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?