the Kennedy swing vote sides with the LGBTQ movement, just to appease those who think he's conservative.

I'm guessing he's not that cynical. But you could be right.

BTW, the law firm defending Masterpiece Cakeshop isn't using religious liberty as it's basis of defense, it's using artistic freedom.

Might be more successful with that.

The alt right is not conservative.

For now, they own the conservative movement.


(Regarding libertarians)

Which is by no means conservative either.

Some are. Others are more liberal. There's a left/right axis, but also a liberarian/statist axis.