• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
PoliSciXtina said:
Ha. I'm sure Trump is seething (which I'm sure is becoming a frequent state of emotions for him).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm sure Obama is seething also, his DoJ also defended this law.
 
So Congress needs to better define the statute. Seems reasonable to me.
 
"... During oral argument on the first day of the 2017 term in October, Gorsuch wondered how the court could define a crime of violence if Congress did not. ..."

= badly written law; Gorsuch follows the book.
 
hanger4 said:
I'm sure Obama is seething also, his DoJ also defended this law.
Click to expand...



I believe both were wrong and some of the court was right.

How can someone be charged with a violent act when no violence was committed.

I don't know the case but I suspect the possibility of threats, intimidation could have lead to charges.
 
This is odd, I was led to believe by some that this guy was an unwavering political extremist who would unbalance the court perpetually and shred the constitution with his regressive political views [/s]

The reality is, people attempting to put ideology onto Judges are attempting to apply the norms and ideals of one area onto another and that rarely works. Judicial views and Political views, while they may be intertwined at times, are not identical things. Additionally, even the man that Gorsuch replaced, Antonin Scalia, did not singularly side with the "right" side of the court on matters.

One of my favorite quotes from Scalia came out of a case on flag burnings. "If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government."

Anyone expecting a man, who styled himself in some ways after Scalia, to be an individual who would always be voting in the politically conservative view on cases was someone who had unrealistic expectations. I'm not a Trump fan, and I'm not happy to see the case go this route politically (though judicially, I'm leaning towards the belief it's the right call), but neither of those changes the fact that the appointment of Gorsuch remains one of my favorite things about the Trump Presidency and remains one of the main reasons I am pleased that it is Trump, and not Clinton, who ultimately won the election.
 
Seems very straightforward. Vague statue needs to be rewritten.

You can't enforce what you didn't write. No points for "yada yada yada".
 
I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
 

^^^ this ^^^
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I do agree. I think that was a vague campaign slogan/promise created by the Trump election team. Bill O'Reilly must be pissed!
Click to expand...

I agree with this too, and I really don't care what Trump or Bill O'Reilly thinks. Congress should pass better laws that are more clear, especially once a similarly vague law was earlier rejected.
 

Oh please. You guys will stop at nothing to discredit Trump or say he's lying. You rabid lefties are the only ones I know who complain about things that happen that they like. What is it you expect diehard Trump supporters to do, get mad at him and vote Democrat?
 
Moon said:
So Congress needs to better define the statute. Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Yep. Gorsuch sided with the fact that there was no definition of what a violent crime was. Once there is a definition, he would probably vote the other way, unless the definition was outrageous.
 

Not all of "us" (and I'm not a leftist) are interested in who you vote for, but if you want to do that. It's fine by me. I'd much rather you vote for a sane Republican, but there are fewer and fewer of those left.
 
I have zero problems deporting illegal or legal immigrants convicted of violent crimes after their time is served, assuming they haven’t been naturalized. But I find it reassuring that Gorsuch didn’t just rubber stamp it despite it not being written as well as he would like.
 

No one would ever expect that.
 
Kreton said:
I don't agree with the decision. This is seemingly protecting violent criminals. I don't see how anyone can make a real argument for that.
Click to expand...

Might want to take a closer look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…