- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court rules for Trump administration in requiring immigrant's removal
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:00 pm
LINK
So the four liberals wanted to legislate from the bench by not applying the law as written by Congress.
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's decision that an immigrant with lawful permanent resident status cannot fight deportation due to a previous offense, even though that crime was not grounds for his removal.
In a 5-4 ruling with conservative justices on one side and liberals on the other, the court ruled for the Trump administration in holding that the statute in question, as drafted by Congress, requires deportation in the case of Andre Barton, even though the assault offenses that prevent him from appealing were not enough to deport him in the first place.
quote:
"Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court's opinion. "Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens— even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress."
So the four liberals wanted to legislate from the bench by not applying the law as written by Congress.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:03 pm to WPBTiger
One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:04 pm to WPBTiger
I do not care enough to read the formal opinion, but (based upon the summary) it looks like a simple case of statutory interpretation ... and the right call.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:16 pm to Cosmo
quote:that's why 2016 was the most important election we've had in my lifetime
One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back
this law would have been overturned had Hillary won
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:17 pm to dcbl
quote:The decision does not overturn OR uphold the statute. It simply applies the statute.
this law would have been overturned had Hillary won
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:20 pm to Cosmo
quote:
One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back
Does the Turtle get credit for this?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:21 pm to Cosmo
quote:
One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back
One death away from us buying ourselves a couple additional decades of existence
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The decision does not overturn OR uphold the statute. It simply applies the statute.
So you read it anyway. Good for you.
This post was edited on 4/23/20 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:22 pm to viceman
quote:No, I read the summary.
So you read it anyway. Good for you.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No, I read the summary.
of course, nevermind
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:27 pm to AggieHank86
I think he’s saying that if Hillary had appointed two justices, they would’ve joined the other four and the decision would’ve been markedly different.
If the present dissent was to overturn, it would’ve been hypothetically overturned. If the present dissent was to not apply the law, the hypothetical majority would’ve been that it didn’t apply.
If the present dissent was to overturn, it would’ve been hypothetically overturned. If the present dissent was to not apply the law, the hypothetical majority would’ve been that it didn’t apply.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 7:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The decision does not overturn OR uphold the statute. It simply applies the statute.
And? Are you implying that five liberal justices would not have found a way to simply IGNORE the statute and allow the alien to prevent his deportation?
Posted on 4/23/20 at 7:32 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
"Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court's opinion. "Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens— even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress."
One of the biggest reasons that Kavanaugh was chosen is that he is an immigration hawk that's trusted by the people that matter when it comes to advocating for border security.
Kav is strong on immigration. If it was Kethledge or Hardiman on the court and they are both very weak on immigration, it would be all up in the air.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 8:08 pm to WPBTiger
quote:That’s all they ever do. They don’t rule based on laws, they rule based on their fee-fees.
So the four liberals wanted to legislate from the bench by not applying the law as written by Congress.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:27 pm to WPBTiger
There was a split in the circuits. The Second, Third, Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled with the majority. The ninth Circuit Court of Appeal had ruled with the dissent.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I do not care enough to read the formal opinion, but (based upon the summary) it looks like a simple case of statutory interpretation ... and the right call.
No one wants to hear you bump your gums & I am sure the SCOTUS doesn’t care if you approve either.
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:48 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
even though the assault offenses that prevent him from appealing were not enough to deport him in the first place.
WTF?
Anybody here on any kind of status should be the best. We don't have to accept shitasses. There are way more people wanting in than we can take, especially now. Why the Hell are there crimes that legal immigrants can do without being deported?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News