Another Ninth Circuit Reversal

[anatta]

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

[tsuke]

lol. the libs are spinning this as a major reversal of previous doctrine.

[Getin the ring]

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.

[anatta]

lol. the libs are spinning this as a major reversal of previous doctrine.

the statute is clear -the beauty of Textualism - while the libs debate "values"

[countryboy]

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.

Don't forget, Roberts The Traitorous gave us Obamacare.

[archives]

the statute is clear -the beauty of Textualism - while the libs debate "values"

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

[anatta]

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

citizen united is ez -limiting political speech is prohibited by the first, corporations are no differnet then any other organization of individuals..


you'd have to cite and let me see it for other comments

[CFM]

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

Upholding the Constitution as written isn't activism. You lefties reading things into it and judge shopping to find one to see what you claim to see is activism.

Why don't you learn your place in society and be happy you're allowed to do what you're told to do, boy.

[archives]

Don't forget, Roberts The Traitorous gave us Obamacare.

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

[archives]

Upholding the Constitution as written isn't activism. You lefties reading things into it and judge shopping to find one to see what you claim to see is activism.

Why don't you learn your place in society and be happy you're allowed to do what you're told to do, boy.

Noticed you did not address either of the questions but rather just repeated the same cliche without substantiating it by answering the questions

Want to try again?

[countryboy]

Roberts is still on the Court, in fact, it is the Robert's Court you are getting all giddy about

That was my point, and I'm certainly not "giddy" about a SCOTUS with Roberts on it.

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

Bullshit, Obama even argued it wasn't a tax.

[CFM]

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

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.

[CFM]

That was my point, and I'm certainly not "giddy" about a SCOTUS with Roberts on it.



Bullshit, Obama even argued it was a tax.

Obama argued it wasn't a tax. Where was he when the Court upheld it as a tax saying they were wrong?

[countryboy]

This message is hidden because CFM is on your ignore list.

Get a clue ya fucking POE.

[CFM]

Noticed you did not address either of the questions but rather just repeated the same cliche without substantiating it by answering the questions

Want to try again?

I see you haven't learned your place in society. You'll do what you're told by your superiors and find a way to like it, BOY.