SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes! MAGA!

[Baz Ares]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.


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.


The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes - CNNPolitics


Whee!
What will the Great Douche DO? Will the Great Douche Twitler Bully SCOTUS!
DO? Will the Great Douche send the National Guard in, to jail the 9 sitting justices?
Hey, DOPers! Guess you need to Hang this Traitor to the DOPer MAGA BS!

btw: No Great Wall in under construction. And California will not add
the NG to the southern border so the illegals can do an end around.
That be a side flanking move there, DOPers LOL!

btw2. All we need to do is lockup legal employers of illegals. Starting with home and rental property owners.

btw3: Justice Neil Gorsuch Hires First American Indian Law Clerk In SCOTUS History

 

[depotoo]

Wow, I would love to read the actual decision, because according to you, it flies against some of their previous decisions

Supreme Court Eases Deportation for Immigrants Who Break State Laws


Seems it has a bearing on what can be considered violent crime, vs not. Burglary, without violence is ok. Geeesh.

 

[Baz Ares]

Wow, I would love to read the actual decision, because according to you, it flies against some of their previous decisions

Supreme Court Eases Deportation for Immigrants Who Break State Laws


Seems it has a bearing on what can be considered violent crime, vs not. Burglary, without violence is ok. Geeesh.

The Great Douche appointed him for the GOP/DOPers! It's on the DOPers! LOL!
So far, Neil gives money to the 1%ers and keep the illegals here to Rob and Assault the other 99%.
LOL!

 

[TNHarley]

It is awesome to have a SC justice that isnt a hack, isnt it?
Too bad the partisan OP is cheering him on for the wrong reasons.

 

[Rambunctious]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.


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.


The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes - CNNPolitics


Whee!
What will the Great Douche DO? Will the Great Douche Twitler Bully SCOTUS!
DO? Will the Great Douche send the National Guard in, to jail the 9 sitting justices?
Hey, DOPers! Guess you need to Hang this Traitor to the DOPer MAGA BS!

btw: No Great Wall in under construction. And California will not add
the NG to the southern border so the illegals can do an end around.
That be a side flanking move there, DOPers LOL!

btw2. All we need to do is lockup legal employers of illegals. Starting with home and rental property owners.

btw3: Justice Neil Gorsuch Hires First American Indian Law Clerk In SCOTUS History

So this nut bag liberal Baz Ares^^^^^^^^ is happy as hell for there to be illegal alien sex offenders and child molesters kidnappers and drug dealers running around America....

 

[Baz Ares]

It is awesome to have a SC justice that isnt a hack, isnt it?
Too bad the partisan OP is cheering him on for the wrong reasons.

LOL! How so? Explain my wrong reasons. I suggested the solution to this problem.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

 

[Baz Ares]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.


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.


The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes - CNNPolitics


Whee!
What will the Great Douche DO? Will the Great Douche Twitler Bully SCOTUS!
DO? Will the Great Douche send the National Guard in, to jail the 9 sitting justices?
Hey, DOPers! Guess you need to Hang this Traitor to the DOPer MAGA BS!

btw: No Great Wall in under construction. And California will not add
the NG to the southern border so the illegals can do an end around.
That be a side flanking move there, DOPers LOL!

btw2. All we need to do is lockup legal employers of illegals. Starting with home and rental property owners.

btw3: Justice Neil Gorsuch Hires First American Indian Law Clerk In SCOTUS History

So this nut bag liberal Baz Ares^^^^^^^^ is happy as hell for there to be illegal alien sex offenders and child molesters kidnappers and drug dealers running around America....

WOW! Yuge lying DOPer overreach there. This is for some crimes and not those types.

 

[TNHarley]

It is awesome to have a SC justice that isnt a hack, isnt it?
Too bad the partisan OP is cheering him on for the wrong reasons.

LOL! How so? Explain my wrong reasons. I suggested the solution to this problem.

This is just a FU to trumps policies. Grow up dipshit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

Stay Classy, Scumbag

 

[Baz Ares]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

Well, Long-Dong still on the job.

We agree with Justice Thomas’ assessment—the majority “says little about how a court of appeals could ever rule in Tharpe’s favor on the merits of the prejudice question.”

Once again, the Supreme Court has turned back for further review and a possible new trial a capital murder conviction and death sentence because of a juror’s racist comments
The majority found such evidence in an affidavit by a single white juror, interrogated by defense counsel seven years after Tharpe’s conviction. As summarized by the majority, the affiant stated: “In his view there are two types of black people,: 1: Black folks and 2. N****r;” that Tharpe, “who wasn’t in the ‘good‘ black’ folks category in my bookhttps://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2018/04/16/in-racist-juror-case-more-was-needed-from-scotus-majority/?slreturn=20180317111622

DOPers should be mad HERE too! Well? Not really.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

Stay Classy, Scumbag

You voted class out a year and a half ago

 

[depotoo]

Section 16(b) suffers from those same two flaws. Like ACCA’s residual clause, §16(b) calls for a court to identify a crime’s “ordinary case” in order to measure the crime’s risk but “offers no reliable way” to discern what the ordinary version of any offense looks like. Id., at ___. And its “substantial risk” thresh- old is no more determinate than ACCA’s “serious potential risk” standard. Thus, the same “[t]wo features” that “conspire[d] to make” ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague also exist in §16(b), with the same result. Id., at ___. Pp. 6–11.
(b) The Government identifies three textual discrepancies between ACCA’s residual clause and §16(b) that it claims make §16(b) easier to apply and thus cure the constitutional infirmity. None, however, relates to the pair of features that Johnson found to produce imper- missible vagueness or otherwise makes the statutory inquiry more determinate. Pp. 16–24.
(1) First, the Government argues that §16(b)’s express require-


ment (absent from ACCA) that the risk arise from acts taken “in the course of committing the offense,” serves as a “temporal restriction”— in other words, a court applying §16(b) may not “consider risks aris- ing after” the offense’s commission is over. Brief for Petitioner 31. But this is not a meaningful limitation: In the ordinary case of any of- fense, the riskiness of a crime arises from events occurring during its commission, not events occurring later. So with or without the tem- poral language, a court applying the ordinary case approach, whether in §16’s or ACCA’s residual clause, would do the same thing—ask what usually happens when a crime is committed. The phrase “in the course of” makes no difference as to either outcome or clarity and cannot cure the statutory indeterminacy Johnson described.
Second, the Government says that the §16(b) inquiry, which focus- es on the risk of “physical force,” “trains solely” on the conduct typi- cally involved in a crime. Brief for Petitioner 36. In contrast, ACCA’s residual clause asked about the risk of “physical injury,” requiring a second inquiry into a speculative “chain of causation that could possibly result in a victim’s injury.” Ibid. However, this Court has made clear that “physical force” means “force capable of causing physical pain or injury.” Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133, 140. So under §16(b) too, a court must not only identify the conduct typically involved in a crime, but also gauge its potential consequenc- es. Thus, the force/injury distinction does not clarify a court’s analy- sis of whether a crime qualifies as violent.
Third, the Government notes that §16(b) avoids the vagueness of ACCA’s residual clause because it is not preceded by a “confusing list of exemplar crimes.” Brief for Petitioner 38. Those enumerated crimes were in fact too varied to assist this Court in giving ACCA’s residual clause meaning. But to say that they failed to resolve the clause’s vagueness is hardly to say they caused the problem. Pp. 16– 21.
(2) The Government also relies on judicial experience with §16(b), arguing that because it has divided lower courts less often and resulted in only one certiorari grant, it must be clearer than its ACCA counterpart. But in fact, a host of issues respecting §16(b)’s application to specific crimes divide the federal appellate courts. And while this Court has only heard oral arguments in two §16(b) cases, this Court vacated the judgments in a number of other §16(b) cases, remanding them for further consideration in light of ACCA decisions. Pp. 21–24.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
He is the reasoning

 

[Baz Ares]

It is awesome to have a SC justice that isnt a hack, isnt it?
Too bad the partisan OP is cheering him on for the wrong reasons.

LOL! How so? Explain my wrong reasons. I suggested the solution to this problem.

This is just a FU to trumps policies. Grow up dipshit

By ITS appointee. How am I to blame?

 

[TNHarley]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

Stay Classy, Scumbag

You voted class out a year and a half ago

are you calling clinton classy?

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.


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.


The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes - CNNPolitics


Whee!
What will the Great Douche DO? Will the Great Douche Twitler Bully SCOTUS!
DO? Will the Great Douche send the National Guard in, to jail the 9 sitting justices?
Hey, DOPers! Guess you need to Hang this Traitor to the DOPer MAGA BS!

btw: No Great Wall in under construction. And California will not add
the NG to the southern border so the illegals can do an end around.
That be a side flanking move there, DOPers LOL!

btw2. All we need to do is lockup legal employers of illegals. Starting with home and rental property owners.

btw3: Justice Neil Gorsuch Hires First American Indian Law Clerk In SCOTUS History

Gorsuch voted for this.......? Priceless!

 

[Baz Ares]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

Stay Classy, Scumbag

DANG! Okay!

That be Scumbag Wormfood!

 

[BULLDOG]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.


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.


The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes - CNNPolitics


Whee!
What will the Great Douche DO? Will the Great Douche Twitler Bully SCOTUS!
DO? Will the Great Douche send the National Guard in, to jail the 9 sitting justices?
Hey, DOPers! Guess you need to Hang this Traitor to the DOPer MAGA BS!

btw: No Great Wall in under construction. And California will not add
the NG to the southern border so the illegals can do an end around.
That be a side flanking move there, DOPers LOL!

btw2. All we need to do is lockup legal employers of illegals. Starting with home and rental property owners.

btw3: Justice Neil Gorsuch Hires First American Indian Law Clerk In SCOTUS History

So this nut bag liberal Baz Ares^^^^^^^^ is happy as hell for there to be illegal alien sex offenders and child molesters kidnappers and drug dealers running around America....

And your president apointed the judge who tipped the scales allowing illegal alien sex offenders and child molesters kidnappers and drug dealers to run around America. Aren't you proud? MAGA!!!

 

[Baz Ares]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.


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.


The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of some immigrants convicted of crimes - CNNPolitics


Whee!
What will the Great Douche DO? Will the Great Douche Twitler Bully SCOTUS!
DO? Will the Great Douche send the National Guard in, to jail the 9 sitting justices?
Hey, DOPers! Guess you need to Hang this Traitor to the DOPer MAGA BS!

btw: No Great Wall in under construction. And California will not add
the NG to the southern border so the illegals can do an end around.
That be a side flanking move there, DOPers LOL!

btw2. All we need to do is lockup legal employers of illegals. Starting with home and rental property owners.

btw3: Justice Neil Gorsuch Hires First American Indian Law Clerk In SCOTUS History

Gorsuch voted for this.......? Priceless!

I want to read the Great Douche Bullying Attack tweets on Neil....LOL!
But if the Great Douche does not do so, will the DOPers be mad and support the Orange Ordure less?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I wonder how Wormfood Scalia would have voted

Stay Classy, Scumbag

You voted class out a year and a half ago

are you calling clinton classy?

Compared to the dotard he’s like James Bond