Partisan reactions please! Gorsuch sides with liberals to invalidate part of deportation law!

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I live in two states that says if someone forces their way into your residence or business then their ass is mine. I prefer a Glock 17 though. Easier to clean.

It's called the castle doctrine. Basically, somebody breaks into your house, you have no duty to retreat, and you can take any action necessary to subdue them.

If they were in your garage, you would need to be in a "make my day" law states, which allow lethal force for protection of property, other than one's home.

I live in Idaho..if you shoot a burglar here..you drink free for a month!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Bunch of liberal statists here who seem to think the government should be able to do anything it wants, whenever it wants, because it wants.

There is a good reason why the courts throw out vague laws. If a law is overly vague, it would give the government power to perform an end around the rule of law, and simply declare new laws whenever they want. Most people nowadays are so busy tripping over their own partisanship they make giant hypocrites of themselves. Gorsuch avoided that trap and upheld the conservative principle that we have a federal government of limited powers. If legal status immigrants are going to be deported upon conviction of certain crimes, then the Congress much legislate that, identifying those crimes with specificity.

 

[postman]

I live in Idaho..if you shoot a burglar here..you drink free for a month!

Just make sure you shoot him inside the house, or entering the house. You can't shoot him in your front yard, and drag him inside.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All Congress needs to do is rewrite the law.

 

[Hossfly]

I live in two states that says if someone forces their way into your residence or business then their ass is mine. I prefer a Glock 17 though. Easier to clean.

It's called the castle doctrine. Basically, somebody breaks into your house, you have no duty to retreat, and you can take any action necessary to subdue them.

If they were in your garage, you would need to be in a "make my day" law states, which allow lethal force for protection of property, other than one's home.

Yes, I know. I used to teach concealed carry classes. In North Carolina your auto is under the castle doctrine as well as your home or business.

 

[DJT for Life]

Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.

Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.

I read the article a second time. I never saw anything about him being here illegally.

I kinda like Gorsuch's decision. I think he's pushing a more radical approach.
Immigration and Crime. If a person is here legally, he is subject to our laws.
He violates them he should be gone. There is no reason to add these
other intentions. Same and moreso with an illegal. Crossing that border
without permission whether you are 50, 15 or 5 makes you illegal and if we
get you, you are outta here.

I think that's what he's leading to in his decision. Immigrants that don't
obey the law...must go. When we throw in all the other lingo..."violent crime"
whatever, we are trying to find ways to keep them here.

The law should be very simple to understand.

If a person is an immigrant and commits a crime...they go.

If a person is here illegally, they go whether they commit a crime or not.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And of course Dimocrats are gleeful that criminals who are here illegally will get to stay.

Have I told you lately how much I hate these people ?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.

Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.

I read the article a second time. I never saw anything about him being here illegally.

I kinda like Gorsuch's decision. I think he's pushing a more radical approach.
Immigration and Crime. If a person is here legally, he is subject to our laws.
He violates them he should be gone. There is no reason to add these
other intentions. Same and moreso with an illegal. Crossing that border
without permission whether you are 50, 15 or 5 makes you illegal and if we
get you, you are outta here.

I think that's what he's leading to in his decision. Immigrants that don't
obey the law...must go. When we throw in all the other lingo..."violent crime"
whatever, we are trying to find ways to keep them here.

The law should be very simple to understand.

If a person is an immigrant and commits a crime...they go.

If a person is here illegally, they go whether they commit a crime or not.

OR (and just bear with me here), he thought the statute was too vague. Maybe this is one of those situations where someone states their position, and that's their position.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.

Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.

I read the article a second time. I never saw anything about him being here illegally.

I kinda like Gorsuch's decision. I think he's pushing a more radical approach.
Immigration and Crime. If a person is here legally, he is subject to our laws.
He violates them he should be gone. There is no reason to add these
other intentions. Same and moreso with an illegal. Crossing that border
without permission whether you are 50, 15 or 5 makes you illegal and if we
get you, you are outta here.

I think that's what he's leading to in his decision. Immigrants that don't
obey the law...must go. When we throw in all the other lingo..."violent crime"
whatever, we are trying to find ways to keep them here.

The law should be very simple to understand.

If a person is an immigrant and commits a crime...they go.

If a person is here illegally, they go whether they commit a crime or not.

OR (and just bear with me here), he thought the statute was too vague. Maybe this is one of those situations where someone states their position, and that's their position.

The question should be why are they vague? They should be pretty damn simple to understand. You’re here illegally, one **** up and you’re gone. You’re here on a work visa, one **** up and you’re gone. We don’t need this degrees of criminal bullshit statutes.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The question should be why are they vague? They should be pretty damn simple to understand.

Why? Because that's how Congress worded the statute when it was created. That was a bad job on their part.

You’re here illegally, one **** up and you’re gone. You’re here on a work visa, one **** up and you’re gone. We don’t need this degrees of criminal bullshit statutes.

That's just peachy keen of you.

The person in this case is a permanent resident. Nothing valuable is accomplished by deporting immigrants for any petty offense whatsoever. A loitering citation should not result in deportation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is Gorsuch an activist judge? Is he a traitor? Or were the other four conservatives being too liberal?


Trump pick Gorsuch casts deciding Supreme Court vote against deporting immigrant

Actually, I thought his argument sounded well-reasoned and grounded in both American history and precedent, and in concern for the rule of law. At least, that was my immediate impression. I'll have to look into it more when I get home and have more free time.

 

[bripat9643]

Is Gorsuch an activist judge? Is he a traitor? Or were the other four conservatives being too liberal?


Trump pick Gorsuch casts deciding Supreme Court vote against deporting immigrant

So one illegal gets to stay? That's the momentus outcome of the decision?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Is Gorsuch an activist judge? Is he a traitor? Or were the other four conservatives being too liberal?


Trump pick Gorsuch casts deciding Supreme Court vote against deporting immigrant

So one illegal gets to stay? That's the momentus outcome of the decision?

Who said anything about illegals?

 

[bripat9643]

The question should be why are they vague? They should be pretty damn simple to understand.

Why? Because that's how Congress worded the statute when it was created. That was a bad job on their part.

You’re here illegally, one **** up and you’re gone. You’re here on a work visa, one **** up and you’re gone. We don’t need this degrees of criminal bullshit statutes.

That's just peachy keen of you.

The person in this case is a permanent resident. Nothing valuable is accomplished by deporting immigrants for any petty offense whatsoever. A loitering citation should not result in deportation.

We gain whenever any "immigrant" is deported for an reason, unless he's Einstein, of course.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As long as he bases his decisions on the law and not his personal opinions or politics I have no problem with it.

I don't have to agree with his conclusions. I only need to know that he's basing his conclusions on the correct foundation.

 

[deanrd]

Is Gorsuch an activist judge? Is he a traitor? Or were the other four conservatives being too liberal?


Trump pick Gorsuch casts deciding Supreme Court vote against deporting immigrant

Or, he is just following the law. Something Trump and Cohen and others of that ilk don't bother doing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why we are dicking around with defining violent crimes that can lead to deportation is beyond me. Here’s the crime, you’re here illegally, it doesn’t matter what crime got you caught you’re either going to prison or getting your ass shipped home. We spend more time and money on stupid shit like this, it’s ridiculous.

Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.

He’s not a citizen or deportation wouldn’t be possible at all. Any other status he may have is not permanent and can be revoked at any time.

I agree but that is an administrative/judicial decision not a decision based on law.
It is completely reasonable to disagree with the decision but that doesn't make it controversial.

Two burglaries should count as grounds for deportation don’t you think?

Yes but it isn't my decision to make.

And it's apparently not the law at the moment, so . . .

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is he illegal? I say no indication he was.

He’s not a citizen or deportation wouldn’t be possible at all. Any other status he may have is not permanent and can be revoked at any time.

I agree but that is an administrative/judicial decision not a decision based on law.
It is completely reasonable to disagree with the decision but that doesn't make it controversial.

Two burglaries should count as grounds for deportation don’t you think?

Yes but it isn't my decision to make.

And it's apparently not the law at the moment, so . . .

I wouldn't know. Sometimes you have to defer to the people with the knowledge. Either way it's not in my hands

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, a burglary calls for a 12 gauge and a robbery calls for an AR-15 w/bumpstock.

Don't you like your neighbors. An AR015 will put a hole through two walls and into your neighbors house.

Of course, so will quite a few guns, depending on the construction of the walls.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I live in two states that says if someone forces their way into your residence or business then their ass is mine. I prefer a Glock 17 though. Easier to clean.

It's called the castle doctrine. Basically, somebody breaks into your house, you have no duty to retreat, and you can take any action necessary to subdue them.

If they were in your garage, you would need to be in a "make my day" law states, which allow lethal force for protection of property, other than one's home.

Yes, I know. I used to teach concealed carry classes. In North Carolina your auto is under the castle doctrine as well as your home or business.

I think the garage SHOULD be, because most houses have a rather flimsy door between the kitchen and garage, which means that once he's inside the garage, he's basically one good kick away from being in the living area.