Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Supreme Court rules for Trump administration in requiring immigrant's removal

Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:00 pm
Posted by WPBTiger
Parts Unknown
Member since Nov 2011
31090 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:00 pm
LINK

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 by Cosmo
glassman's guest house
Member since Oct 2003
120324 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:03 pm to
One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back

Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:04 pm to
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 by dcbl
Good guys wear white hats.
Member since Sep 2013
29695 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:16 pm to
quote:

One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back

that's why 2016 was the most important election we've had in my lifetime

this law would have been overturned had Hillary won
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:17 pm to
quote:

this law would have been overturned had Hillary won
The decision does not overturn OR uphold the statute. It simply applies the statute.
Posted by viceman
Huntsville, AL
Member since Aug 2016
30688 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:20 pm to
quote:

One progressive judge away from them taking power and never giving it back



Does the Turtle get credit for this?
Posted by MeatCleaverWeaver
Member since Oct 2013
22175 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:21 pm to
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 by viceman
Huntsville, AL
Member since Aug 2016
30688 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:21 pm to
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 by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:22 pm to
quote:

So you read it anyway. Good for you.
No, I read the summary.
Posted by viceman
Huntsville, AL
Member since Aug 2016
30688 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

No, I read the summary.



of course, nevermind
Posted by texashorn
Member since May 2008
13122 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 6:27 pm to
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.
Posted by BayBengal9
Bay St. Louis, MS
Member since Nov 2019
4171 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 7:23 pm to
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 by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 7:32 pm to
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 by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
29483 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 8:08 pm to
quote:

So the four liberals wanted to legislate from the bench by not applying the law as written by Congress.
That’s all they ever do. They don’t rule based on laws, they rule based on their fee-fees.
Posted by cajunandy
New Orleans
Member since Nov 2015
671 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:27 pm to
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 by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
142047 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:36 pm to
Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
17474 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:45 pm to
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 by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 4/23/20 at 9:48 pm to
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?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram