Rune (03-21-2019)
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again Tuesday in an immigration case that turned on a clear-cut question of statutory interpretation. While the 5-4 conservative majority read the law as it was written, the Court’s liberals would have overruled Congress.
Federal immigration law generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain “deportable” immigrants with the discretion to release them on bond or parole if they don’t endanger the public. Congress in 1996 limited executive discretion and required the government to detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes or have links to terrorism “when [they are] released” from prison or jail.
In Nielsen v. Preap, plaintiffs argued that if the government does not detain the criminal immigrants immediately upon their release—that is, the day they leave jail—they are entitled to a bond or parole hearing. Immigration officials didn’t detain the lead plaintiff until 2013, seven years after being released from criminal custody. The case is especially ripe since sanctuary cities often don’t inform federal authorities when they release criminal immigrants.
Siding with the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit twisted itself into knots to rule against the Trump Administration. But as Justice Samuel Alito observed in the majority decision, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “misreads the structure” of the law and would result in all kinds of legal absurdities.
“It would be ridiculous to read paragraph (1) as saying: ‘The Secretary must arrest, upon their release from jail, a particular subset of criminal aliens. Which ones? Only those who are arrested upon their release from jail,’” Justice Alito noted, adding that “The mandatory-detention scheme [favored by the Ninth Circuit] would be gentler on terrorists than it is on garden-variety offenders.”
Or as Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in his pithy concurrence: “It would be odd, in my view, if the Act (1) mandated detention of particular noncitizens because the noncitizens posed such a serious risk of danger or flight that they must be detained during their removal proceedings, but (2) nonetheless allowed the noncitizens to remain free during their removal proceedings if the Executive Branch failed to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”
Although the case involved a narrow statutory question, the Court’s four liberals quibbled about the law’s policy implications on the nation’s “values.” For instance, what if immigrants were detained years after being released from police custody and have “established families and put down roots in a community”? The Court’s job isn’t to substitute its policy judgments for those of Congress.
https://outline.com/wx7xte
Rune (03-21-2019)
lol. the libs are spinning this as a major reversal of previous doctrine.
and soon the ninth circuit will be forced to stop their war on all things Trump and focus on the business of constitutional law.
And after Ruth is out of here, 6-3 SC will smack down anything they dare impose on America's well being without question.
This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT
C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network
Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you
Earl (03-21-2019)
How do you explain "textualism" or Scalia's "orginialism" in the Holder decision? How can you interpret any of the Amendment if you first can't define the text of the prefatory clause? And the Citizens United decision creates even more riddles
All those terms are just pseudo intellectual rationalizations to justify judicial activism by a conservative Court
And don't get too excited about the current makeup of the SCOTUS or the lesser Courts, the next Democrat President will reverse the trends Trump has set in motion just as Trump has Obama's, it has always been a pendulum swinging both ways
Rune (03-21-2019)
Roberts is still on the Court, in fact, it is the Robert's Court you are getting all giddy about
And Roberts didn't give anyone Obamacare, what he did, by defining it as a tax, was give the Legislative Branch an avenue to repeal the law, not his fault Trump failed in repealing it
Phantasmal (03-20-2019)
That was my point, and I'm certainly not "giddy" about a SCOTUS with Roberts on it.
Bullshit, Obama even argued it wasn't a tax.And Roberts didn't give anyone Obamacare, what he did, by defining it as a tax, was give the Legislative Branch an avenue to repeal the law, not his fault Trump failed in repealing it
Every life matters
In case you didn't know, the black POS you called President said it wasn't a tax. Where was that dishonorable liar when something he said wasn't a tax was upheld as a tax? No one expected him to be a stand up guy. He's too busy bending over for you and many others to kiss his black ass. Sadly, but happily, you obliged.
Get a clue ya fucking POE.This message is hidden because CFM is on your ignore list.
Every life matters
Bookmarks