Gorsuch sides with Dims

[Votto]

Gorsuch sides with liberals in Supreme Court ruling on deportation of violent immigrants

Sure, just because they are illegal and commit crimes in no way means they need to be deported?

Really?

I knew this was coming.

Conservatives fooled again. There is no such thing as a conservative in the US Federal government.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You're a little late to the party.

 

[Votto]

You're a little late to the party.

In Washington, it's a never ending party.

 

[TNHarley]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

 

[Votto]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

He is not a citizen. He may have had a VISA but if you visit someone's house and abuse them it's time to hall your arse to jail, or in this case, out of the country.

It's just common sense.

 

[Mac1958]

HE'S A COMMIE I TELL YOU

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

He is not a citizen. He may have had a VISA but if you visit someone's house and abuse them it's time to hall your arse to jail, or in this case, out of the country.

It's just common sense.

The law as it is written says it has to be a violent crime.

The SCOTUS correctly ruled that the law was too vague and needs to be fixed.

Now, it is on Congress to do their job.

Why do all you statist want the courts to ignore the law as it is written


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Gorsuch sides with liberals in Supreme Court ruling on deportation of violent immigrants

Sure, just because they are illegal and commit crimes in no way means they need to be deported?

Really?

I knew this was coming.

Conservatives fooled again. There is no such thing as a conservative in the US Federal government.

Gorsuch ruling mirrored Scalia's 2015 ruling in a similar case that ruled "crimes of violence" is unconstitutionally vague. If anything Gorsuch was upholding Scalia's brand of judicial conservatism and limiting government overreach. A good synopsis of what really happened can be found here.

Argument analysis: Faithful to Scalia, Gorsuch may be deciding vote for immigrant - SCOTUSblog

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Interesting!
Justice Gorsuch never said that such illegal invaders CAN’T be deported.

“Having said this much, it is important to acknowledge some limits on today’s holding too.... Vagueness doctrine represents a procedural, not a substantive, demand. It does not forbid the legislature from acting toward any end it wishes, but only requires it to act with enough clarity that reasonable people can know what is required of them and judges can apply the law consistent with their limited office. Our history surely bears examples of the judicial misuse of the so-called “substantive component” of due process to dictate policy on matters that belonged to the people to decide. But concerns with substantive due process should not lead us to react by withdrawing an ancient procedural protection compelled by the original meaning of the Constitution.

The Gist:

Not that significant of a law. Very few illegals will be impacted. This is being blown out of proportions by the leftist pundits and media. This is Not a blow to the Trumpenfuhrer.

 

[Camp]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

Because lying comes naturally to some folks here.

 

[Votto]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

He is not a citizen. He may have had a VISA but if you visit someone's house and abuse them it's time to hall your arse to jail, or in this case, out of the country.

It's just common sense.

The law as it is written says it has to be a violent crime.

The SCOTUS correctly ruled that the law was too vague and needs to be fixed.

Now, it is on Congress to do their job.

Why do all you statist want the courts to ignore the law as it is written


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When it comes to conservative sensibilities, the Constitution is always too vague to implement, isn't it?

But when it comes to Dim sensibilities, they just have activist judges rewrite the laws, just like Roberts did with Obamacare.

Just the same old crap, different day.

 

[iceberg]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

He is not a citizen. He may have had a VISA but if you visit someone's house and abuse them it's time to hall your arse to jail, or in this case, out of the country.

It's just common sense.

The law as it is written says it has to be a violent crime.

The SCOTUS correctly ruled that the law was too vague and needs to be fixed.

Now, it is on Congress to do their job.

Why do all you statist want the courts to ignore the law as it is written


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yea, when i looked at it "too vague" simply means there's too much open to interpretation . tell them exactly what is needed and we'll likely be fine. make it "we don't like this person so they can be deported" is too vague.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

He is not a citizen. He may have had a VISA but if you visit someone's house and abuse them it's time to hall your arse to jail, or in this case, out of the country.

It's just common sense.

The law as it is written says it has to be a violent crime.

The SCOTUS correctly ruled that the law was too vague and needs to be fixed.

Now, it is on Congress to do their job.

Why do all you statist want the courts to ignore the law as it is written


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When it comes to conservative sensibilities, the Constitution is always too vague to implement, isn't it?

But when it comes to Dim sensibilities, they just have activist judges rewrite the laws, just like Roberts did with Obamacare.

Just the same old crap, different day.

Do you use a magic 8 ball to write your posts? You say a lot of things that jump all over the place and don't seem to have any coherent train of logical thought.

 

[Votto]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

Because lying comes naturally to some folks here.

Are you going to go on record here as saying that someone who is not a citizen of the US and breaks it's laws should stay in the US?

Should tax payers pay to feed and cloth him and give him free medical care?

 

[007]

President Trump can just ignore this ruling anyway. The Supreme Court doesn't overrule the executive branch. They are CO-EQUAL branches of government with EQUAL authority, and since the president has constitutional powers and the authority to enact immigration rules, this is no big deal.

President Trump can deport illegal aliens as he sees fit.

 

[Votto]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

He is not a citizen. He may have had a VISA but if you visit someone's house and abuse them it's time to hall your arse to jail, or in this case, out of the country.

It's just common sense.

The law as it is written says it has to be a violent crime.

The SCOTUS correctly ruled that the law was too vague and needs to be fixed.

Now, it is on Congress to do their job.

Why do all you statist want the courts to ignore the law as it is written


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When it comes to conservative sensibilities, the Constitution is always too vague to implement, isn't it?

But when it comes to Dim sensibilities, they just have activist judges rewrite the laws, just like Roberts did with Obamacare.

Just the same old crap, different day.

Do you use a magic 8 ball to write your posts? You say a lot of things that jump all over the place and don't seem to have any coherent train of logical thought.

Maybe I should run for office.

I'll just promise to do one thing and say and do the exact opposite.

Voters seem to love it.

 

[Votto]

President Trump can just ignore this ruling anyway. The Supreme Court doesn't overrule the executive branch. They are CO-EQUAL branches of government with EQUAL authority, and since the president has constitutional powers and the authority to enact immigration rules, this is no big deal.

President Trump can deport illegal aliens as he sees fit.

They are not co-equal in that only one branch can decide what is Constitutional.

That is not Constitutional.

 

[toobfreak]

Gorsuch sides with Dims

Bull. Shove it up your ass. If you read his decision, he was on the side of common sense and good law. No one was fooled. We didn't get another partisan. We got a person who respects the law for the letter for which it was intended, and no one, not me, you, Trump or anyone could ask for more or a better thing.

 

[Camp]

Why do people keep saying this guy was an illegal? Are you seeing more info than i am?
Pretty sure he had a VISA

Because lying comes naturally to some folks here.

Are you going to go on record here as saying that someone who is not a citizen of the US and breaks it's laws should stay in the US?

Should tax payers pay to feed and cloth him and give him free medical care?

No, I would say that law, particularly Constitutional Law should be followed and that is what has happened. SCOTUS has decided.

 

[007]

President Trump can just ignore this ruling anyway. The Supreme Court doesn't overrule the executive branch. They are CO-EQUAL branches of government with EQUAL authority, and since the president has constitutional powers and the authority to enact immigration rules, this is no big deal.

President Trump can deport illegal aliens as he sees fit.

They are not co-equal...

The constitution doesn't apply to illegal aliens.

Non citizens have no rights.

The president has the constitutional authority to decide immigration laws...

In the decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power”—absolute power—over immigration to Congress and the Executive, in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is found nowhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair.

In later years, the Court has also allowed Congress to delegate its immigration authority to the Executive Branch. Congress has now given away much of its plenary power over immigration to the Executive in sweeping grants of power—more sweeping grants than in any other area of the law. For example, Congress has delegated the power to the Executive Branch to determine whether the United States is at war such that military members can be naturalized; to determine whether foreigners should be granted temporary protected status; to determine whether a person is allowed to work in the United States; to grant a person permission to be in the U.S. when the person does not qualify for a visa; and to decide whether a person’s deportation should be deferred.

Immigration and the Separation of Powers | The Federalist Society