MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Neil Gorsuch Joins Liberals in 5-4 SCOTUS Opinion Striking Down Portion of Federal Immigration Law

The Supreme Court rules against the federal government in Sessions v. Dimaya.

C-SPANC-SPANToday the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act which dealt with the power of the U.S. government to deport any alien, including a lawful permanent resident, convicted of an "aggravated felony." The 5-4 ruling was written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who concurred in part and joined in the judgment, provided the tie-breaking fifth vote.

At issue in Sessions v. Dimaya is a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act which lists being convicted of "a crime of violence" as one of the types of aggravated felony convictions that can trigger an alien's deportation. This provision 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 the course of committing the offense."

In its opinion today, the Court struck down that provision as unconstitutionally vague. "The void-for-vagueness doctrine, as we have called it," observed the majority opinion of Justice Kagan, "guarantees that ordinary people have 'fair notice' of the conduct a statute proscribes."

In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch explained the constitutional principle that demanded this result:

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.

The upshot of today's ruling is that it is now more difficult for the federal government to deport aliens under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya is available here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    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.

    That's a pretty broad definition of burglary.

  • gormadoc||

    That's the problem; with the definitions of the crime being so broad it allows the federal government to deport just as broadly.

  • Allutz||

    Doesn't the problem lie with California? Being sent to jail is worse than deportation.

  • vek||

    Good? I'm of the opinion that legal immigrants should have not a ton of slack if they end up being criminals. I don't think a 10-20 year probationary period is unreasonable. If somebody moves here, and then starts committing white collar crime, like fraud, or doing burglaries... Do we really want them to stay here when we have the legal power to boot them out?

    Think about it this way: If we COULD just take all US citizens who committed rape, murder, theft, fraud of a substantial dollar value, etc and just ship them off to Venezuela... How much better off would the country be? A LOT better off. Criminals tend to be repeat offenders. Even those that don't go back to crime tend to be pretty useless citizens, maybe hacking away at a minimum wage job or whatever. So either way they're either near useless or a detriment.

    Thing is we can't do that to native born for a ton of reasons. But when we CAN, like with immigrants, why would we not want to have a pretty harsh setup? I don't want any more burglars in the USA than we absolutely have to have. Neither does anybody else, except idiot shit-libs.

    In this context I don't think the ruling is bad... But if it were up to me I'd just amend the law to be sufficiently specific so we could keep kicking out deat beats.

  • Desi||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That goes back to California's 3 strikes law. When first implemented they did not have enough actual violent people so they went after burglars where nobody was injured. The state then classified them as violent felines to threaten defendants into plea deals. The state proving prior convictions for sentencing under 3 strikes did not require jury trials, so a prior conviction for a few non-violent burglaries could get a defendant life in prison.

    Burglary is reasonably considered a dangerous felony because someone could be home and someone get killed. In fact this happens a lot. The state assuming the felony is violent because someone "could" get injured is a stretch.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The state then classified them as violent felines

    Is that where the term "cat burglars" came from?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    rrrreow!

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Must have been a redhead. Those felines always gave me violent trouble.

  • DFG||

    Now that's funny. Sometimes typos are perfect.

  • Brandybuck||

    First two strikes had to be violent, last strike could be anything. So it was essentially a two-strikes law. Which people did NOT know they were voting for. And then of course the "violent" part got expanded.

    Which is why you have life sentences for stuff like kiting checks and smoking weed (but only if Black). Ain't California Brand Progressivism wonderful?

  • DarrenM||

    Which is why you have life sentences for stuff like kiting checks and smoking weed (but only if Black).

    Are you saying you're opposed to Affirmative Action?

  • vek||

    That'll teach 'em to be black!!!

  • shawn_dude||

    "...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 the course of committing the offense."

    Put the working definition here. Emphasis mine.

    You up the ante by also saying "someone [could] get killed." But the law (as described) merely says "physical force" which is a lower bar than "killed." Also, no person has to be harmed as long as forced is used on someone else's property. That'd be the "breaking" in "breaking and entering."

    So, the question is, in an "ordinary case," is it likely that the criminal would have used force against a person or property. You say "In fact this happens a lot." So I'll take that as a yes which makes this far less of a stretch.

  • LynchPin1477||

    It's the "likely" part that I have a problem with. Not a fan of laws that punish people for things that they don't actually do.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Law has to rationally deal with risk and hazard, not simply outcome.

    Should it be legal for me to shoot bullets near your head, as long as I don't hit you?

  • markm23||

    Of course that's a crime, assault - but by the logic that treats all burglaries as violent crimes, firing a shot would be charged as murder.

  • Texasmotiv||

    The term force is pretty vague. In a nuetonian sense, if you pick something up you are applying physical force to it.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    It's important to remember that at common law burglary was one of the "inherently dangerous felonies" warranting application of the felony murder law, precisely because of the risk to human life posed by the crime itself.

    And also, California does not have one single burglary statute but (as usual), several. You're not going to get prosecuted for one of the "violent" burglary types if you are a door-to-door salesman who happens to enter uninvited.

    I think this is a case of Gorsuch just deciding to reach across the aisle.

  • Flinch||

    Thank you. The problem is California law itself, and it's inglorious assumptions that arrive untested at each time of indictment. I read part of the decision then stopped after finding out the business of burglary had been defined as a crime of violence. Common sense should have us examine this: burglar + property = no victim of violence. Yes, it sucks to get burgled [happened to me twice], but calling it a violent crime is violence done to logic and the english language. There was violence - done by the state, assigning mystical violence happenings undetectable by any earthly means. Voodoo. It's an approximation of wiping habeas corpus off the map, which is probably Californias next step into fascism had this decision gone the other way.
    Normally I cringe finding myself on Sotomayor's side, but right is right. As for deporting this guy? Well, maybe just deny his next application for a green card or visa [whatever his deal is] while avoiding california law as a guidepost, if the law supports it. Post the denial from DC [not a local federal office] and the guy can go visit the 5th for future concerns on appeal to avoid the loony bin of the 9th.
    I wonder if Clarence Thomas is so used to seeing the girls on the court get it wrong so often, that he reflexed instead of thinking. One thing has stayed the same though: these 5:4 decisions make me cringe... is the bulk of our law so bad that nobody can figure it out anymore? Yes, it is.

  • David Banner||

  • Cloudbuster||

    This sounds suspicious. Anyone have a citation of the California burglary law that would apply to door-to-door salesmen peddling "shady products?": Somehow I suspect "shady products" isn't a legal term.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its accurate. The lunatics that run Commifornia deemed the unnecessary risk of answering the door too great, thereby making door-to-door sales illegal. (need a permit)
    Merc News

    Its why Gorsuch's opinion is a good one when it comes to risk being abused by government via vague power.

  • Rhywun||

    What they're describing in that article was already a crime. I don't see the need to create a new one. Anyway I was going to cry foul about the "door-to-door salesman" too but thanks for the additional perspective that this article was missing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    My pleasure.

    I tend to tune out California. Their hysteria really only affects the residents of that state now unlike in decades past when "so goes California, so goes the nation". The conservatives in the rest of Commifornia are fools for staying as things will only get worse. The housing market is rebounding, so they should leave.
    California won't change until it bottoms out like Detroit did and all the lefties flee or are outnumbered by slowly returning conservatives. Same thing with Eastern Europe bottoming out. Its the socialist way to scorched earth an area and then flee.

  • buybuydandavis||

    So door to door sales are not illegal generally. Door to door sales *without a permit* are.

  • JFree||

    'Shady products' are salesmen hawking umbrellas by calling them parasols. Often when it wasn't even rainy. A bait-and-switch game.

  • Flinch||

    You want to see shady products...? Look at what lobbyists/legislators do to mark up ballot initiatives. Really odd language somewhere along the lines of 'shall the state be barred from not prohibiting the denial of promoting of ____' I can't do full justice to this wonkspeak [thank god I'm not a lawyer], but I hope the picture is clear enough. In short, language so confusing to the common worker that they begin to pray for double negatives where no means yes, and vice versa. The assembly got so good at it under Willie Browns tenure, that the old adage of "when in doubt, vote no" had to be thrown out the window come election time. The only hope left in the wake of that style of governance being crafted was the CTA voter guide, which you should go against 99.9% of the time.

  • markm23||

    In Michigan, most ballot initiatives are clearly worded. I'm not sure how this is accomplished, and it certainly wasn't always that way. Back when I was in high school, my Government class parsed an initiative on the ballot for the 1970 general election. It was a quintuple negative!

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, that is an absurdly broad definition of a crime.

    Which makes the ruling one that libertarians and conservative constitutionalists should applaud. Narrow is better.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a libertarian, I believe the US government should never deport anybody for any reason. But I'll take this small victory.

    (Gorsuch is still a dangerous right-wing extremist though.)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Perhaps result such as this are the price conservatives are to pay for pretending to be specially aligned with libertarians?

  • ||

    Not a single comment critical of this opinion, and yet, here you are complaining about conservatives, because at heart, you are a giant prick.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Did you mean speciously? Deriding an entire group should at least be accurate.

  • DJF||

    Do you also think that the government should never evict anyone committing burglary in your home?

  • Think It Through||

    Open borders, open doors. I'm sure OBL is very accomodating with his home.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    There are open borders, and there is open immigration. They are NOT the same thing; some libertarians lean toward the latter: know who is coming into your house!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You don't understand the difference between private property lines and national borders? Oh boy.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    In his defense, many are arguing open doors should follow suit.

  • Nardz||

    I don't. Perhaps you could explain it?

  • Think It Through||

    WTF? As a libertarian, I believe the US government can always deport any non-citizen for any reason.

  • Harvard||

    Then you've thought it through.

  • Juice||

    They can deport you too if they want. What are you gonna do about it, huh?

  • Nardz||

    I've long been in favor of bringing back exile as a sentence.
    ...Of course, such would require some semblance of secure national borders.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In Georgia, exile from counties still happens. Hall County, Georgia exiled Kat Williams.
    AJC Kat Williams banned form counties

    I don't think that enforceable but nobody ever challenges in the appellate courts as unconstitutional.

  • shawn_dude||

    Really?!

    No due process? Are you saying non-citizens have no rights under our system of laws?

  • JuanQPublic||

    (Gorsuch is still a dangerous right-wing extremist though.)

    This has been stated ad nauseum in the media, especially early in Trump's presidency, but what, specifically, makes Gorsuch a "dangerous right wing extremist?"

  • Texasmotiv||

    His aversion to chevron deference. This is it in a nutshell. The left wants to make sure their unaccountable agencies are allowed to go unchallenged.

  • Rich||

    "The void-for-vagueness doctrine, as we have called it," observed the majority opinion of Justice Kagan, "guarantees that ordinary people have 'fair notice' of the conduct a statute proscribes."

    Right, Your Honor. What guarantees that congresscreatures have 'fair notice' of the conduct their statutes proscribe? They don't even read the damn things.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    THE COURT SHOULD GIVE CONGRESS FAIR NOTICE ON WHAT POTENTIAL LEGISLATION IT'S GOING TO STRIKE DOWN IF PASSED AND CHALLENGED.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is the kind of opinion to force legislative bodies to pay attention. The lefties just want to slow down deportations so they sided with Gorsuch.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Agreed, it should, but in practice, probably not.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    If you want to have congress pay attention, we should amend the constitution so that any legislator who votes for a law that is later found to be unconstitutional (in whole or in part) should immediately lose their jobs.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    MAGA

    lol

  • JFree||

    I like seeing cases where the usual party splits aren't there. It's become way too rare on the SC.

  • Eidde||

    Just so long as Gorsuch doesn't pick up progressive cooties from his lefty colleagues.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This article should have been titled "Liberals join Neil Gorsuch in 5-4 SCOTUS Opinion Striking Down Portion of Federal Law".

    Reading the decision, Gorsuch was limiting government power to vaguely classify felonies more serious than they are. The lefties on the court joined him to stop Trump's deportations. Which is why the majority opinion had Gorsuch join in part only.

  • Eidde||

    Great, so Gorsuch hasn't suddenly developed "judicial statesman disorder" in an attempt to make the media like him.

    Agreeing with the court's left wing is fine, as long as it's for good reasons and not an attempt for a fawning profile by some liberal legal reporter.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason fooled me initially. I saw the article title and fell for the click bait.

    I read the actual decision and Gorsuch was trying to reduce government power (to classify non-violent felonies as violent and not give fair notice) while the lefty justices joined HIM to fight Trump's deportations.

    The majority agreed to the decision for different reasons, which was not very clearly pointed out by Reason.

  • shawn_dude||

    But your reasons appear to be partisan bias on your part rather than factually informed so I'm not sure how you've done any better than Reason here.

    It is just possible that even the "lefty justices" agree that vague laws like this aren't a good idea.

    Your inability to see the good in your political adversaries is at least consistent.

  • James Pollock||

    Oh, snap.

  • Flinch||

    It really should have been unanimous. Maybe it's a testimony of just how toxic the mind of Ginsburg is, that a mistake was made because the rancor she has sown runs so deep. The 4 couldn't see the case on account of her skirt? No more octagenarians in government... I don't care how good [or bad] they were in their prime: thank them and send them home. If we need a constitutional amendment to prevent service in government after 80, then let's do it.
    As for Gorsuch taking advantage of 'never Trump' bile and corralling the loons into service on our behalf? I'll take it.

  • DJK||

    5-4 splits along ideological lines are the exception, not the norm.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Technically, this was not a split along ideological lines.

    The lefty justices joined Gorsuch, the conservative, for very different reasons.

    Roberts, the "conservative", is fine with handing more power to government based on poorly written laws.

  • DJK||

    Agreed. JFree said that decisions where the usual party splits aren't there are rare. I'm saying that's not the case at all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am just mainly adding my $.02

  • Rossami||

    Actually, SCOTUS decisions that are unanimous or that violate the "normal" party lines are the norm, not the exception. But cases without controversy aren't sexy and don't sell papers so they never get covered. You have to be a real SCOTUS nerd to know how common those situations are.

  • Rhywun||

    That is somewhat reassuring. I would hate to think they all being partisan hacks on every issue.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Actually, SCOTUS decisions that are unanimous or that violate the "normal" party lines are the norm, not the exception. But cases without controversy aren't sexy and don't sell papers so they never get covered. You have to be a real SCOTUS nerd to know how common those situations are.

    Which is the why the root of many many problems today are in the legislative branch of government, at both the state and national levels. Not incidentally, the branch that is elected by the people, which ultimately puts the responsibility on the people.

  • James Pollock||

    "Which is the why the root of many many problems today are in the legislative branch of government, at both the state and national levels."

    The problem there is gerrymandered districts that assure that only one party has a realistic chance of electing representatives. When you have districts that are competitive, representatives are pulled to the middle. When you have districts that aren't competitive, representatives are pulled towards the extremes.

    Although, yes, another substantial problem is a general electorate that has substantial numbers of voters who don't actually want their representatives to make the government work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The upshot of today's ruling is that it is now more difficult for the federal government to deport aliens under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    This is another reason why I don't contribute to Reason. Weak analysis of real issues when butt sex, open borders, and drugs are involved.

    The most important thing about this ruling is that lower end felonies (i.e. burglaries) will not be considered "violent felonies" under federal law. The police state has been pushing the USA toward making more crimes felonies and then more of those felonies "violent crimes" when no victim was injured. Burglary is probably best labelled a dangerous felony as some can get hurt during commission of the crime but injury is not an element of the crime like battery.

    California really cemented this legal reasoning when 3 strikes was being pursued by that state. Felons were constantly being given life for burglaries where nobody was home or on businesses during the day or night.

  • gormadoc||

    I don't think you're right. The court wasn't looking at the violent felonies themselves but at deportation for violent felonies. If they were restricting violent felonies to a reasonable standard they would not have had to strike down the provision; it would have satisfied their decision.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The first part of the analysis discusses the law's vagueness in which to weigh risk of a felony and then subsequently make that felony more serious after the fact.
    The combination of "indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime [and] indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony," id., at ___, resulted in
    "more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,"

    The decision does not prevent actual violent felonies from being a reason for deportation. This decisions prevents non-violent felonies from being called "aggravated felonies" for the purposes of deportation.

    The INA defines "aggravated felony" by listing numerous offenses and types of offenses, often with cross-references to federal criminal statutes. §1101(a)(43); see Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 2). According to one item on that long list, an aggravated felony includes "a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18 . . . ) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." §1101(a)(43)(F).

    Gorsuch is trying to limit government power which makes civil penalties more serious than the standard they are typically held to. Gorsuch does not get to pick cases but sometimes has to check gov power as the cases appear.

  • Cloudbuster||

    What interest do we as a nation have in allowing an immigrant who goes around burglarizing houses to remain in the country? Who cares if it's violent?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its the way that vague law was written that is the problem.

    I think any non-natural born citizen who commits a crime with more than 6 months in jail should be deported immediately after a hearing. Minor crimes should probably be excluded because my state of Georgia makes all offenses misdemeanors or felonies. So a speeding ticket is actually a notice to appear for a misdemeanor.

    Americans don't want non-Americans in the USA committing crimes.

    Many Americans don't want poorly written laws giving government more power. This puts Congress on notice that poorly written laws will be struck down... which is GOOD.

  • Nardz||

    Exactly. You've preempted my comment, so I'll just put it here.

    "The upshot of today's ruling is that it is now more difficult for the federal government to deport aliens under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act."

    Have to disagree with Root here. (As LC points out) the upshot of this ruling is that vaguely worded law was shot down - not at all that criminal aliens are harder to deport. That part is incidental and certainly no cause for celebration.

  • BigT||

    "Americans don't want non-Americans in the USA committing crimes."

    They took our jobs!!

  • James Pollock||

    "I think any non-natural born citizen who commits a crime with more than 6 months in jail should be deported"

    Deported? To where? We require prospective citizens to forswear their former citizenship as a condition of naturalization.

  • JuanQPublic||

    What interest do we as a nation have...

    Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution prioritized what's best for the individual in, not what's "best for the nation", which really means "what's best for other people".

  • shawn_dude||

    I think you're reading too much into this.

    The court said vagueness is bad.
    Congress can come back with a new law that eliminates the vagueness.
    Let the deportations commence.

  • shawn_dude||

    ...of course that would require Congress to actually do something.

  • James Pollock||

    You're going to love this new law we're going to come up with. It's going to be tremendous. Really, really tremendous. This new law will do everything you ever wanted, and things you never even dreamed of. We'll have this new law ready on day one.

    And, then nothing.

  • ThomasD||

    "Burglary is probably best labelled a dangerous felony as some can get hurt during commission of the crime but injury is not an element of the crime like battery."

    I go round and round on this one.

    1. Burglary simple is a property crime, one that does not involve physical force against a person.

    2. Burglary of an occupied dwelling could involve an assault if the presence of the criminal made the occupants feel threatened.

    3. If in the course of committing that crime you also engage in actual violence then that should be an additional crime - e.g. aggravated battery or some such.

    Then there would be somewhat less confusion over this issue. But, since state laws are not remotely uniform then the law needs to be much less vague to be enforceable.

  • shawn_dude||

    Note that the immigration act appears to cover violence against property as well as persons. So if you broke a window to gain entrance to the home, that's violence according to the act.

    [IANAL]

  • James Pollock||

    Burglary is the entry of a dwelling, without authorization, with the intent to commit a felony within. It's considered a felony because the invasion of the home is considered especially egregious. People should feel save in their homes, in other words, and if you burglarize them, they don't feel safe in their homes any more, and that's just as "violent" as if you threaten to hit someone with a big stick, and swing at them, and miss. The injury is real, but it isn't physical, if you get it.

  • colorblindkid||

    Neil Gorsuch will be a far better friend to liberals and anti-Trumpers than Garland would have been. Anybody not blinded by partisanship could have seen this from the start.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would not be so sure. The progressives on the court knew full well they were siding with Gorsuch to limit government power because open borders.

    Gorsuch was not in the majority to per se have open borders, but to limit government power.

  • colorblindkid||

    Garland was a moderate, not a liberal, and would be more likely to side with the government and law enforcement than Gorsuch. I know Gorsuch is no liberal and ruled this way for entirely different reasons than the others. I just don't understand why they thought Garland was going to be some liberal hero.

    Also, I may hate 99% of Republicans right now, but I hope Kennedy retires or RBG dies (naturally) before the midterms, because there's basically no scenario after that in which we get a non-liberal majority court for the next 30 years.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Garland is a statist. SO he is nothing like Gorsuch, who is an originalist.

    Garland deferred to regulatory agencies.
    Garland did not want to give Gitmo prisoners court hearings.
    Garland has historically been anti-gun but did side against the District of Columbia which sought to violate the Heller decision. Garland knew the SCOTUS would reverse it and he no leeway to vote otherwise.

  • Tony||

    Still wasn't Trump's seat to fill. It's almost refreshing how nonchalantly McConnell admits to having no principles, though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Haha. I forgot about the lefties still consider Gorsuch a thief! Haha

    Thank God Hillary lost or we would have had a chump like Garland on the court.

  • DJK||

    Obama sure chose the wrong hill to die on, huh?

  • Tony||

    His biggest failure was spending so much of his presidency hoping to find any principles or patriotic concern among Republicans.

  • DJK||

    We get it, Tony. You're a partisan hack who can only see the abuses committed by one side.

  • Tony||

    People who assume both sides are equally bad are the real partisans. Democrats had to earn my vote. You're giving totally unearned support to Republicans by engaging in this false equivalency bullshit. (It always benefits them because they are always worse.)

  • DJK||

    I don't assume both sides are equally bad. I give R's credit when they do good things and call them out when they do bad. Same with D's. I'd love to see you do anything other than reflexively support D's because they're D's and bash R's because they're R's. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for quite some time.

  • Tony||

    I admit to a bit of that, and as soon as Republicans invent a time machine and take back the Iraq war, I will be unradicalized on this point.

    But they also have no willingness to even engage with mainstream economics, to the point of doing the opposite of what it recommends at every turn and repeatedly causing large economic catastrophes.

    They also encourage a climate of racism and xenophobia because they're too damn lazy to appeal to any higher values in voters. All in service of an agenda to transfer as much wealth as it can grab to the 1%. This is in addition to the aforementioned total lack of any concern for principles or decency.

    So when a Democrat does all that and then some, I'll say he's worse than a Republican.
    So

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Didn't almost all the Democrats vote for Iraq?

    Democrats are almost without exception liars, socialists, nanny-staters, police-staters, statists, and big spenders.

    Republicans are now usually nanny-staters, police-staters, neo-cons, and big spenders.

  • Tony||

    I get it love, to you the Iraq War was good when Republicans started it, but bad when Democrats voted for it. No need to explain your reasoning any further.

  • BYODB||


    as soon as Republicans invent a time machine and take back the Iraq war, I will be unradicalized on this point.

    Yet more proof that you were too young or stupid to understand that the Iraq war was bipartisan.

    The whole 'Bush lied' trope is amusing since Congress was briefed by our intelligence agencies, so if anyone lied it was the deep state. Blaming that on Bush, even while he was otherwise a terrible President, is hilariously partisan of you.

    Which is it, are Democrats incompetent or evil? It doesn't have to be 'either or', they can be both, but it's hilarious to assume an idiot like Bush could pull the wool over both the intelligence agencies and an entire political parties eyes.

    Bonus points when you realize Hillary wanted to bomb Syria. Democrats don't give a fuck about peace.

  • Tony||

    Is that the same Syria that Trump just bombed?

    Democrats at best suffered from ignorance of the facts and post-9/11 patriotic cowardice. They don't get off the hook for their vote, but neither are they equally responsible for that war. Cheney didn't even think there needed to be a vote. This deflection of blame is probably the most pathetic example of both-sidesism ever to be concocted by partisan hacks. That's the thing I'm supposed to be and you're not.

  • BYODB||


    Is that the same Syria that Trump just bombed?


    It is, so it's odd that you're not more happy with him for taking that option. Frankly, I think it makes him a jackass but I was against it when Hillary said it too. That makes me consistent, something you've never been accused of.

  • Tony||

    Did I ever express an opinion on Syria policy here?

  • BYODB||


    Democrats at best suffered from ignorance of the facts and post-9/11 patriotic cowardice.

    So as a party, they can't be held accountable because they're incompetent. That's exactly the defense I expected, and it's because you're a blind partisan. This was known, but thanks for being explicit on the subject.

    In short, when 9/11 occurred you were likely a child but it also seems that you're dumb enough that you could have been an adult. I wager you were probably right there cheering on the passage of the Patriot Act at the time.


    They don't get off the hook for their vote, but neither are they equally responsible for that war.

    Uhh...so you're absolutely giving one party a pass and blaming the other for an explicitly bipartisan act. But you're totally not partisan. Nope, not at all. Idiot.

  • ||

    I am finally starting to understand Tony. It's all about drawing attention to Tony. A narcissist just has to hate another narcissist, while Hillary made it all about him.

    Go ahead, buddy, vent all that pent up rage for all the wrong reasons. It will make it that much more likely that you head will explode when your big Orange Crush gets reelected.

    But, damn, 2 more like Gorsuch and it will have been worth it.

  • Nardz||

    Damn Tony, you sure know your gospel

  • DJK||

    I'm mostly saddened by Tony's shtick. It's incredible that extraordinarily wealthy left-wingers who have used the office to amass their personal fortunes (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) have managed to convince half the country that they're on the side of the poor. It's incredible that warmongering left-wingers (e.g. Dianne Feinstein) have managed to convince half the country that they're on the side of peace.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    So how did Dems earn your vote? By promising that the most productive people have even more of their labor taken from them? By promising that they'd limit the types of guns people could own, to eliminate any threat against the government?

  • gormadoc||

    I thought that accusing your political adversaries of not being patriotic was a faux pas since the Bush years.

  • Tony||

    I thought colluding with Russian to undermine the United States was a faux pas since the existence of both Russia and the United States.

  • BYODB||

    Colluded how, exactly? You should contact the FBI since it's clear you have knowledge and evidence that no one else has.

  • Tony||

    Mueller has it.

  • BYODB||

    If Mueller has it, then it's curious no impeachment has occurred. Does this mean that you think Mueller is just as incompetent as the Democrat party and Hillary Clinton? That must be it.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Still waiting for this evidence. I suppose it will be after the midterm.

  • Nardz||

    William Seward colluded with Russia...
    At least we got Alaska out of it.

  • DarrenM||

    Presidents do not own SCOTUS openings.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are not going to get invited to the same parties that cosmos do with that attitude.

  • Tony||

    Except they actually do.

  • shawn_dude||

    The Senate's "advise and consent" role and the whole set of shenanigans that got Gorsuch on the bench in the first place disagree with you.

  • The Last American Hero||

    He will be a better friend to them, but they won't ever thank him for it.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Neil Gorsuch will be a far better friend to liberals and anti-Trumpers than Garland would have been. Anybody not blinded by partisanship could have seen this from the start.

    Absolutely.

  • colorblindkid||

    I do think awful permanent residents should get a level of protection similar to citizens. This ruling seems like it's pretty narrow anyway.

  • colorblindkid||

    Also, it says the case was first heard in January of 2017, before Trump was president and when Obama's AG was in charge. Did they argue the same thing? Did Obama drop it and Sessions pick it back up? Do they rename cases the second time they are heard? Is there something I'm missing?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They don't need to change the AG's name to resolve the case. It was likely because the case was sent back to 9th Circuit for reargument after Session became AG. IIRC once Obama knew Hillary lost, the government's policy on deportation changed.

    Jan 17 2017 Argued. For petitioner: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.
    Jun 26 2017 This case is restored to the calendar for reargument.
    Jul 19 2017 SET FOR REARGUMENT on Monday, October 2, 2017.
    Aug 01 2017 Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
    Aug 03 2017 Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic.
    Oct 02 2017 Argued. For petitioner: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N.Y.

  • DJK||

    Interesting that the justices didn't interpret the law to give it a saving construction, as they would have with laws they favored. It's almost like they determine their intended conclusion, then come up with legal arguments to justify it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gorsuch would not agree to that, so I doubt they would have gotten their majority to limit deportation powers under current law.

    Thomas' dissent discussed statutorial lenity and he doubts that the Due Process Clause authorizes striking down statutes.

  • DJK||

    I'm merely commenting on the incredible hypocrisy of a number of the justices.

  • John||

    There is a simple fix to this. Just change the language to any crime punishable by more than a year in jail.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly John! I would even add in misdemeanors with sentences more than 6 months but that's me.

    The lefties just saw a crack in government power thanks to Gorsuch.

  • DJK||

    So you're okay with people being deported for getting lost on their snowmobiles and accidentally wandering into a wilderness area? Race car driver Bobby Unser got 6 months for that in 1996. He probably had good lawyers. I imagine most people would get off much worse.

  • DJK||

    How about informing customers that your former employer was knowingly distributing software with security flaws? 16 months under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    DJK|4.17.18 @ 1:02PM|#
    How about informing customers that your former employer was knowingly distributing software with security flaws? 16 months under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.


    DJK, I guess we're going to do a bunch of hypotheticals.

    I love hypotheticals.

    This imaginary guy should have demanded a speedy trial by jury. Represented himself and explained to the jury how wrong the govenrment's case is. I would have not found him guilty.

  • DJK||

    Good luck on getting a judge to allow instruction about jury nullification.

  • DJK||

    FWIW, those aren't hypotheticals. People have actually been put in prison for such things. You'd have immigrants deported for this.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deporting non-natural born citizens for that offense? If it leads to more than 6 months, then yes.

    Should that offense be a crime? No. A civil offense with a fine sounds more reasonable.

    He should have taken that to trial. Most people take the easy way out. No sympathy from me on Bobby agreeing to waive his constitutional right to a jury trial and then the judge being a dipshit and punishing him harshly for 6 months. I doubt he did 6 months, since good behavior cuts that period down.

  • DJK||

    My point is that the CFR and state regulations are full of absolute bullshit regulations that lead to significant jail time. Under your proposed solution of deporting for anything that carries a 6 month penalty (which is nothing in modern US criminal law), people would find themselves deported for all sorts of stupid reasons. A better solution is to just list the offenses that would qualify: murder, attempted murder, etc. This way Congress makes it explicit as to what is worthy of deportation versus what isn't. It's not that hard.

  • DJK||

    That wouldn't do it. Congress could have said all felonies at the outset. They chose so-called aggravated felonies and tried to tie in a violent element to it. I'm just guessing here, but they probably did it to avoid people being deported on truly shitty charges - for instance, in some places loitering can carry felony penalties; theft of $500 is a felony in some places. The real way to fix it is to just list all the violent felony crimes that would trigger the so-called aggravated felony requirement. This list could be updated as necessary.

  • Adam330||

    That would be pretty much impossible because of all the variation in state criminal codes.

  • DJK||

    Eh. The violent crimes and/or crimes of moral turpitude that Congress was likely trying to get at are pretty uniform across states.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    It's a thumb in the eye to Congress; that's good enough for me.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Just make it any felony. Period. That's not vague.

  • DJK||

    There are thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that carry felony penalties at the federal level alone. Felonies for things that ordinary people might think are either not problematic at all, simple violations of conduct that should be fined at worst, and so on. They generally do not have a mens rea requirement. Reason has had numerous articles on these laws. Do you think that people should be deported for unknowingly violating some one-line obscurity in the Code of Federal Regulations?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    DJK, you're asking a Trumpista if he thinks all foreigners should be purged from this nation for any infraction.

  • Harvard||

    He said nothing of the kind Beaner. You know that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The USA has an illegal and new citizen crime problem. The fix is to deport all those fucking criminals. I would set a 6 month sentence minimum to cover minor crimes for stupid mistakes.

    The other thing is that there are too many crimes, so most laws needs to be repealed.

    Do those two things and the USA would instantly be a better place for Americans.

  • DJK||

    Study after study shows that illegal immigrants and new citizens commit crimes at rates lower than natural born citizens (other than the crime of being in the country illegally, I suppose). Where is your data coming from?

  • BYODB||

    All of those studies conflate illegal immigrants with legal immigrants, which makes the data automatically flawed since it would be pretty stupid to compare no-education poor migrants with doctors.

    That doesn't stop CATO from saying those two groups are identical, so why should it stop anyone else?

  • DJK||

    No, they don't. Where are you getting your information from? I'd suggest reading methodology sections.

  • BYODB||

    I got my information from the methodology sections specifically, do you read them? I specifically point out one think tank that does this on the regular.

    Also, for what it's worth, have you ever asked yourself how the researchers are even able to determine what the crime rate of illegal immigrants are when they don't know who is and is not an illegal immigrant in the first place? That isn't a question that comes up, and notably no one actually has a concrete ballpark figure for how many illegal immigrants there are in the first place, making any such comparison functionally impossible (or at best, a very uneducated guess).

    Note that I'm not saying they commit crime at a higher or lower rate, this is purely a critique of the studies I've read on the subject.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Check this blog post from CATO:

    https://bit.ly/2nYHY5s

    This seems to break it down by legal population and illegal population. Perhaps you should provide links to some of these flawed studies to prove your point, or one that shows illegals as MORE criminal but it looks like backpedaling.

  • ThomasD||

    " Do you think that people should be deported for unknowingly violating some one-line obscurity in the Code of Federal Regulations?"

    No, but it might make the left more concerned about making everything a felony.

  • DJK||

    Fair point.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I see little evidence to suggest that aggressive enforcement of bad laws leads to those laws being repealed. Even if it did, it's a high price to pay.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Unless the aggressive enforcement results in more arrests, thus increasing the chance of a SCOTUS challenge. But yes, a rather high price to pay.

  • inoyu||

    Do you think people should be deported after being convicted of felony burglary two times?

  • Naughtius Maximus||

    "fair notice" doctrine is irrelevant because burglary is already illegal under other specific laws.

    Non-citizen immigrants are here at the pleasure of USG and any one of them should be deportable for any reason or no reason at the pleasure of USG.

  • Brandybuck||

    Where in the Constitution does it say that? I can't find it.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    It doesn't. Trumpistas merely have this penchant of making stuff up.

  • Juice||

    Haven't you read the "except non-citizens" clause of the 5th amendment.

  • Harvard||

    I think it's nestled in Article IV where it mumbles something about yes, we actually do have borders, and yes we can defend and protect them, something, something, invasions, something, legislations.

  • DJK||

    Article IV has nothing to do with anything you've mentioned. Do you mean Article I, Section IV?

  • DJK||

    Section VIII, I mean.

  • DarrenM||

    "At the pleasure of the USG" would still have to mean there needs to be laws for the situation.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Unless one had no regard for the rule of law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maximus, although true about the resident aliens being here at the pleasure of the USG, the US runs on the Rule of Law which sets standards for who can come here, who can stay, and how to deport them if they violate those rules.

    The problem is that the rules are a fucking mess. Part of the reason Trump won was because he promised to fix that mess and stop kicking the can like past politicians have done.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Naughtius Maximus,

    Non-citizen immigrants are here at the pleasure of USG


    That assertion implies that the USG owns the country, you Communist.

  • ThomasD||

    Like the mall ninja owns the food court.

  • Brandybuck||

    Expecting Trump to rescind his appointment in 3... 2... 1...

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Neil Gorsuch Joins Liberals in 5-4 SCOTUS Opinion Striking Down Portion of Federal Immigration Law


    Why, that... That traitor! How dare he throw a monkey wrench into the Making America Grating Again works?

  • Harvard||

    You're really grasping lately. Anybody tell you that?

  • BYODB||

    Given that OMMH is someone that doesn't believe in borders, as in they don't 'really exist', that should tell you the level of intelligence you're dealing with.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: BYODB,

    "Borders" are lines on a map placed there by conquerors. Those who think that they're real things operate on the illusion that the State owns their collective asses. I call those deluded individuals "Trumpistas". Or idiots.

  • Harvard||

    And this borderless world in which you live exists...where exactly? Doesn't exist in the laws of any cokuntry. Doesn't exist in the US Constitution. Doesn't even exist in common parlance. You've become Tony on this issue, spouting what "you" believe, nothing more, and stamping your feet and name calling when others disagree. I call that arrogance. Or Beaners.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Harvard

    And this borderless world in which you live exists...where exactly?


    Here. See?

    Doesn't exist in the laws of any country


    Are you saying legislatures get to define reality? Don't you have a mind?

    You've become Tony on this issue, spouting what "you" believe


    A belief? Go to the border. If you see flies hitting themselves against this "border" which resides in your imagination, get it on video. In the meantime, fuck off, slaver.

  • BYODB||

    The fact that you use flies hitting an invisible wall as an argument does nothing other than illustrate your profound idiocy on the subject. Honestly.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: BYODB,

    Honestly, B, your Fascism is creepy.

  • BYODB||

    Ah, a non-argument reply. I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between 'real' in a physical sense vs. 'real' in a political sense. Tell me, are laws real?

    It's pretty amusing that you only ever seem to aim your 'no borders' trope at America though. Nations like Mexico having borders means that if America did not, there would still be a border. Should we go to war with Mexico to remove that border?

    I suppose now is when you should segue into your 'one world government' tune, since it's functionally what you advocate for even if you are far too stupid to understand it.

  • Harvard||

    Slaver indeed. I realize you've probably 20 or 30 more nephews you've yet to anchor in, but you're spouting nonsense and you know it. You're Tony fer sure, living in a world of "what might be". Get over yourself.

  • stuartl||

    Since many borders are rivers and oceans, you might not see the flies slowing down, but most fish do.

  • Tony||

    Borders are as real as rights. They exist in our minds and on paper, if not the fabric of the cosmos.

  • Harvard||

    Drive to Del Rio, Tx. East of town the Rio Grande is but a trickle. Head south and wade across. Walk into Ciudad Acuno. Wander around until a Federale stops you. Make that argument. We'll wait

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Harvard,

    Walk into Ciudad Acuno. Wander around until a Federale stops you.


    It's Ciudad Acuña and just because a "Federal" stops you doesn't mean you don't have rights. It only means the Federal is acting like a goon, just like the goons who work for any other criminal enterprise that people call "government" because they're sick in their minds.

  • BYODB||

    Notably, the police on the Mexican side of the border have a very different idea of what 'rights' you have. Since borders aren't real in your world, I imagine this fact never registers on your broke ass radar.

  • BYODB||

    Borders are the political boundaries that denote where the rule of law of a nation ends. A world without borders is a world with one government, but you're eternally stupid on the subject and your opinion boils down to 'unicorns are real'.

    They aren't.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: BYODB,

    Borders are the political boundaries


    That's exactly what they are. Just like the territorial borders by which criminal gangs abide by are political boundaries. Neither exist in reality.

    A world without borders is a world with one government


    Liar.

  • Harvard||

    Bullshit artist.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not lying, it's a readily observable fact that the freest borders that exist are those within one nation. Notably, it's true in America and it's even true in Europe. Go figure.

    I'm sorry that I have empirical evidence to back up my opinion, it's only really a problem for you because you don't.

  • BYODB||

    Ah, I see now. You use 'reality' in a way that no one else uses it.

    Unless, of course, this means that in your view laws don't exist in reality either. Neither do beliefs, thoughts, or intellectual property.

    In fact, neither does free will or any other non-physical object. Only things like rocks and baseballs are real, anything notional is false, and any emotions or beliefs you thought you had were merely products of a deranged imagination.

    Truly, your idiocy is far grander than I suspected.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A world without borders is a world with one government

    It COULD be. Or it could be similar to what we have now: a world with competing governments each offering various advantages and disadvantages, and free people migrating freely among them based on which preferences and requirements they would like to have.

  • BYODB||


    It COULD be. Or it could be similar to what we have now: a world with competing governments each offering various advantages and disadvantages

    And where do those advantages and disadvantages end? The border.

    Are you seriously this dense? Or are you assuming that various governments would somehow occupy the same physical space?

  • Adam330||

    This case is probably going to be important well outside INA. There are a lot of statutes the impose additional/collateral consequences (like bans on possessing/buying guns, loss of voting rights, ineligibility for certain welfare programs and licenses) based on convictions for certain classes of crimes. Those statutes are often vaguely worded like this one, and its a nightmare to figure out who is actually subject to them.

  • DarrenM||

    I see a new Congressional committee coming out of this.

  • shawn_dude||

    Vague laws are never a good thing anyway so if that means states and the feds have to go back and tighten things down a bit, I'm all for it.

  • DJK||

    It won't.

  • DJK||

    And somehow SCOTUS will come to a different legal conclusion for those laws. Again, almost as if they reach the desired result first and construct the legal reason for it later.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But the Violent Femmes are still legal, right?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Check your States statutes for age restrictions.

  • CGN||

    If the felony crime is NOT a violent crime, the SCOTUS' ruling may be lawful. HOWEVER, there are many felony crimes which are violent or horrid crimes, and SHOULD allow the U.S. to deport any immigrants committing these crimes. As usual, the decision was made with almost no Constitutional warrant, but was instead arrived at by the "feelings" of the majority, which is why ruinous justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor should never have been confirmed to the court. A court of law's decision should follow THE LAW not the "tender" feelings of the justices.

  • DJK||

    There are thousands to tens of thousands of felony-level "crimes" for non-violent, non-immoral stupid bullshit (I list a few of the thousand or tens of thousands in comments above) all throughout the Code of Federal Regulations and the equivalent state-level codes.

    The violent crimes and crimes of moral turpitude that you are concerned about are relatively few and simple to list. Congress can be done with this by just passing a law listing the violent crimes and crimes of moral turpitude. It's really not that hard. It would take significantly less time and fewer resources than what has already been spent drafting and defending such a poorly written law. Many Congresspeople are lawyers; they should understand how to write legal documents.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's assuming they weren't being purposeful with that vaugeness that gives prosecutors tons of latitude for arbitrary enforcement.

    "The void-for-vagueness doctrine, as we have called it,"

    I approve

  • JuanQPublic||

    That's assuming they weren't being purposeful with that vaugeness that gives prosecutors tons of latitude for arbitrary enforcement.

    That would be far too charitable.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Vague legislation that allows arbitrary prosecution should be unconstitutional. I personally would like to see this asshole deported for burglary but since the lawmakers decided to play loose with the wording this is the result. Fix the law.

  • XM||

    What is an "ordinary case of a crime"? I'm guessing outright acts of violence like homicide and rape aren't part of the discussion.

    A door to door salesman operating without a license is functionally no different than a Mexican selling fruits from his cart without a license. There's nothing inherently dangerous about it that would invite violence, even if a state decides to define that as "robbery'. The feds should't be able to deport green card holders for those crimes with the language of the law as is.

    Shoplifting at Walmart is not really dangerous, but it could escalate into violence. I don't find the language too vague, but it's always good to make sure the government operate within certain parameters.

  • Henry Baker||

    Gorsuch voted correctly. "Violent crime" is stupidly vague, but there's nothing vague about the category of crimes known as felonies. The political idiot who wrote that law should have made deportation mandatory for immigrants convicted of ANY felony.

    Republicans who at least pretend to be conservatives currently own the House and Senate. If they were anything but gutless incompetent scumbags they could change "violent crime" to "felony" in less than a month. The law would then be ironclad and unassailable.

  • inoyu||

    Gorsuch took the populist position that the executive should not be putting people out of this nation. He did so by inventing a new "vagueness doctrine". C. Thomas said that there might be issues of vagueness to bring before the court, but not in the case of a legal resident twice convicted of felony burglary. This concurrence by Gorsuch reminds me of the Roberts bizarre opinion in Obamacare.

  • Texasmotiv||

    It doesn't take much to google "Vagueness Doctrine"and realize this has been around for some time. It's possible to think that this guy is a scumbag but that the gov isn't allowed to be vague or overbroad and then leave the guess work up to prosecutors and judges. The judges were doin there job here, the legislature was being lazy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "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 the course of committing the offense."

    Less vague than most statues.

    Were they supposed to give an exact percentage cutoff for the probability that physical force would be used?

  • Mark22||

    Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act which dealt with the power of the U.S. government to deport any alien, including a lawful permanent resident, convicted of an "aggravated felony."

    Just drop the "aggravated" and it becomes unambiguous.

  • vek||

    I don't like the specific outcome, not being able to kick out shitty people that immigrated here, but I don't like vague laws either. This one could certainly have been written better. I'd say they should just amend the law to be more clear, but keep it nice and harsh. Why do we want criminals of any sort here when we can boot them out?

    Imagine how low our crime rate would be if we could just ship every criminal off to Australia when they committed a crime. Most criminals are repeat offenders, so you ship them off, and you'll have a lot less crime. We can't do this with native born, but we sure as hell should with immigrants. There's nothing unreasonable about a long probationary period IMO.

  • bohemia||

  • bohemia||

  • prediksi singapore||

    Dua serangan pertama harus dilakukan dengan kekerasan, pemogokan terakhir bisa jadi apa saja. Jadi pada dasarnya ini merupakan hukum dua pemogokan. Orang mana yang TIDAK tahu mereka memilih. Dan tentu saja bagian "kekerasan" meluas.

  • JayR||

    The American public is not so simple-minded that it can only understand votes cast in decisions such as Sessions v. Dimaya in terms of either liberal and against Trump or conservative in support of Trump. For judges of integrity, such as Gorsuch, the legal question that actually came before the Supreme Court is what should be addressed, not who will be cheering the outcome of the decision.

    Yet headlines in media all over America scream "Gorsuch votes to Limit Trump deportations!" This is not what he voted for or about. Journalists covering the Supreme Court have also to a large degree been consumed by the Walking Dead syndrome of Trump derangement.

  • flyfishnevada||

    Good, it should be harder for the federal government to do just about everything.

  • Desi||

  • Desi||

  • Lisa82||

    Well, Thanks for the information

  • prediksi hk||

    ayo dukung teruss

  • David Banner||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online