Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices on Monday siding with an immigrant who was facing deportation because the law was too vague.
CORRECTION: Neil Gorsuch casts the deciding vote for Supreme Court to side with immigrant facing deportation https://t.co/pvLOqrv2I0 pic.twitter.com/L24xTorZzg
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) April 17, 2018
From The Washington Examiner:
The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a legal immigrant convicted of residential burglary and facing deportation, after Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices to cast the deciding vote.
The court ruled 5-4, and Justice Elena Kagan delivering the opinion. The justices affirmed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in 2015 that a provision of federal immigration law subjecting immigrants to deportation if they are convicted of a “crime of violence” was too vague.
But we thought Gorsuch was just another Trump stooge?
Once again: Anyone who wrote that Gorsuch would be a “rubber stamp” for Trump, or that he was some crafty political hack, was either lying to you or had no idea whatsoever who Gorsuch is, what his record shows, or how he views the law. https://t.co/C1Ic28CPp2
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 17, 2018
Or they were just so freaked out about the idea of Trump appointing a SCOTUS they couldn’t see straight.
Gorsuch effectively made a minor substantive due process argument in his concurrence in Sessions v. Dimaya when analyzing the INA's "crime of violence" definition. If you're of the belief that substantive due process is garbage, then this should infuriate you.
— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 17, 2018
And Kamala Harris thought following the law would be a bad thing.
It's almost like Gorsuch rules based on a dispassionate legal theory that doesn't particularly care whether a litigant is a designated victim in your power dynamics
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) April 17, 2018
Get outta here.
Read the case. Gorsuch cast the right vote in Sessions v. Dimaya, IMO. He starts with "Vague laws invite arbitrary power" and is convincing from there. https://t.co/VQfASEu5Po
— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) April 17, 2018
From the Supreme Court:
JUSTICE GORSUCH, agreeing that the Immigration and Nationality Act provision at hand is unconstitutionally vague for the reasons identified in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, concluded that the void for vagueness doctrine, at least properly conceived, serves as a faithful expression of ancient due process and separation of powers principles the Framers recognized as vital to ordered liberty under the Constitution.
We want SCOTUS to uphold the COTUS, and Gorsuch did in this instance.
I'm actually reading Gorsuch's concurrence and find myself nodding along with him. https://t.co/IkcVT2XoW9 His basic argument is that the law, as construed, gives judges way too much discretion to act on their whims because Congress was too vague in how it wrote the law.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 17, 2018
Oh, and there’s also this little tidbit for the Left:
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has made history by appointing the first Native American ever to serve as a law clerk in the high court.
Tobi Merritt Edwards Young, who is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, will serve as Gorsuch’s clerk for one year, beginning in July.
But Gorsuch or something.
‘Your kid sounds like a brat.’ Writer claims her WOKE daughter cried because her dentist was a man
Calm DOWN, bruh! Blue-check trans activist has a SERIOUS beef with the ‘white working class’
So AWESOME: Thread about ‘sitting next to some foreign guy’ is the BEST thing you’ll read today
To change your comments display name, click here.