- 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
Do the PT Leftists/Libs/Open Border folks approve of Trump's SCOTUS baw Gorsuch now?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:50 pm
I know it's old news but Gorsuch siding with the libs on the SCOTUS is troubling. Here's a little background for y'all so you understand what went down,
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting non-citizens to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat — thanks to the vote of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
President Trump's nominee to the high court joined most of the ruling by the court's liberal minority, agreeing that the law failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime. He based his conclusion on a similar decision written in 2015 by his predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was a victory for James Garcia Dimaya, whose two burglary convictions were considered violent crimes under the statute — despite not having involved violence. It was a defeat for the Justice Department, which defended the law under the Trump and Obama administrations
This decision is bizarre. We have an illegal alien with two burglary convictions and we have laws on the books that protect these people from deportation because we can't make a decision on what a violent crime is? The dude had two burglary convictions, that's a serious crime that many times results in a violent confrontation between the property owner and the criminal!
This is a serious problem if this is true and not just some fricked up interpretation of a sensible law by a buncha of do good fools masquerading as Supreme court justices.
I don't know what the actual law is but to keep it simple it should be as plain as this, if you have legal documentation to be in the country and are abiding by US laws you're cool. If you don't possess legal documentation to be in this country and it's discovered that you don't have the necessary documents on your person or readily available you're out.
If you're an illegal alien and break the law by committing any serious crimes such as DUI, drug possession/distribution, illegal possession of a firearm, assault, burglary, robbery, murder etc. you will be tried in a US court and the decision will be made to incarcerate your azz or deport your azz depending on the crime committed.
Trump better hope this is not a precursor of what to expect from Gorsuch in future rulings, if so Trump's claim of saving the SCOTUS is BS!
Then again, maybe I'm just over reacting.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law subjecting non-citizens to deportation for crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, handing the Trump administration an early defeat — thanks to the vote of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
President Trump's nominee to the high court joined most of the ruling by the court's liberal minority, agreeing that the law failed to define what would qualify as a violent crime. He based his conclusion on a similar decision written in 2015 by his predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was a victory for James Garcia Dimaya, whose two burglary convictions were considered violent crimes under the statute — despite not having involved violence. It was a defeat for the Justice Department, which defended the law under the Trump and Obama administrations
This decision is bizarre. We have an illegal alien with two burglary convictions and we have laws on the books that protect these people from deportation because we can't make a decision on what a violent crime is? The dude had two burglary convictions, that's a serious crime that many times results in a violent confrontation between the property owner and the criminal!
This is a serious problem if this is true and not just some fricked up interpretation of a sensible law by a buncha of do good fools masquerading as Supreme court justices.
I don't know what the actual law is but to keep it simple it should be as plain as this, if you have legal documentation to be in the country and are abiding by US laws you're cool. If you don't possess legal documentation to be in this country and it's discovered that you don't have the necessary documents on your person or readily available you're out.
If you're an illegal alien and break the law by committing any serious crimes such as DUI, drug possession/distribution, illegal possession of a firearm, assault, burglary, robbery, murder etc. you will be tried in a US court and the decision will be made to incarcerate your azz or deport your azz depending on the crime committed.
Trump better hope this is not a precursor of what to expect from Gorsuch in future rulings, if so Trump's claim of saving the SCOTUS is BS!
Then again, maybe I'm just over reacting.
9
Posted on 4/18/18 at 7:54 pm to Bass Tiger
Yes. If Gorsuch says it was vague, than it was probably too vague. Gorsuch isn't a partisan, he's a textualist. His job is not to be a partisan, but to tell us what the law is. He is telling us what the law is. I just wish we had more textualists and fewer partisans on the SCOTUS.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:00 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:You are.
Then again, maybe I'm just over reacting.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:15 pm to Iosh
quote:
Then again, maybe I'm just over reacting.
You are.
I hope you're right. I really want Gorsuch to make conservative Americans proud. Still doesn't change my opinion of existing laws that deal with this crapola, it shouldn't be this difficult to deport people who are illegally in this country and committing crimes to boot.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:35 pm to Bass Tiger
No. He's a judicial activist and his views on the nature of the constitution should've precluded him from being nominated for a federal court position.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:38 pm to Bass Tiger
A judge that follows textualism is never going to make one side happy all or even most of the time. They pay no attention to legislative history (which bothers me to a degree). Textualism doesn't mean they are a strict constructionist but they can be, they are two separate things.
The words in the law are the most if not only things that are important to them, legislative intent is not part of their interpretation. So the onus is put on the legislation to be absolutely correct and precisely worded. They will not attempt to fix something the legislature broke even though they may be pretty or very sure what the crafter of the law actually meant.
The words in the law are the most if not only things that are important to them, legislative intent is not part of their interpretation. So the onus is put on the legislation to be absolutely correct and precisely worded. They will not attempt to fix something the legislature broke even though they may be pretty or very sure what the crafter of the law actually meant.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:39 pm to Bass Tiger
Probably overreacting. If, as it appears to me from reading about his concurrence (haven't actually read it), this is just Gorsuch applying the law as it is and not as it "could" or "should" be. That's the mindset I want every judge to have regardless of whether I disagree with a specific decision.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:39 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:
No. He's a judicial activist and his views on the nature of the constitution should've precluded him from being nominated for a federal court position.
If that's the case he failed to be an activist on the behalf of conservative Americans who believe an illegal alien with two burglary raps should be out of the country.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:48 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
judge that follows textualism is never going to make one side happy all or even most of the time. They pay no attention to legislative history (which bothers me to a degree). Textualism doesn't mean they are a strict constructionist but they can be, they are two separate things.
The words in the law are the most if not only things that are important to them, legislative intent is not part of their interpretation. So the onus is put on the legislation to be absolutely correct and precisely worded. They will not attempt to fix something the legislature broke even though they may be pretty or very sure what the crafter of the law actually meant.
This
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:49 pm to Bass Tiger
Yes, but in this case he was wrong.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 8:50 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
A judge that follows textualism is never going to make one side happy all or even most of the time. They pay no attention to legislative history (which bothers me to a degree). Textualism doesn't mean they are a strict constructionist but they can be, they are two separate things.
The words in the law are the most if not only things that are important to them, legislative intent is not part of their interpretation. So the onus is put on the legislation to be absolutely correct and precisely worded. They will not attempt to fix something the legislature broke even though they may be pretty or very sure what the crafter of the law actually meant.
And you call yourself Obtuse1, that all made sense to me.
My real gripe is the law is so fricked up that the US can't legally deport a criminal convicted of burglary twice! 
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:08 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
That's the mindset I want every judge to have regardless of whether I disagree with a specific decision.
The problem with most of today's legislation is it is written by committee and or cut and paste from some special interest groups handbook. Some of the most elegant and useful legislation is much older legislation that was written by a single mind that produced a coherent thought process memorialized in words that were also elegant and succinct.
I will say I hated appellate oral arguments with a textualist on the bench, they will steal all your time discussing what the meaning of "is is". It is exceptionally infuriating when the legislative record contains an explicit definition of "is" but that is not something they will consider.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 5:17 am to Bass Tiger
Yes - that is exactly what we want from a SCOTUS justice - make sure the law is on point - there is nothing worse than a vague law which is left to how some judge "feels' on the issue.
I especially like it when it goes against my 'desire' - that means I have even more confidence in his decision making based on firm constitutional principles.
I never want a sycophant on the SCOTUS - even one who 'agrees' with me. I am not a student of the law - I need to trust that those who are perform their duties without bias.
This decision encourages me greatly - it is mind-numbingly simple to write a law that says what if means so that even a left wing judge would have a hard time interpreting it any other way.
Gorsuch - just what I wanted on the SCOTUS. 
eta - the OP says 'do leftists approve . . . " = I am far from a leftist - I am an arch conservative, and the decision goes against what I want to happen but more that what I want to happen is that we have honest constitutional principles applied at the SCOTUS.
perhaps I should have stayed out of this thread since it doesn't direct the question to me.
I especially like it when it goes against my 'desire' - that means I have even more confidence in his decision making based on firm constitutional principles.
I never want a sycophant on the SCOTUS - even one who 'agrees' with me. I am not a student of the law - I need to trust that those who are perform their duties without bias.
This decision encourages me greatly - it is mind-numbingly simple to write a law that says what if means so that even a left wing judge would have a hard time interpreting it any other way.
Gorsuch - just what I wanted on the SCOTUS.
eta - the OP says 'do leftists approve . . . " = I am far from a leftist - I am an arch conservative, and the decision goes against what I want to happen but more that what I want to happen is that we have honest constitutional principles applied at the SCOTUS.
perhaps I should have stayed out of this thread since it doesn't direct the question to me.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 5:24 am
Posted on 4/19/18 at 6:10 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
eta - the OP says 'do leftists approve . . . " = I am far from a leftist - I am an arch conservative, and the decision goes against what I want to happen but more that what I want to happen is that we have honest constitutional principles applied at the SCOTUS.
I think it was obvious that my OP was somewhat tongue in cheek, the Prog/Dims are worried that Trump's is going to stack the SCOTUS with conservative activists judges, Gorsuch should've have alleviated their fears.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 6:51 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
I don't know what the actual law is but to keep it simple it should be as plain as this, if you have
Perhaps you should leave the commentary to people who know what the law is.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:06 am to Bass Tiger
This decision isn't one I feel particularly strong about either way, but reading the law, it is vague, so I suppose on the whole I agree with his decision, and I respect his willingness, at least in small matters like this, to rule based on his own judgement and not on politics.
But no, that doesn't mean I approve of him as a justice, and I certainly don't approve of the shameless tactics McConnell and Senate Republicans used to block Garland and make way for Gorsuch.
But no, that doesn't mean I approve of him as a justice, and I certainly don't approve of the shameless tactics McConnell and Senate Republicans used to block Garland and make way for Gorsuch.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 8:07 am
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:07 am to TBoy
Yep, hard to argue that a burglary that included no violence should be considered a violent crime.
Congress could EASILY fix this by simply changing the law to read "FELONY" rather than "violent crime"
SCOTUS got this one right.
Congress could EASILY fix this by simply changing the law to read "FELONY" rather than "violent crime"
SCOTUS got this one right.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:10 am to kingbob
quote:
Yes. If Gorsuch says it was vague, than it was probably too vague. Gorsuch isn't a partisan, he's a textualist. His job is not to be a partisan, but to tell us what the law is. He is telling us what the law is. I just wish we had more textualists and fewer partisans on the SCOTUS.
/thread
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News