Gee, I am so surprised by this decision… 
That’s what we get for having a 100% aboriginal SCOTUS.
No immigrant’s allowed!
Reuters does a much better job with this story than AP.
I like how TPM didn’t bother to put the 5-4 in there, we all knew that would be the case just from the headline…
Deeply unjust, unconscionable decision.
A quick scan of the syllabus (the entire decision is 59 pages long) seems to show unanimity on the essential points. There are a couple of opinions on parts of the issues that do not seem essential to the decision.
While I favor hearings when people are picked up, it’s hard for me to see a problem of due-process in a case in which someone has been convicted of a crime that is sufficient reason, in and of itself, for deportation, whether or not the government has given the person what is arguably a benefit in the form of some time before s/he is picked up.
sad but, not surprising.
This issue is much more complicated than the headline would tell you (not surprising.) This only applies to those who have been convicted of felony violations and violent crimes, not necessarily for a parking violation. I don’t think it was a particularly good decision, and Justice Breyer took the time to read his dissent from the bench. (Interesting too, that the defendant apparently escaped deportation, as per the last graf.) Of course, the right-wing bloc on the Court agreed with the government. Just remember, Hillary kept a private e-mail server!! Elections apparently do matter; let’s not forget that in November, 2020.
But but but she’s exactly the sa…oh fuck it…
Yes, but also an affirmation of a policy that’s not new:
The court’s conservative justices sided with the Trump administration, which argued as the Obama administration did, against hearings for those convicted of crimes and affected by the law.
As Sanders and his minions commence their bullshit against Democrats who have the audacity to run against him, I will remember their old standby of 2016 that there would be no difference between Hillary and Trump. This ruling proves that. Right?
The solution is to make parking violations felonies - or marijuana possession.
ETA: But the Supreme Court disagreed with the immigrants’ interpretation of federal law in a 5-4 ruling that divided the court along ideological lines. This is a phrase we will all die hearing.
This is the last graf in this article from Reuters. How does this figure into the decision in this case?
But in April 2018, conservative Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch joined with the court’s four liberal justices in a 5-4 ruling that could hinder the administration’s ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records, invalidating a provision in another law, the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“Preap has since won his deportation case.”
I was referring to the post, not the linked article. Just to clarify, I’m not defending the decision, just pointing out that those convicted of violent offenses should be subject to removal, after a proper hearing, of course.
This is part of an ongoing effort to clear up the consistently and aggrevatingly incorrect 9th circuit. That court, which seems to be staffed by illegals. Many bad rulings have come from that circuit. A ton of rulings will be overruled.
This is a sensible and reasonable ruling. We do not want a bunch of criminals here. If they come in and break the law, we will deport them.
The criminals are the WH and they break the law regularly. How do we remove them is what I want to know.
But “a court staffed by illegals”? How does that work?