Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
quarter MOA visionary |
I try not to understand lawyers but if he was he legally then why would you deport them? Sending back the illegals makes sense to ME but like I said > not a lawyer. | |||
|
Member |
Although revising the law makes perfect sense to people like us (i.e. intelligent people who have the country's best interests in mind), getting anything immigration related passed through congress right now would be all but impossible. And my bet. If you opened the door to revising this law, you'd have Dem's and RINO's actively trying to further water it down. Unfortunately, that's the 'Twilight Zone' country we live in today. Since I haven't read either of the SCOTUS opinions on this ruling 'yet', I'll reserve my opinion on it until later. ----------------------------- Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter | |||
|
Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
If you're not a US citizen and you break the law you can, among other things, be deported - whether you came in legally or not, and regardless of how long you've been here. The only people who absolutely cannot be deported are citizens - which is why it was a big deal when former Nazi concentration camp guards (for example) are discovered in the US, stripped of their citizenship for having lied on their application for citizenship, and sent back to face trial in Europe. | |||
|
Unflappable Enginerd |
So let me get this straight, this guy has been here ~26 years and is now ~39 years old. Too bad, besides for being not so good at "criminalling", he also didn't bother to achieve citizenship, which would make deporting him moot... __________________________________ NRA Benefactor I lost all my weapons in a boating, umm, accident. http://www.aufamily.com/forums/ | |||
|
Essayons |
Well, if he'd bothered to get his citizenship he'd be safe from deportation. BUT, not bothering with the citizenship thing probably never stopped him from voting in California. . . Thanks, Sap | |||
|
I believe in the principle of Due Process |
It was an unusually split result.
For those so inclined, the opinion in full and dissents, all 96 pages, is here. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
His Royal Hiney |
I don't think they can resubmit. The guy was tried and went to the Supreme Court already. But I get your point. Back in 2015 when the opinion came down that the law was too vague, why couldn't a senator or representative pick up the ball and specify the sh*t out of it. What were they doing? Sitting on their hands? Like they didn't hear about the ruling? "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
Little ray of sunshine |
Not politically important then, or too hard to get a consensus on re-drafting. Immigration is a toxic issue for both parties. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
Lawyers, Guns and Money |
That is true. The grass roots "base" of each party oppose open immigration. The "elite" monied interest of both parties support open borders... though for different reasons. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
I believe in the principle of Due Process |
Who has time to dream up proper laws and vote on them when there are all these hearings on day time cable national TV to primp for and interviews. You can’t just wing those and expect to impress anyone, you know. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Drill Here, Drill Now |
Not to mention they can't be late for the evening cocktail circuit (e.g. wined & dined by lobbyists, $2000 plate fundraisers, etc) Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. | |||
|
His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm. |
OK, when he was being confirmed, did he not say he would only rule on what a law actually says and not interject personal feelings (whatever they are) into a ruling? That's what we wanted, isn't it? | |||
|
thawed out, thrown out |
https://ballotpedia.org/Sessions_v._Dimaya Doesn't sound vague at all to me. Pretty specific actually. Bolded and colored for emphasis. | |||
|
Member |
One take on it though I am a bit skeptical, especially since even Justice Kennedy was on the dissenting side, as this statement seems pretty clear to me as the law states a crime of violence is against a person or property: "The law, as written, provides a legal basis for the deportation of a legal immigrant who is convicted of “crime of violence,” defined as “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.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...rvative-originalism/ "Conservatives can be expected to disagree reasonably over Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion Tuesday in Sessions v. Dimaya, in which he concurred with the Court’s liberals and cast the deciding vote in a 5-4 ruling invalidating an immigrant’s deportation. But it is not reasonable to claim that Justice Gorsuch has somehow sold out his principles to become the next David Souter. His opinion in Dimaya is actually a conservative one, based on an originalist reading of the Constitution. The majority held that Section 16(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutionally vague. The law, as written, provides a legal basis for the deportation of a legal immigrant who is convicted of “crime of violence,” defined as “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 legal immigrant in question has been convicted twice of first-degree burglary in California. But the Court held, following the precdent in Johnson v. United States (2015), that the idea of “substantial risk” of physical violence was just too vague. Congress simply had not provided a precise enough definition of a “crime of violence.” That meant that the Fifth Amendment due process rights of a legal immigrant convicted of a crime could be violated by deportation. Gorsuch’s concurring opinion begins: Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capa ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up. In other words, Gorsuch is not concerned with the welfare of this immigrant or any other. Rather, he is concerned about the federal government potentially abusing its power by exploiting vague language in the law. He goes on to point out that “burglary” includes “everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products,” leaving the courts in the dark about how to determined a “substantial risk” of force. Gorsuch also addresses the question of whether invalidating a statute for vagueness is itself constitutional — a question raised by Justice Clarence Thomas in his own dissenting opinion — and applies originalist arguments to that subject as well, citing precedent and principle in 18th century English law. The main dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, disagrees that the law is unconstitutionally vague, distinguishing the Dimaya case from the Johnson precedent and saying that the courts were merely called upon to make a “commonsense inquiry” about the risks of violence. And Thomas questions the “vagueness” doctrine itself. Gorsuch’s opinion is not a case of yet another Republican appointee to the Supreme Court going liberal. Rather, it is analogous to Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), in which the original originalist voted against President George W. Bush because he believed that the Constitution forbade the government from holding an American citizen — even one accused of fighting alongside our terrorist enemies — without charge. These cases both remind us that originalists will sometimes disagree in their conclusions, even if they agree in their methods. And in this case, there is a clear remedy: Congress can simply amend the statute to clarify “crimes of violence.” Far from violating the trust under which he was appointed, Gorsuch is fulfilling his commitment to originalism." Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. | |||
|
thawed out, thrown out |
Horseshit.
https://thelawdictionary.org/burglary/ A door to door salesman is not there to enter a home with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any other felony. They're trying to sell vacuum cleaners and life insurance. | |||
|
Member |
In the *night time*? Year V | |||
|
Dances with Wiener Dogs |
Heck, one could say that about a huge portion of the Code of Federal Regulations. Or almost the entire IRS Code. _______________________ “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand “If we relinquish our rights because of fear, what is it exactly, then, we are fighting for?” Sen. Rand Paul | |||
|
The guy behind the guy |
I would have voted the same way Gorsuch did. It's bad verbiage. Think of it this way: they don't ban the AR-15 style rifles. Instead, they ban guns of violence. It is a felony if you are caught with "a gun of violence." So, the 2nd Amendment allows you to own a gun, but if you own a "gun of violence" you will be tossed in jail. Everyone would be okay with that? Obviously we wouldn't, I'm just trying to give it a little context. What exactly is a "gun of violence?" Everyone will have a different definition of what that means. Is burglary a crime of violence? Many would say yes because you are breaking into someone's home. Others would say no because you didn't physically harm a person. I heard an LBGT person on Louder with Crowder say that calling her anything other than her preferred pronouns is an act of violence. Just because we think a definition is clear, doesn't mean everyone views it the same way. To avoid inconsistent application of our criminal laws from judge to judge, the Constitution demands laws be clear so citizens don't risk falling under them without having any idea they've done something to violate them. Laws must be clearly written so all citizens clearly know what violates the law. This law is simply too vague and needs to be clarified. There is a saying among lawyers, "tough cases make good law." This is a tough case, but it makes good law. It tells the legislatures that they need to be specific when defining criminal conduct. In general, I think we all agree that's a good thing. the legislature can easily define what types of crimes make someone eligible for deportation. In making this decision, Gorsuch is showing that he's a true Constitutionalist and intends to follow it. | |||
|
Member |
That is not a typical burglary statute. Black's law dictionary should not be confused with actual statutes in your state. | |||
|
Little ray of sunshine |
I agree with you. But, the expression is "tough (or hard) cases make bad law." The idea is that a difficult or sympathetic set of facts will lead jurists to make exceptions to rules, or imprecise rules that will lead to unexpected and undesirable results in cases where the facts are more straightforward. In this situation, if the courts made an exception and deported this guy even though the definition of "crime of violence" isn't clear, because they wanted to deport him, that would be bad law because then the courts and government could deport someone in the future for an even less good reason. "We deported him because he was speeding, and speeding can result in car crashes, and what could be more violent than a car crash?" The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |