One can only hope that Gorsuch will be a centrist in the mold of Brennan and not an ideologue in the mold of Thomas or Alito. This is a positive sign.
6
I wonder if Mr. Trump will Tweet something like " Gorsuch such a let down very bad"
6
Many presidents have been surprised by the decisions made by the people that they have nominated for the Supreme Court. Trump is not the first, but I bet he's not pleased that Gorsuch wasn't "loyal".
6
Justice Gorsuch applied, on a non-partisan basis, the principle that all unconstitutionally-vague laws must be struck down. It's inaccurate to say he "joined liberals" who might be prone to strike down all immigration regulations for ideological reasons.
3
Definitely read the entire Supreme Court's opinion. It's 96 pages, but worth it.
Call me pleasantly pleased with the realization Gorsuch emerged as an independent thinker.
“Vague laws,” Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion, “invite arbitrary power.” He cites misuse of due process, in a superbly written and logical series of details:
"The statute here seems to require a judge to guess about the ordinary case of the crime of conviction and then guess whether a “substantial risk” of “physical force”
"It leaves the people to guess about what the law demands—and leaves judges to make it up."
I found Justice Robert's dissent opinion far less convincing. And Justice Thomas was just bitter and ruined, claiming "although I need not resolve any of these propositions today, each one is questionable."
5
When I saw this I wondered if Justice Gorsuch was independently interpreting the law as written, or trying to prove he isn't just another robotic Trump flunky.
Time will tell.
4
According to Justice Gorsuch, Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Just the kind of power Donald Trump wants. He must be foaming from the mouth after this decision.
9
Grosuch voted the way he did based on originalist arguments and precedent based on the case where Scalia had voted similarly a few years before. So why didn't the other justices, especially Roberts who supposedly puts great stock in the principle of "Stare Decisis", i.e. precedent, vote with Gorsuch? I suggest it's because they never pass up an opportunity to vote against defendant's rights when it comes to criminal justice, for state's rights when it's a case involving states vs. the federal federal government and for corporate interests in cases involving individuals against corporations. In short, they have an agenda and their decisions are preordained and then they find some way to justify their vote.
5
The rule of law works after all.
5
Isn't it about time for Mr. Trump to shoot off a few 'tweets' denigrating the court system and the rule of law; and deriding the Justices in the majority as 'so biased' and 'stupid people'?
It rarely seems to matter whether the object of Trump's ire is one of his own appointees - if anyone dares to disagree with the man, be it friend or foe, the insult machine goes into high gear. The man demands mindless 'loyalty,' and if he doesn't get it, you're dead to him - a sad and sorry disappointment.
2
Hello! Is Gorsuch the next "so called judge"?
4
As with Sessions, if Trump had known Gorsuch would not blindly rubber stamp everything Trump wishes to do, Trump 'never would have appointed him.'
3
The way that Justice Gorsuch can work with the liberals on the Court has been revealed. They can join in decrying sloppy legislation—a trademark of Republican sponsored laws.
11
This is an anecdotal case for which we have statistical evidence. Conservative justices are much more willing to vote principle over party than liberal justices.
3
And that "statistical evidence" is, more precisely ... ?
5
Care to share your alleged statistical information?
6
I guess he doesn't have "statistical evidence". I'm not surprised.
5
Everyone, please recommend Lynn from NY's comment - she made it crystal clear why this is the right non-partisan ruling.
1
Thank you, Justice Gorsuch, for following the rule of the law. Please continue during the next 40 years...
17
Judicial philosophies and ideologies do not necessarily pair up with political agendas. It is refreshing to see a branch of our government transcend politics.
Certain federal statutes can use "aggravated felonies" to enhance sentences. This ruling will have a positive effect for immigrant families.
6
A principled stand for Gorsuch. We can only hope that he allows himself more than one per decade.
15
Once again, all the hand wringing over Gorsuch was nonsense. It only shows that many Justices appointed by Republican presidents will judge each case on its merits. When is the last time, a liberal justice voted on the conservative side..
It never happens. Who are the real ideologues.
5
While this one case shows that Gorsuch may not be a complete ideologue, there is still very much to be concerned with and your suggestion that Gorcush, Alito, and Thomas (and Scalia in the past) in particular are not ideology driven is without merit. There is a case called Citizen's United that demonstrates fully that these justices are more than capable of making absurd, unfounded and ideologically driven decisions.
20
Uh ... "many Justices" ... ? In real life, 4 out of the 5 Republican Justices voted party of principle here, remember?
As to liberal Justices, you're wrong too. Just look at how the latest one added to the Supreme Court voted:
"During the 2017-2018 term, Kagan has voted 100% in agreement with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. She agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts 81.25% of the time, with Justice Neil Gorsuch 75% of the time, and with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito 68.75% of the time."
Kagan agreed 4 out of 5 times with Roberts and 3 out of 4 times with Gorsuch, and even 7 out of 10 times with Clarence Thomas, you see?
Of course, not all of these cases are subject to political interpretations, but you have to go through each one of them and then compare all the more politically loaded rulings over the years, and then calculate the averages, before you can know whether Justices appointed by a Democrats are more "activist" then those appointed by a GOP president. Something that you clearly didn't do ... which means that your comment isn't a fact-based analysis, but rather a ... merely ideological one, no?
4
Thank God.
For a minute I thought America would be permitted to enforce its immigration laws, instead a liberal interpretation of the constitution says you have the right to remain in the country illegally.
Since I own numerous AR-15s, S&W MP 5s, and a few sniper rifles, I feel better that the Supreme Court, and all those happy with this decision will support a liberal interpretation of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
After all, if illegal aliens get the benefit of rights not enumerated in the constitution, obviously citizens have even more benefit from rights enumerated.
Thanks all !!!
4
The decision wasn't about immigration, it was about vague legislation that is difficult to enforce and easy to abuse.
Unlike, say, the 2nd Amendment, which is pretty specific about only well-regulated militia, not ordinary citizens, having unlimited access to firearms.
16
I need to be deported. Now! You see my 9th great-grandfather landed here illegally in 1620 (or whenever). His name: William Bradford. I am, under this administration, ready to surrender because I am so ready to Make American Great Britain again.
5
With Muskets. And over 21. Its in the constitution.
1
The US should deport major law breaking immigrants. Legal or illegal. With some constraints. Severity of the crime. Repetitiveness. And finally, a gauge of weather the immigrant has any connections to their country of citizenship. A 30 year old who grew up in California since they were two, well, they may have no place to go. So, while the law in question may have been structurally flawed, there needs to be a way to deport certain legal immigrants.
5
The Presidential Apprentice to Gorsuch : " You're Fired !!! ".
I would PAY to see that.
7
No can't do.
Just like Harry Truman said: "Whenever you put a man on the Supreme Court, he ceases to be your friend." Steel seizures, immigration, history goes on...
6
Apparently this is not about illegal aliens but rather legal immigrants. The main the case was about was a permanent resident.
I don't think Trump has a problem with immigrants although he I believe he is tough on illegal aliens who also commit crimes.
John
4
Perhaps because he is not a "Bought Man" - and instead, a Supreme Court judge standing up for the rule of law and democracy.
6
"His vote in Tuesday’s case was not entirely surprising, though, as he has a skepticism of vague laws that do not give people affected by them adequate notice of what they prohibit."
"He has a skepticism"? I'm reading a sentence like that in the New York Times?
10
Vagueness in political hotspot laws today is an invitation to trespass by a reckless administration. Good for Gorsuch in showing that he has spine. It could not have been a good coffee klatch in the lounge of the Justice Bean and Juice Bar.
7
I guess Trump didn’t get Gorsuch’s promise of personal loyalty.
24
Trump: "I need loyalty."
Gorsuch: "You will get honest loyalty from me, Mr President,..." (sentence unfinished)
[One year later...]
Gorsuch: (sentence continued) "...or not."
Too bad Trump didn't realize Gorsuch was still in the act of talking, but Trump is too busy tweeting to notice.
2
"Vague laws," he wrote in a concurring opinion, "invite arbitrary power."
Interesting that Gorsuch should make such a statement given that constitutional power that was vested upon a certain president, without a hint of vagueness, was trampled upon and an individual with an ego allocated himself some arbitrary power to eventually allow for the nomination (which he accepted) of himself to the Supreme Court.
Nothing vague about that.
14
Trump's Executive Order "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," issued on January 25, 2017, will suffer the same fate if properly challenged in court.
In my view, the Executive Order violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Its wording is so broad it grants ICE too much discretion in determining what is actionable conduct under the Order and grants ICE and DHS unprecedented expediency in enforcing their agents' ad hoc determinations. In other words, Trump's Executive Order allows ICE to play "judge and jury" in the field of law enforcement.
If this Executive Order gets challenged in court, as it should, I believe parts of it will be struck down as being "void for vagueness" in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In several instances the Executive Order does not specify in sufficient detail what conduct is actionable. Moreover, the Order's delegation of authority for making this determination to the administrators of the law is so extensive that it could and will likely lead to arbitrary detentions and prosecutions.
Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
19
One observation about Gorsuch's opinion concerns me. In analyzing the issue, he refers back to early 19th century decisions. He also tips a hat to Scalia. This is not as narrowly focused as a Scalia opinion, but it gives more attention to original intent than any of the other opinions in this case. When your reference point in interpreting the law is what happened in 1815, you will inevitably decide most matters from a conservative point of view. Scalia delivered some opinions that pleased liberals, but not many. While Gorsuch remains a question mark, his opinion in this case clearly tracks some of Scalia's ideas.
4
What seems to be lost in this report is that Justices are supposed to render decisions according to their interpretation of the Law, not according to their prior political family expects.
Justice Gorsuch exercised the independence that we should all expect of all Justices, all the time. And for that he deserves to be praised. That being said, it is a sad situation because people should be praised for doing something outstanding, not for meeting the minimum required skills of their job.
10
That being said, it is a sad situation because people should be praised for doing something outstanding, not for meeting the minimum required skills of their job.
Tell that to EVERY municipal police force who thinks they are being paid to serve and protect.
No , not according to THEIR interpretation. According TO THE LAW.
3
Gorsuch: Earl Warren Redux?
2
This decision doesn’t preclude a law that would deport a criminal for burglary if the statute said so. It doesn’t, and while congress could pass a law that did, they haven’t. They tried to take a shortcut and it failed. Blame congress.
11
Did people actually read the article? This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It's about legal immigrants who committed crimes, and the vagueness of the law that granted government the power to deport legal immigrants based on the type of crimes committed.
95
Does not matter to Trumpians who only need to hear "immigrants" in order to react.
6
Get a grip, everybody. It's one vote.
10
There is a principle of statutory construction that they teach you in the first year of law school. It's a simple principle that is concisely referred to as "void for vagueness." And what it stands for is that, if a law is so ambiguous that you don't know what it means, it is null and void.
The void for vagueness rule is what Justice Gorsuch applied here. He didn't decide the case based on his views of immigration. He decided it on a first year legal precept. It would have been easy for him to argue that the law was clear enough to achieve an anti-immigration goal. Instead, like a good conservative, he rejected judicial activism and concurred with the liberals.
There will be many distressing Gorsuch opinions, but by resorting to legal standards instead of his political views, he has sent a message that whatever he may prefer politically, he won't ignore the law. In the end, that may not make a big difference. But it sure is nice to see a little legal integrity instead of outright politics from a court.
41
But he nevertheless followed one legal principle rather than another. I wouldn't say this is all subjective but no judicial decision is not value-laden. I like this decision but I demur at the idea that it represents a kind of objectivity that doea not exist, despite what liberals and conservatives claim, depending on how they view a SCOTUS decision.
Amen, brother. Amen.
Your comment made me respect Justice Gorsuch so much more. Integrity over politics....
Now that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a Genuine Miracle!
6
Can't wait for the meltdown on Twitter that is coming!
11
So, does Trump want to "fire" Gorsuch?
15
Horrible headline. Only reinforces the divisions that are being forced down our throats by the Russians, ignorant journalists, and media outlets more interested in selling their wares than truly informing the people. The word "liberal" is outdated and does not represent one bloc of people. For shame.
4
Concur.
Except for the part about the "Russians".
Please name those Russians and be specific about it.
Do not paint with a such a broad brush against an entire nation of peoples, many of whom came to our country as immigrants --- including my grandparents.
Thanks.
1
"Liberal" is a useful word that (currently) identifies advocates of stronger welfare state and a market economy. "Progressive" lumps them together with socialists, some of whom would severely regulate the private sector or nationalize major industries. We need accuracy and distinctions in our political vocabulary to know what we're saying to each other and understand those distinctions ourselves.
As well as some of my friends. Shout out to Basil!
Tell me, is it the issue of the law when it's applied differently by different courts that result in different decisions? To me, it sounds more like issues with the judges, rather than the law itself. To Kagan, her take is, if there's different outcomes, err on the side of caution and just let the perp walk. Again, that's not the issue of the law or the (un)constitutionality of it; but Kagan would rather have us get rid of the law altogether. That does not strike me as a good rational decision at all.
2
I think Kagan is saying that legislators should write the law with specificity. Leave no ambiguitiy as to intent and the government can deport all it wants.
3
...I would have liked it if Adam Liptak (the writer) provided some of the dissenters opinions....why they believed it should be upheld. Mr. Liptak, it's always good to hear the other side of the argument -don't let your opinion cloud your readers'.
The overview, provided by Mr. Liptak, gives some support to the liberals argument - such an opaque ruling that is not consistent from state to state or court to court is a little unsettling.
...that being said, the offenders are here illegally...the law should just read, if they commit a crime, it's up to the courts to decide. It does not have to be defined as serious....it can be any crime, even a misdemeanor.
Keep in mind, criminals don's usually stop committing crimes..they continue, and in many cases, those crimes' seriousness can increase and lead to violence and death.
4
The dissents don't matter. That is why they aren't the opinions.
2
"the offenders are here illegally"
This case is NOT about illegal immigrants.
The law was unconstitutionally vague.
Your comment misses the point entirely and you owe readers here a "never mind."
11
"..that being said, the offenders are here illegally".
You obviously didn't read the article. This case is about an immigrant who entered the US legally at the age of 13".
Had he been an illegal immigrant his case would never even have come before any court in the nation, and most certainly not all the way to the Supreme Court.
1
Why can’t the Congress just write intelligible laws that are easily understood and administered? Is it asking too much to have them pass coherent laws that protect American citizens from foreign nationals?
2
Congress is made up of 535 political wimps. They will not pass a law that does not require 1000s of pages of regulations written by unelected bureaucrats or figured out by the courts. This is to avoid doing any actual work to understand the issues of the day. In modern times laws are mostly meaningless and passed to react to some event in the news that requires a political response.
2
Did you use Congress and intelligible in the same sentence? Please explain.
6
They're fallible, and playing politics is mainly irrational.
Good, but... One swallow of opinion doth not a summer of justice make.
5
A widely overlooked detail from Gorsuch's law school days - even mentioned by Trump in announcing his nomination - is that he participated in a prisoners' rights program while at Harvard Law. He may have learned laws that quack and waddle like unfair laws, are, indeed, unfair. Not such a bad thing for conservatives and liberals alike.
29
The Supreme Court got it right.
Gorsuch followed the letter of the law as he promised to do.
This may be a short-term setback in the fight against illegal immigration, but in the long term it helps us get our justice system correct.
It is time Congress stops warming the bench, and starts clarifying our laws where required.
BTW, can we re-litigate our second amendment whose interpretation has been stretched beyond what its words imply ?
31
I like your BTW. I wish we could do this...or, at the very least, explain the opening phrase, which Scalia passed off as an insignificant preface to the "real" meaning. If the opening phrase about well-regulated militias didn't matter, why did the founding fathers write it?
11
Seams pretty clear. If you want to be able to raise a militia in a time of need you better allow the citizenry to possess arms. No arms at home, no militia.
".....short-term setback in the fight against illegal immigration....'? This case was about a legal immigrant who moved to this country at age 13.
As to your BTW, I 100% agree with you.
1
Oh, no! Watch for Trump's tweets tomorrow, firing Gorsuch. Oh yes he can! He's the president. He can do anything he wants.
14
Are you serious? I admit ignorance on this, if he can. If so, the world is getting scarier!
NO, trump cannot fire any of the Justices! Lifetime appointments.
1
Did I really sound serious?
6
Having had cases involving that law, I am glad it was struck down. What is "violent"? Does it have to involve harm to a person? The threat of harm to a person? Property damage or the threat of it?" And then, "risk"? The wording was too vague to enforce, the outcomes too disparate in different courts.
All Congress has to do is re-enact the law with more precise wording, and ICE can start throwing people out again.
1
Well, for those who castigate Gorsuch as the "illegitimate" justice and feared his added conservative weight to the Court, this a fine kettle of fish, isn't it?
As to the executive order found unconstitutional for vagueness, I image the Trumpsters simply will include in a version 2 a (very) lengthy list of (very) specific crimes.
5
Actually, Richard, no it isn't a "fine kettle of fish".
Gorsuch could decide to join the more liberal justices for the rest of his career and that would not change the complete lack of ethics in the actions of McConnell.
The ethics of the "stolen seat" do not change based on how cases are ruled subsequently.
This really is quite simple as you may well find out if Democrats take the Senate and this particular shoe ends up on the other foot.
If that happens I do hope you will have the good sense to allow liberals to follow establish Senate process and refuse meet with any appointments Mr. Trump might send.
5
Paul:
I suspect that if Trump were to send the Senate a Supreme Court nomination on December 30 of this year, even in the (very) unlikely event that a lame-duck Republican Senate had been routed by Democrats in the midterms and would take office in early January, that the lame duck Senate would confirm the nominee within 24 hours.
There could be 500 cases of Justice Gorsuch tipping the balance of the Court to the conservative side (not yet true in any case, as he replaced Justice Scalia) and with one opinion on the other side, the right wing will claim that there was nothing for liberals to worry about, that Justice Gorsuch is a Souteresque closet liberal. In 2012, a conservative colleague asked me about some action former Pres. Obama had taken. I replied that I disagreed with it. He then claimed to be shocked that I was still going to vote for Mr. Obama again, as if that one decision by Obama that I disagreed with should have been sufficient to disqualify him in my mind while I should ignore the far greater number of issues I disagreed with Mitt Romney on. Baffling illogic to me. Besides, it is not about whether or not liberals or conservatives were right about Justice Gorsuch, the "Nyah, hah, hah, I was right" schoolyard approach to debate. Liberals would be thrilled if they were wrong about him because they would consider any legal opinions they agree with that he might unexpectedly concur in to be good for the country, and that's what it's all about.
9
I disagree with Gorsuch on this. I've no problem getting rid of any criminals (property crimes or otherwise - especially repeat offendesrs), but hope this leads to stopping Trump from deporting illegals who are working here and contributing to society. Time and resources would be better spent getting rid of "killers, rapists, and drug dealers" instead of landscapers, dishwashers, and meat packers. With over 6 million job openings, we need workers here to grow the GDP and counter the GOP's ballooning debt.
12
I am married to a legal immigrant and am th son of legal immigrants. aIllegal aliens may want a good job and a good life in the USA, but so do all of those people who follow the rules. Illegal aliens are greedy, selfish, opportunists who put their own interests ahead of the rights of others. Bank robbers "just want money", so should we legalize robbery too? Selfish people do not deserve our sympathy.
1
Illegal aliens are often desperate people for whom the only economic opportunity they can see for themselves and their families, or perhaps the only escape from oppression, lies on this side of the border, and their only actual chance is to slip across, an often dangerous or even lethal journey. There's more to it, sure, but this kind of name-calling and scapegoating is obviously inhumane and inaccurate.
3
And to repeat, this decision had nothing to do with illegal aliens.
2
This is a must-read for the Chicken Littles who still claim Trump is a nazi dictator. Our balance of powers means nothing to people who prefer to life in fear.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
You are a "rev" and you criticize people who warn that Trump is acting like a nazi dictator? Perhaps you should have phded in history, vice fantasy.
9
Rev. Camarena: "... people who prefer to life in fear."
I assume you mean the NRA members who feel they need guns against numerous potential home intruders and are sure every liberal is coming to take those guns away.
15
We spent 40 years studying Hitler and Nazi Germany. Trump also studied Hitler. We have more experience than you do. Trump wants to be a dictator and is trying to achieve that. The Republicans refuse to stand up to him or are retiring rather than speak out. Be afraid for our country.
4
The right decision, in my view, but a difficult result in practical terms. If Congress can't pass another law with the required specificity, especially b/c of the anti-Trump hysteria which seeks to vex him even at the expense of the country, that means the truly bad guys about whom there is no uncertainty, will not be deported.
Do we exile American citizens who commit heinous crimes to the Mongolian desert? No, we put criminals in prison for longer or shorter periods of time depending on the crime. What difference does it make to the victim if the perpetrator of the crime is a legal immigrant or a native-born citizen of the country? A rape is less painful of an experience when committed by someone born in the country? The threat to life is reduced when the weapon-wielding burglar is someone who looks like you? Only if you're anti-immigrant.
2
Other than Native Americans, all people born here are descendants of immigrants. All types of people commit crimes, even presidents. England used to ship criminals to Australia, and France to Devil's Island.
It's the breeding of the original immigrants that led eventually to a Ted Bundy, a Manson, or a Richard Nixon. Gotta watch them immigrants. If the 1st generation doesn't commit crimes(like the Puritans slaughtering New England tribes right off the bat) some relative in a future generation could commit nasty acts. Beware the immigrant and his descendants!
Is there any land left for a far off penal colony like the one in the Kafka story? Maybe that's the way to go, have a machine that carves the name of the crime in blood on the criminal, and simultaneously executes him. We're just old softies.
4
England shipped criminals to America too. I have a distant relative, who was a felon, that was shipped the to "Colonies" the revolution.
Whats your Point? "Native" Americans commit crimes as well as will their decendents. (BTW, native Americans are immigrants too, their ancestors just travelled here earlier. The only true natives live in Africa. And, at least in the US, "native" has kind of lost its meaning as most natives have some non-native DNA.)
1
As an Immigration lawyer, I am thrilled. People have been deported for very minor crimes. Now, let's get Trump out of office and get Congress to pass some humane Immigration laws.
91
When the left takeover the country again, you will have to find another way to make a living. There will be no such thing as illegal immigration. It will be the precursor to the end of a grand idea, individual liberty above statism.
3
"Justice Gorsuch had voted with the court’s conservative majority in February in a different immigration case, one that ruled that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail."
Lazy reporting. That case decided that the law itself did not require hearings. It explicitly left open, and sent back to the lower court to decide, whether the Constitution requires the hearings.
16
Thanks for the clarification.
''Vague laws,” he wrote in a concurring opinion, “invite arbitrary power.''
A decision and philosophy we need for today
33
Oh please. This is likely an outlier from stolen seat occupier Gorsuch given his track record. He's no better than Alito and Thomas.
3
James, That sounds a lot more like emotion to me than reason. Jurist Gorsuch didn't want to handcuff the legal system with obscurity and ambiguity. Don't you see that?
He did so at the risk of upsetting his conservative colleagues because he is the kind of jurist the court needed when appointed. There is nothing more important in communication or laws than clarity. Don't you think?
5
And you are incredibly naive. I'm well versed in the void for vagueness doctrine and this is a relatively easy case given the relevant precedents. Ultimately Gorsuch is just another Scalia. All you have to do is look at Gorsuch's prior rulings. I'm pragmatic, not emotional. It'd behoove you to look at the bigger picture and Gorsuch's record rather than this single case that makes it look like Gorsuch actually cares about human dignity, fairness and equity - there's a reason the GOP picked this so called Justice to grab a stolen seat in the SCOTUS.
and there we have it: even more emotion, and even less reason!
2
It would be nice if news outlets would describe Justices as "Interpreting the law" rather than "taking sides".
It seems here that Gorsuch has interpreted the law rather than taking any side.
Isn't that what the Supreme court justices are supposed to do?
121
No. They are supposed to judge if a law is in conflict or not with the constitution.
So... is following Scalia now considered siding with the liberals?
I'm afraid our Supreme Court -- and the Trumpublican Party -- have slouched so far to the right, they can't even see the center over the horizon.
Glad Gorsuch showed some independence. Wish Merrick Garland had the chance.
16
If Gorsuch stands for anything, it's for capital. Capital wants cheap labor, and if capital wants cheap labor then Gorsuch will try to give it to them. One thing capital does not want is for there to be fewer illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants undermine the power of labor and employment laws, and they reduce the wage-rate for low-skill domestic labor. That's music to capital's ears.
It's shameful to see the liberals aligning themselves with this apologist for business interests.
23
Precious Bodily Fluids,
Whoops. That not right. Kubrickian slip. I meant: Purity of Essence.
I kid, I kid.
Your point is noted but immigration is not strictly a labor issue and Congress does have the power to mandate the wage-rate for low skilled workers. "Right to work" and "at will" clauses do far more to damage workers than immigration ever will. The more important point worth noting though is not Gorsuch. You should be looking at Kagan. She just set a trap.
She's used Gorsuch's own argument to advance this particular interpretation of immigration. True. However, look at how the negative, the null hypothesis, might be applied in the current Supreme Court. She struck down Sessions v. Dimaya on the basis of ambiguity. What other case involves the establishment of clarity in order to survive judicial precedent? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with berry-gander.
The reverse of the coin will come back to haunt Gorsuch in Gill v. Whitford. Just wait. The case is all about eliminating a specific type of ambiguity. He's for clarity, right? Kagan already holds the winning argument unless the lawyers foul up the details.
3
The right wing of the court certainly has a bias towards corporations, like the people who put them there. However, in this case Justice Gorsuch was complaining about vaguely worded laws. Congress sometimes does it sloppily and sometimes intentionally. He is absolutely right that laws should be explicit or they can be misused in the wrong hands. Speaking of the wrong hands, one hopes that his point of view extends to sloppily worded Executive Orders which the current administration produces continually.
2
Legal immigrants are often willing to work for else money and accept fewer benefits. Equal pay for equal work is the only way to go.
The DHS comment should have been, DHS respects the decision of the Supreme Court and we'll abide by its ruling. We urge the Congress to revisit the issue and the law to ensure that proven criminals can be deported. Instead, DHS serves notice that it will abide by the law as it chooses. DHS is a state within a state. Be sure you take your U.S. passport if you drive within 100 miles of a U.S. border in order to prove your U.S. citizenship.
6
Since Supreme Court Justices can't recuse themselves, perhaps Mr. Gorsuch could resign and leave the ninth seat to be occupied by a centrist judge from a Democratic president? We know that loyalty to him over the country is the necessary *and* sufficient condition for an appointee of Trump.
Maybe it's too late.
But this November, we have a chance to turn out and ensure that we obstruct any potential attempts that the sleazy current majority caucus of Senate Republicans make to replace one of the older liberal-leaning judges, loses its majority status, and thus, their ability to confirm a Justice even more conservative than Gorsuch with a one-vote margin (or even a tiebreaking vote by the ever-subservient "principled" Evangelical Christian, Mike Pence).
The key seats, of course, are in Nevada (occupied by Heller), Arizona (left open by Flake, and likely, by McCain), Tennessee (left open by Corker), and perhaps even Texas (we joked about his capacity to have been a serial killer even while in the womb, and in fact, that's about right for his persona)—to take—and West Virginia (Manchin), Missouri (McCaskill), Indiana (Donnelly), and maybe North Dakota (Heitkamp) and Florida (Nelson)—to defend.
Democrats need a net gain of two seats in the Senate. It won't be easy, but it can be done, and if it is done, then the Trump administration will be just a little less eager to wrestle the wonderful Justice Ginsburg out of her seat.
6
Uhhh.... Supreme Court justices can and do recuse themselves, and often. In the term that ended in 2016, there were 180 recusals. Most were because the justice had worked on the case in some way before joining the Supreme Court. The next most common reasons were owning stock in a company involved, and having a relative who was involved in the case in some way, often as a lower court judge.
The individual judges makes the decision whether or not to recuse themselves. There is no code of ethics for SCOTUS. It has more than once been noted that Republican justices will refuse to recuse themselves in situations that Democratic justices do recuse themselves in. So, even though there has not been a Democratic majority on the Court since Nixon was President, there are typically more Democratic recusals than Republican ones.
Otherwise Laurence's comments seem correct and appropriate.
4
Thank you Justice Gorsuch for displaying the thoughtfulness that avoided a real miscarriage of justice. We should not allow laws that broaden the range of encirclement beyond the line of fairness. The "if then else" clause has no place in jurisprudence. A baseball through your window does not create a deportation case. Petty theft occurs thousands of time each day.
5
Tossing out the occasional bone is nice, but it does not make up for the putrid way he got ahold of his seat.
9
If the Dems really cared about the Supreme Court, and more importantly, the Courts of Appeal, they would have (a) gotten RBG retire during the first year of the Obama administration, and (b) had Stephen Reinhardt retire a decade ago. Now those seats will be filled by Trump, most likely with Republican Congress.
That is a complete lack of strategic thinking.
2
Who's Stephen Reinhardt?
You have no idea what Democrats really care about, or what caring about the Supreme Court really means.
4
Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the ruling would undercut “efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping and burglary, from the United States.”
Not to mention those pulled over for being brown and failing to signal when changing lanes.
16
Or being brown and happening to be home when a family member is being picked up by ICE. http://www.register-herald.com/region/us-again-seeks-to-cancel-immigrant...
Or being brown and attempting to get a protection order against an abuser. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/16/this-is-re...
Or being brown and taking your daughter to school. http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article198215114.html
4
What's this? A reasonable ruling occurs, yet is reported under such a foolish headline? Gorsuch made a decision, and it's one I happen to applaud, but please, don't label him. Rather, let our justices strive to make wise decisions on individual issues, without automatically being called Conservative or Liberal. Supreme Court decisions affect us all.
52
Ann, I love to her the spirit of moderation, but, most Justices routinely rule on certain types of cases in line with their political feelings, which are usually well known when they take the bench. You never know, of course, as Gorsuch showed in this case. I guess he doesn't have 100% consistency with Thomas anymore, but I doubt it will go below 90%. Aside from Kennedy, they are all fairly predictable on the controversial matters.
2
@Ann,
Why do you think there is such a fight to nominate Justices, from both the GOP and Dems?
Their votes are utterly predictable, with a few extremely rare exceptions.
As David says below, Kennedy is an exception.
2
Kennedy was appointed back when even Justices nominated by Republican presidents were expected to be at least to some degree independent legal scholars, not ideological warriors.
4
Is there some list somewhere? Of which laws your country is bothering to enforce and which ones it isn't? Only it seems from afar as if many of your laws are not enforced.
It's bloody confusing for us foreigners, you all keep telling us all you're a nation who believes and supports the rule of law, but you simultaneously ignore many of your own laws, and now you've started striking them down.
13
You have to understand our Constitution, and Constitutional law. Laws have to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. This is not a trial court, it's the Supreme CT, whose job it is to make sure that a law is not overly-broad or vague. In this case, the language was too vague.
13
Indeed, you would be confused. But it's our incompetent president who is to blame. And he only knows from day-to-day, often hour-by-hour, just what his views are. His muscle spasms determine his adherence to the rule of law. Mainly, he supports only those laws which please and cater to him. And this will ultimately bring him down.
4
The major reason the Supreme Court threw out the law is that there was NOT "a list somewhere" of what laws immigrants had to obey to not be eligible for deportation. That makes that law unconstitutionally vague, and not just in theory. Many examples were given of wide differences between different jurisdictions.
4
There is no reason to keep immigrants that are criminals, so we can only hope that Congress rewrites the law, this time very clearly, to allow the government to deport these criminals as quick as possible.
9
Just Which criminals would you want deported? A doctor who lived in Michigan for 40 years was deported because he had committed theft when he was a Juvenile. The entire community begged DHS not to deport him, as he had been an incredible asset to their town.
15
I would add that we should deport grandchildren of immigrants who violate money laundering laws, campaign finance laws and/or the Emoluments clause of the Constitution.
45
If you think every illegal immigrant in this country is an incredible asset you need to wake up your in LALA Land...
http://www.fox10tv.com/story/37812633/man-charged-in-deadly-fairhope-hit...
1
Trump will be livid that Gorsuch did not show "loyalty." Let's hope this does not unleash some kind of Executive Order against the state of Colorado.
119
Hopefully, Justice Gorsuch is not fated to come under the "Terrible Trumpian Tweet Sword". But, if it happens, so be it. (Trump Tweets are now about as exciting as soap and bleach commercials.)
Brings to mind what could have happened not long ago if immigration had been linked with crime. For example, Donald Trump's grandfather, the Bavarian draft dodger. Or, Joe Arpaio, the Sicilian gangster. Or, Rupert Murdoch, the half-truthing visa immigrant.
The list goes on and on...
We are very fortunate to have the Judicial Branch in the U.S. Not perfect, but clearly a beacon for freedom and limiting despotism.
It is interesting to reflect that: The U.S. might be different today if those aforementioned criminals had not been allowed to immigrate to the U.S.
18
Interesting to see how this will apply to other cases, including those challenging "sanctuary cities," which are not defined. I suspect though, that the Muslim ban law will be clear enough, since it excludes everyone from named countries.... even though the reason they are excluded is completely unsupported in fact.
4
Oh dear. This is going to make Trump very angry. I can't wait to see the tweets attacking Gorsuch.
12
All Justices are capable of delivering occasional Humane decisions, on narrowest of grounds/reasonings. Majority of the SCOTUS decisions are decided by super-majority of 6-3 or better. Our problems arise from their judgement only when they substitute their ideology for a fair judgement e.g., Bush v Gore, Citizen United, or District of Columbia v. Heller.
Today, we might celebrate Judge Gorsuch for delivering a judgement to humane way of thinking, I am still waiting for some more evidence to accumulate.
8
There are many legal minds in government & academia - DOJ/AG, IGs, Solicitor General, WH counsel & Republican law professors - able to offer an explanation to the president outlining the reasons for Justice Gorsuch's vote with the liberal justices. But, will this president be able to recognize the difference between substance & the need for clarity in our laws so they can pass Constitutional muster?
Justice Gorsuch didn't vote with his liberal colleagues on substance but on the lack of it. Vagueness defeats substance where the laws differ so expansively as to make their application the equal to tossing a coin. I may not like Justice Gorsuch sitting, as one commenter put it, in Justice Garland's chair. In fact, I do not like it at all, but at the very least Justice Gorsuch used his legal thinking in an honest & forthright manner. This may have displeased his president greatly but a Justice's tenure on the Supreme Court is a life one so there is no chance that he can be fired by the president who nominated him.
This decision is no guarantee that Justice Gorsuch has changed his judicial philosophy. It merely underscores his respect for law and for clarity, logic and precision in law drafting. If President Trump cannot get his brain around the distinction made by Justice Gorsuch, then I can only hope - passionately, if I make myself clear - that this president is fired by the electorate in 2020.
30
It's not about Trump understanding. It's about the public understanding. Since the media is incapable of relaying facts without spin, that's going to be hard. Trump appointed Gorsuch. I'm pretty sure he trusts his opinion. Regardless, you're going to get another 4 years of Trump. #MAGA
Are you saying that because Trump appointed Gorsuch, he is going to now trust the Justice's opinion? Seriously?????? Your enchantment with Trump is clouding your vision or clearly you haven't been paying attention.
4
Don't bet on 4 more years of Trump. The vote in 11/18 won't be a Blue Wave; it will be a tsunami.
3
In this case, the government argues that burglary is a violent crime, yet in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which has been published annually for many years, burglary has been included in the section on property crimes, not violent crime. Surely an ordinary person would not be on notice that burglary is a violent crime if the FBI does not believe it to be one.
21
Watching the Supreme Court closely. Will always have complete and utter contempt for the Mitch McConnell blocking actions against Garland appointment during the Obama Presidency. See comments by "Socrates" posted earlier. This decision seeks to remove uncertain and confusing wording from future legislation. House cleaning. Needed. Trump will not understand the issues - but will probably drum up a blustery and insulting tweet storm anyway. Be prepared, make sure you have a good supply of popcorn. Better yet, go out in the yard and pull weeds.
55
"Better yet, go out in the yard and pull weeds." A VERY good idea!
2
Hopefully, everyone who voted for Trump because of Supreme Court appointments reads about this. If that happens, maybe the next presidential race will be about the presidency and not the Supreme Court.
Justices are judges first and not beholden to a political party or its donors, which is necessary for the rule of law. This is a great civics lesson to revisit every other November.
21
And it proves that Trump did the right thing and appointed the right Justice. Hopefully everyone who voted for Hillary will see that and realize that he's not "literally Hitler" (while still begging him to take away our guns...)
2
More to the point, maybe next time a president of one party nominates someone perfectly qualified to fill an empty Supreme Court seat, said nominee will actually be given a hearing, rather than stiff-armed in the hope of making room for a different nominee from the next president. I still don't understand how that could ever have been justified in a country where rule of law is supposed to be respected.
8
If Trump had known that Gorsuch would vote with the liberals, ever, he would not have nominated him for the Supreme Court. Nothing worse than Supreme Court justices (and Attorney General of the United States) thinking for themselves and not going by the Trump's script!
42
We aren't allowed to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country and can't even deport them when the commit crimes. Political correctness has left sanity in the dust.
13
The term "political correctness", meaning something you don't like, is as played out as "fake news". Both terms have become completely meaningless.
36
That is not what the ruling says.
The ruling says that to deport someone who commits a crime the law must specify what crimes would cause someone to be deported.
67
i know (3) perfectly qualified immigrants who have followed ALL the rules for 5 years and today aren't ANYWHERE closer to gaining citizenship than they were 5 years ago...you consider that a fair timeline and equitable for a supposedly "free" nation...I suppose most racists would...
14
While I am most happy for this ruling in favor of immigrants' rights, I can't help but also have some schadenfreude over Trump's agitation that Gorsuch didn't implement the bigotry that Trump chose him to implement.
15
Really, bigotry? You mean it is bigotry to deport illegal aliens who commit crimes here? I guess, then, that anyone who is opposed to illegality by those unlawfully here is a bigot. Brilliant, Peter!
6
Dimaya was in the country legally when he was caught burgling. This is what "lawful permanent resident" means.
9
As others have commented, this law did not pertain to illegal immigrants. Read the article.
3
Most Presidents make court appointments to reflect their ideology and then get angry when a justice doesn't vote the way they want them to. Waiting for a Trump tweet storm on Gorsuch.
4
Even fairly liberal leaning me was disturbed by the headline of this article..."...Gorsuch Joins Supreme Courts Liberals".
The extent to which we, and you - NEW YORK TIMES - slap simple labels on people/groups/whatever... as being either one thing or another - simply helps to perpetuate the awful 'them v. us' tribalism that has rent a huge hole in the fabric of this country. PLEASE STOP IT!
Justice Gorsuch did exactly what we would hope/expect from a Justice - he interpreted the law as written - not colored by left-right, red-blue, or his sponsor's political agenda. I choose to be pleasantly surprised and now more hopeful that the Court will still stand for what's fair in the end.
272
Agree on labeling. No longer can one be centrist with leanings. You have to be in one camp or another. Wrong!
6
That sounds reasonable, until you acknowledge that the balance of the court, all 8 other justices, lined up along their usual conservative/liberal positions. All of the conservatives favoring deportation even if based on a vague standard. All of the liberals saying the standard for deportation is too vague to enforce. All nine justices would have said they were interpreting the law as written. Gorsuch just thought independently and wound up agreeing with the liberals.
6
Sorry to say, but you are wrong in assuming non-bias. Tribalism is inherent human characteristics and ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices has been documented. According to this Wikipedia article “A growing body of academic research has confirmed this understanding: scholars have found that the justices largely vote in consonance with their perceived values...Using statistical analysis of Supreme Court votes, scholars found that an inferred value representing a Justice's ideological preference on a simple conservative–liberal scale is sufficient to predict a large number of that justice's votes”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court...
2
Left leaning vote, Nah! Perhaps he is coming to grips with the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is the legal representative of all Americans, not just left or right wing loonies. They must decide cases for all the people, not just one political party. Maybe Justice Gorsuch is growing into his role.
17
It would appear that the oft-quoted definition of insanity, usually misattributed to Albert Einstein, was first written by Rita Mae Brown in 1983. In any case, it did not come from Justice Scalia.
12
If there is one thing that is well established about this aphorism, it is that it had been in use for a long time by 1983; e.g., see the discussion at:
http://empoweredquotes.com/2008/10/13/insanity-albert-einstein-2/
Repecttful disagreement, with thoughtful suggestions on how to rewrite the law to remediate its unconstitutional vagueness ... oh, never mind. A Twitter Tantrum, anyway, is sure to follow from the Oval Office.
26
Very simplistic to label judges and their opinions "liberal" or "conservative".
141
Gorsuch's vote on this issue is heartening. At least we can hope that, like Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren, the appointee was far more liberal than the man who appointed him. But I still think Gorsuch will do great damage to the progressive agenda in his many years to come.
60
Only if that progressive agenda in question is unconstitutional.
1
Like beauty, constitutionality is in the eye of the beholder. That's why few SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. Constitutionality does not stand as a physical fact.
Although I doubt he will be this year's Justice Souter, Gorsuch made the right call in this case. As is clear, this is not a philosophical shift that generalizes to to all deportation cases. It is instruction to stop writing vague statutes.
135
His token left-leaning vote, for appearances sake.
11
Gorsuch voting with the liberal wing? Thank God he didn't recuse himself or Trump really would have unleashed a tweetstorm.
37
Not so lefty really. Kagan was wise to quote Scalia extensively.
9
And tomorrow's tweet about Justice Gorsuch will be . . . ?
61
How dare he go against me? Where is his loyalty? This is an attack on the country. Sound familiar. This will be the tweets & media speech while he meets Abe.
Why will Trump not meet Japan's Abe at the White House? Sounds a little bigoted to me...like Trump doesn't want foreigners in the White House (except those who can loan him money like the Saudis & Russians).
2
It's very difficult for me to have any respect for a stolen Supreme Court seat.
Stand down and resign, Neil Gorsuch....you're occupying Merrick Garland's seat.
239
Yeah I forgot about all your outraged posts when NJ Democrats blocked Chris Christie from appointing a Supreme Court judge for 6 years.
https://nypost.com/2016/04/14/democrats-reveal-true-colors-in-blocking-c...
11
Yes, and the theft in question will be Mitch McConnell's everlasting legacy. Perhaps some day he'll have enough shame to recognize it as (Gor)such.
8
Oh, was Garland confirmed? I must have missed that.
8