General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGorsuch joins liberal justices to end mandatory deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes
Jim Sciutto @jimsciuttoBreaking: Supreme Court invalidates part of federal law requiring mandatory deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes. For first time, Justice Neil Gorsuch joins with more liberal Justices to produce 5-4 majority -@Arianedevogue reports
CNN:
The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administrations overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute. In doing so, Gorsuch was continuing the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who also sided with liberals when it came to the vagueness of statutes used to convict criminal defendants.
Dimaya, a native of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2007 and 2009, he pleaded no contest to charges of residential burglary in California and an immigration judge determined that Dimaya was removable from the US because of his two state court convictions.
The court held that the convictions qualified for an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes removal of non-citizens who have been convicted of some violent crimes and defines aggravated felony to include crimes of violence.
read: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html/
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)Be another Souter (without the brains).
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,641 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)bigtree
(85,999 posts)...about an 'unconstitutionally vague' Armed Career Criminal Act provision.
I'd bet a dime to a dollar it's about protecting gun owners' rights who've had multiple convictions.
still_one
(92,242 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,992 posts)Not sure what it means in practical terms, but Im glad Gorsuch ruled on the merit of the law and not the politics
democrank
(11,096 posts)some of the most conservative people I know can hold a liberal position on certain issues and some of the most left-leaning people I know hold a conservative position on some issues. Examples: gun rights, abortion, death penalty, same-sex marriage.
Guess we don't all fit in standard pigeon holes.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)democrank
(11,096 posts)rather than the more conservative one.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...the reasons for their votes diverge.
Not the same as, for example, a red state Dem voting against gun safety legislation, or voting for abortion restrictions, believing in the conservative view of the underlying issue.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)Ive also never understood why say, being against universal health care also means you have to be against gay marriage or supporting tax cuts has to do with being all for the second amendment yet the right/left dichotomy seems to demand you either check all the boxes or you cant come to the party.