Gorsuch Stabs Conservatives in the Back

Started by Solar, April 17, 2018, 03:46:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Solar

The Supreme Court has sided with an immigrant convicted of residential burglary and facing deportation and found the term "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague.

The court ruled 5-4, with 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.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, nominated by President Trump and considered a member of the court's conservative wing, cast the deciding vote by joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kagan, who make up the court's liberal wing.

https://downtrend.com/donn-marten/gorsuch-sides-with-scotus-liberals-in-blow-to-trump-deportation-policy/
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

I always had apprehensions about him. My biggest fear came about because the Establishment had a list of SCOTUS picks ready to go and Gorsucs was the one everyone settled on, yeah, settled, because Trump was forced to pick from a RINO list.


From Reply #8 on: January 25, 2017, 01:36:08 PM


Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2017, 01:36:08 PM
Notice a theme with all these picks? Social issues!
I can't help but think they're trying to route us on who is chosen. IMO, not one of these people has a place on the highest court in the land. They want us to swallow Gorsuch, and I'm not buying it for one second!
I want a Constitutional Conservative, not a mushy moderate hung up on social issues, I want someone demanding we follow the constitution.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Rotwang

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2018, 04:01:46 PM
I always had apprehensions about him. My biggest fear came about because the Establishment had a list of SCOTUS picks ready to go and Gorsucs was the one everyone settled on, yeah, settled, because Trump was forced to pick from a RINO list.


From Reply #8 on: January 25, 2017, 01:36:08 PM
:sad:

Solar

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Sauce

Disagree..... Gorsuch is a strict constitutionalist.  This was a poorly written statute.

Scalia ruled similarly concerning vagueness of a statute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._United_States_(2015)#Majority

Up until this ruling most SC observers considered Gorsuch's votes more in line with Thomas and to the right of Scalia.

So lets not over react like the left is baiting us to.



MSM is spinning this just like they spin everything else

Solar

Quote from: Sauce on April 17, 2018, 04:33:03 PM
Disagree..... Gorsuch is a strict constitutionalist.  This was a poorly written statute.

Scalia ruled similarly concerning vagueness of a statute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._United_States_(2015)#Majority

Up until this ruling most SC observers considered Gorsuch's votes more in line with Thomas and to the right of Scalia.

So lets not over react like the left is baiting us to.



MSM is spinning this just like they spin everything else

This is a long ass read, but it shows just how one can make a case on semantics.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/15-1498-BIO.pdf

Here's the law.
1. James Garcia Dimaya was admitted to the
United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992,
when he was 13 years old. Pet. App. 42a. In 2007 and
again in 2009, he was convicted of felony first-degree
burglary in violation of California Penal Code § 459.
Pet. App. 42a. The government began deportation
proce
4
The Immigration and Nationality Act provides
that "[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated
felony at any time after admission is deportable." 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An "aggravated felony" is
defined by reference to a long list of specified offenses.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). The definition includes "a
theft offense ... or burglary offense for which the term
of imprisonment [is] at least one year." Id.
§ 1101(a)(43)(G).
A "crime of violence ... for which the term of
imprisonment [is] at least one year" is also an
"aggravated felony." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). A
"crime of violence" is defined, in turn, by a reference
to a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 16. That provision
supplies the general definition of a "crime of violence"
for the criminal code:
(a) an offense that has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person or property of
another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and
that, by its nature, involves a substantial
risk that physical force against the person or
property of another may be used in the
course of committing the offense.
The government alleged that Dimaya's California
burglary convictions were aggravated felonies,
because each was "an attempted theft or burglary
offense" and a "crime of violence." Pet. App. 42a-43a.
The government also alleged the convictions were
"crimes of moral turpitude." Dimaya appeared pro se
5
before an immigration judge. Pet. App. 49a. The
immigration judge found Dimaya removable,
agreeing with the government on each point. Pet.
App. 49a-55a. With respect to the "crime of violence
classification," the immigration judge concluded that
"the unlawful entry into a residence is by its very
nature an offense where [there] is apt to be violence,
whether in the efforts of the felon to escape or in the
efforts of the occupant to resist the felon." Pet. App.
54a. To conclude that California burglary requires
unlawful entry, the immigration judge relied upon
United States v. Becker, 919 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 499 U.S. 911 (1991), which held that
California courts recognize an implicit element of
unlawful entry even though the California statute
does not expressly "require that the entry itself be
illegal for a defendant to be convicted of burglary." Id.
at 571 n.5; see Pet. App. 54a.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Sauce

FWIW..... I obviously don't agree with the decision, I just understand what his opinion was based on

Solar

Quote from: Sauce on April 17, 2018, 05:56:46 PM
FWIW..... I obviously don't agree with the decision, I just understand what his opinion was based on
Therein lies the issue. He went against 4 solid Conservative opinions as well as the 5th Circuit court and sided with leftists and the RINO are tickled pink.
I hadn't yet heard the LSM spin on this as of yet and really don't care what they have to say, since I read the Synopsys of the opinion and how they came to find an area they claim is vague, when in fact, it is not and has been the law for the last 60 years, I say it's all pure bullshit.
Gorsuck pulled a RINO out of his ass.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Just a little something to ponder when looking at this decision.

Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice, and they are also the most protected. Alan Dershowitz

The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth. Alan Dershowitz
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

T Hunt

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2018, 04:01:46 PM
I always had apprehensions about him. My biggest fear came about because the Establishment had a list of SCOTUS picks ready to go and Gorsucs was the one everyone settled on, yeah, settled, because Trump was forced to pick from a RINO list.


From Reply #8 on: January 25, 2017, 01:36:08 PM

Looks like roberts and ginsburg cld both be going this summer. Will trump be forced to put another rino from that list in there?
"Let's Go Brandon, I agree!"  -Biden

supsalemgr

Quote from: Sauce on April 17, 2018, 05:56:46 PM
FWIW..... I obviously don't agree with the decision, I just understand what his opinion was based on

Your point is well made and provides another lesson about the deep state. Congress is made up of mostly lawyers and write bills filled with legal  mumbo/jumbo. This is not by accident. The framers of our Constitution wrote clear desires.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Solar

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 18, 2018, 04:24:16 AM
Your point is well made and provides another lesson about the deep state. Congress is made up of mostly lawyers and write bills filled with legal  mumbo/jumbo. This is not by accident. The framers of our Constitution wrote clear desires.
Wherein lies my issue with Gorsuck, he knew the intent of the law, just like every judge, and lawyer that's worked with and under this law.
It wasn't until some leftist lawyer decided to challenge it that a so-called conservative sided with leftists because he claims it's too vague?
That's pure bullshit speak from someone that clearly understands the intent of the law, and that was to remove undesirables from our shores.

The law clearly states, "Felonies", that's what this dirtbag was caught doing, but some RINO wants a clearer definition?
To define it any clearer would require a list of specific felonies, problem is, by doing so, allows the wound to remain open, as in crimes of the future being redefined, and since a particular crime wasn't in the list, another dirtbag walks free.
Our Founders were smart men, they gave us clear and concise laws, purposes and intents, like the First and Second Amendments.
It was following politicians that further watered down the laws with definitions that create holes for lawyers to argue and Gorsuck just helped the left in opening one of these holes further.

Sorry for the rant, but I don't think people quite understand what this RINO did, he just blasted the intent of the law, a law that keeps us safe and keeps undesirables out of the country.
These are not the actions of a Conservative, and the claim of purity is an insult to the Founders.

OK, I'm done....
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: Solar on April 18, 2018, 04:49:00 AM
Wherein lies my issue with Gorsuck, he knew the intent of the law, just like every judge, and lawyer that's worked with and under this law.
It wasn't until some leftist lawyer decided to challenge it that a so-called conservative sided with leftists because he claims it's too vague?
That's pure bullshit speak from someone that clearly understands the intent of the law, and that was to remove undesirables from our shores.

The law clearly states, "Felonies", that's what this dirtbag was caught doing, but some RINO wants a clearer definition?
To define it any clearer would require a list of specific felonies, problem is, by doing so, allows the wound to remain open, as in crimes of the future being redefined, and since a particular crime wasn't in the list, another dirtbag walks free.
Our Founders were smart men, they gave us clear and concise laws, purposes and intents, like the First and Second Amendments.
It was following politicians that further watered down the laws with definitions that create holes for lawyers to argue and Gorsuck just helped the left in opening one of these holes further.

Sorry for the rant, but I don't think people quite understand what this RINO did, he just blasted the intent of the law, a law that keeps us safe and keeps undesirables out of the country.
These are not the actions of a Conservative, and the claim of purity is an insult to the Founders.

OK, I'm done....

And I in no way was defending Gorsuch. Just pointing out another fallacy about congress.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Bronx

Hey, Gorsuch, if a rifle is considered an assault rifle why, isn't burglary considered a home invasion......?
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

A foolish man complains about his torn pockets.

A wise man uses it to scratch his balls.

Solar

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 18, 2018, 05:35:20 AM
And I in no way was defending Gorsuch. Just pointing out another fallacy about congress.
Sorry, I used your post as a sounding board, but it wasn't directed at your comment. Which was technically (Too Vague)... :lol: :lol: :lol: That was a joke, just making a point and poking holes in RINO media trying to salvage the decision of the RINO SCOTUS pick.

Truthfully, I haven't read or heard one comment regarding this decision from either side, but I can only assume there are talking heads on the right trying their damndest to run block for this screwing.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!