Discussion: SCOTUS Strikes Down Immigration Law 'Crime Of Violence' Provision As Vague

The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump’s administration

Even though this concept is rapidly becoming repetitively redundant, I’m loving each and every occurrence…


Surprising to me that Gorsuch was part of the 5 on this.


C’mon donnie, tweet about your Appointee.


It’s easy enough to define such terms within a statute. The failure to do so is typically the work of unserious ideologues.


The court’s 5-4 decision — an unusual alignment in which new Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices…

:dizzy_face: :no_mouth: :dizzy_face: :no_mouth: :dizzy_face: :no_mouth:

I didn’t come to this story expecting to read that.

… and it’s still Tuesday. This week sure feels like stormy ahead…


The sound you hear is trumpkin heads exploding across the nation. My money is on reference to “GOOEY GORSUCH” or “NASTY NEAL” in tr*mp’s next tweet storm.


Congress excels at the use of vague or ambiguous statutory language to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Pass something that sounds good, i.e. people can read it to say what they want to hear, and then let the courts sort it out.

Case in point, a “crime of violence” is “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” (18 US Code §16). Nothing vague at all about a “substantial risk” that something “may be used in the course.”

As Scalia’s replacement Gorsuch is obligated to find that "the text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed” and then proceed to find that the text clearly says whatever he wants it to say in the case at hand.


This, I feel, will be one of those decisions that has a bigger impact on the country than people realize.

I re-heard some Trump stump speech excerpts recently, and the comparison to Hitler is accurate. He spent the whole campaign scapegoating minorities and convincing people that he could actually deport 11 million undocumented individuals and stop the political effects of demographic change. One person who was an aide to the WH stated bluntly that their intent was to make life as difficult for POCs as possible that they would leave. The target wasn’t just 11 million undocumented immigrants, but all legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. That’s what Bannon, Sessions, Miller and Trump are all about. That’s what Charlottesville was about. What Trump sold to white folks is that they don’t have to accept demographic change. They can reverse it.

With this decision (with Neil Gorsuch’s vote…stunning), however, it proves that Trump can’t accomplish anything meaningful. The country will continue to get more diverse and that will change the political and cultural landscape. Trump can’t deliver. What this means is that Republicans will be forced to accept demographic change and live with it. Many of these people who voted for Trump on the immigration issue will simply tune out of politics and not participate. Others will be irregular voters and less tethered to a party.


It is hoped.


The fact that it was Trump’s (illegally appointed) SCOTUS Justice casting the deciding vote makes it even richer. :laughing:


So much more surprising to Captain Flabby, I presume.


My read on Gorsuch is that his amour-propre–which is a big thing with him–dictated that he should demonstrate his independence from the rightwing camp from time to time. That he is too special altogether to become a bloc voter on all cases. I’ll take it.


Wouldn’t it be awesome if he ended up being the new, younger, Justice Kennedy?


I haven’t snorted and chortled at the news much until recently. Now, it’s daily.

Pronounced SHAH-dn-FROYD-uh…!


TRump: Justice Neil Gorsuch? Never heard of him! Sounds like a liberal loser to me! We need a Supreme Court that reflects the values of AMERICA! Not a failing Liberal COURT! It’s all part of MUELLER’S OVERREACH!!!


I agree with your read on him. Could be resistance to being part of a bloc; or could be a revolt (and/or revulsion) against carrying the stigma of being “Trump’s justice” – which probably feels skeevier than he’d anticipated in early 2017, when the flush of ambition made him happy to accept a stolen seat from someone he could still pretend wouldn’t be every bit the ethically monstrous, Constitution-shredding, historically unpopular “leader” his campaign had made clear we were getting. Whatever the reason, I’m hoping against hope that we’ll see more of it from him.


Gorsuch had Scalia’s majority decision to point to for cover, so maybe not so stunning. What’s interesting to me is the new young conservative sticks with the dead originalist, so what’s up with the other conservatives?
I would bet that Thomas was with that majority decision in 2015.

The case turned on a decision from 2015 that struck down a similarly worded part of another federal law that imposes longer prison sentences on repeat criminals. The majority opinion in that case was one of the last written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 and whose seat Gorsuch filled.


Time for a Trump tweet-storm attacking Gorsuch.


Surprising, but good. While some of his decisions will undoubtedly make me cringe, perhaps Gorsuch will surprise us sometimes. Some of the Reagan and Bush (1 & 2) appointments have landed on the right side of history on occasion.

1 Like