>The Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration a loss on immigration — and Gorsuch was the tiebreaking vote
>The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him. The government argued among other things that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.

>The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn't decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court's more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

>The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.

lol a fellow flip

so apparently he isn't being deported because the charge is merely burglary

probably one of those wannabe black guys

@Deleted User what happened to Cake Master Shop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission?

Did I miss the ruling or are they still talking?

dunno

Cake Master Shop ?

The one guy

Was like Piece Master Cake shopcor something

The one with the gays demanding you to give them shot

Shit*

Masterpiece Cake Shop

vs Colorado CRC

The ruling isn't out yet.

But that's the really important one, and Gorsuch looks like he's reliable there.

It's been like 5 months since they've heard the arguments though

Are they looking for precedents maybe?

No, they'll probably have it in their summer opinions.

>mfw my daughter was non violently raped and murdered by a based brown man
>its okay because we don't know the definition of "violence".
>please convene a group of Jewish activist organizations to write a 10,000 page statute on the definition of "violent crime" please
>BASED GORSUCH PEDE FTW
I'm telling you, brown immigrants will be voting Republican some day. You just watch!!

but it's clear that rape and murder is violent

and if they tried to use the excuse that it requires power+privilege it would simply backfire on them

Burglary is vague, come on.

also this is only for legal immigrants

Despite being in effect in some way since colonial times, Gorsuch thinks that A) a foreign national doesn't know committing 2 burglaries could get him deported B) he has such a right to know and C) contra settled law, deportation is a punishment and not extension of sovereignty

The precedent this will create for immigration lawyers, even for illegal aliens, will be enormous.

F America

"You mean he interpreted the law and not side with politics ? You mean he did what he was supposed to do ?"

~ anon on /pol/

But this is not the law

it is

Our statutes require executive officials to deport anyone convicted of “an aggravated felony.” Immigration law defines an aggravated felony very broadly and open-ended, as a “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. §16(b) defines a “crime of violence” to include “any … 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 course of committing the offense.”

when it's that vague, it's congress' job, not the SC

Thomas: "The Court’s decision today is triply flawed. It unneces­sarily extends our incorrect decision in Johnson. It uses a constitutional doctrine with dubious origins to invalidate yet another statute (while calling into question countless more)."

"And it does all this in the name of a statutory interpretation that we should have discarded long ago."

God bless this man for blocking amnesty legislation since 2014

you should spend more time praising positive outcomes than whining about non-issues

>non-issues

>lower courts and immigration lawyers now have justification for not deporting criminal immigrants

if they commit a violent crime it's still justified

We've had the majority of the Republican-appointed SCOTUS rule that "social sharing of marijuana" is not a mandatory deportation offense.

@Deleted User Wait are you Filipino?

Anyways America does have a problem of corrupting pinoys into discount blacks.

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
"Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capaciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored
opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark
about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine
that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more."
@🎃Boo-ton🎃 @FLanon
FLanon is right, he's just a complete originalist

He's an Asian, so of course he's going to side with other Asians breaking into the country

There's his reasoning for not joining, but concurring^

@🎃Boo-ton🎃
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
^proof

He didn't betray anyone, he was just a complete strict constitutionalist. Though I still disagree, I think Thomas is right.

Of course Thomas was right

What you don't like Thomas?

Him and Scalia were best friends, and Scalia was the best

Huh?

Oh I thought you were mimicking me and being sarcastic

"Oh COURSE Thomas is right."

No I was agreeing with you

shocker, I know

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/986303188587425794

@FLanon @zakattack04
Can we all agree this is so, _so_ tiring?

Definitely

He should really chill out on the "LOOK LOOK AT THE RASMUSSEN APPROVAL RATINGS"

It just looks so vain

Inbox from OH-SEN: "Conservative Outsider Mike Gibbons to Announce Plan for Mexico to Pay for Border Wall"

<@&414475903410896898> VOTE GIBBONS!

I mean I feel bad for the guy

All he hears is negative stuff all day

More than any of us could imagine handling

So I understand why he does ot

It*

But it isn't the best idea

I don't think Ohioans care about immigration @🎃Boo-ton🎃

I think they care much more about the economy since they're a rust belt state

So you should run a senator with more along those lines

@zakattack04 We do have illegal spics here

I don't care, either they nominate a immigration hawk or the state can go blue for all I care

...

You should darn well care

No point in having a Republican Congress if none of the Republicans are immigration hawks

Everyone should care about immigration to the US. Our immigration system is flawed beyond repair.

#VoteGibbons

Gibbons is a Republican.....

I know

Why shouldn't we have a Republican controlled congress then?

What I'm saying is if Renacci wins the nomination, let the state go blue

NO!

we want Gibbons, not Renacci

Either way, I am voting Republican.

I swear I want to mute you rn

The last the Democrats ended up controlling Congress, I lost my healthcare.

I would rather a third party before Democrats.

Fair

But vote Gibbons in the primary then

I was planning too...

Excellent

Then vote him in the primaries

Maybe pay attention to the <#399761047348707340> room...

If he looses that doesn't mean vote blue

^

I don't know

If Renacci loses,

it'll send a message that only immigration hawks can win

I mean that may be BM logic but it isn't normal person logic

Also Senator Brown is a prime target for Trump's career politician purge as he has been in some form of Public office since the 1970's.