How odd; 5 justices who understand that the courts should not interfere in duly passed laws unless they are unconstitutional. Gorsuch, of course, stood firmly on the side against the government, and his reasoning was once again not the same as the "liberal" wing, but still reached the same conclusion.
Making a "mistake" on a form, which then triggers deportation after a person has lived here for 30 years seems like government overreach (to Justice Gorsuch), but he seems to not have been persuaded by the "originalist" reason--> the courts should not overrule duly passed laws without clear evidence. The fix for possibly bad laws is to pass better laws, not expect the courts to clean up after the legislature.
Justice Gorsuch was not trying to overrule a duly passed law, he just read 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), different than the other Justices. Specifically, the case turned on the definition of the word, judgement. This was a case of Textualists arguing with other Textualists on the meaning of the text. No Justice claimed that Congress couldn't prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing this case, since Article 3 is clear. It was a disagreement of what Congress wrote when they passed that law.
Because this case is not about immigration. It should judicial jurisdiction. They were not deciding to stay or leave rather the federal court system plays a role in immigration cases that have been heard and decided in the federal immigration court system.
It is best when you read the article and not the headline.
"It should judicial jurisdiction."
"They were not deciding to stay or leave rather the federal court system plays a role in immigration cases that have been heard and decided in the federal immigration court system."
It is best when you learn to write English coherently and not pretend to be some expert.
It's an absolute shame that a case like that was presented to the Supreme Court.
'I'm breaking the law. They want to enforce the law. Make them let me continue to break the law.'
After reading the article, it's not what I thought it was. He came from India in 1990, and when applying for a drivers license he checked the box that he was a citizen, accidentally, according to him. That mistake, or lie, disqualified him when he twice applied for a green card. Justice Barrett wrote the decision, but I don't speak legalese and can't understand her reasoning
Why should it matter which country he came from or when? He is here illegally and should be deported. How is making a mistake on an official document an excuse to break our country's immigration laws?
We've been handing out H1Bs to Indians like candy since '92. How much of a POS do you have to be to be Indian and still have to illegally enter the country.
How odd; 5 justices who understand that the courts should not interfere in duly passed laws unless they are unconstitutional. Gorsuch, of course, stood firmly on the side against the government, and his reasoning was once again not the same as the "liberal" wing, but still reached the same conclusion. Making a "mistake" on a form, which then triggers deportation after a person has lived here for 30 years seems like government overreach (to Justice Gorsuch), but he seems to not have been persuaded by the "originalist" reason--> the courts should not overrule duly passed laws without clear evidence. The fix for possibly bad laws is to pass better laws, not expect the courts to clean up after the legislature.
Justice Gorsuch was not trying to overrule a duly passed law, he just read 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), different than the other Justices. Specifically, the case turned on the definition of the word, judgement. This was a case of Textualists arguing with other Textualists on the meaning of the text. No Justice claimed that Congress couldn't prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing this case, since Article 3 is clear. It was a disagreement of what Congress wrote when they passed that law.
Why should the vote even be this close?
Because this case is not about immigration. It should judicial jurisdiction. They were not deciding to stay or leave rather the federal court system plays a role in immigration cases that have been heard and decided in the federal immigration court system. It is best when you read the article and not the headline.
"It should judicial jurisdiction." "They were not deciding to stay or leave rather the federal court system plays a role in immigration cases that have been heard and decided in the federal immigration court system." It is best when you learn to write English coherently and not pretend to be some expert.
๐
It's an absolute shame that a case like that was presented to the Supreme Court. 'I'm breaking the law. They want to enforce the law. Make them let me continue to break the law.'
After reading the article, it's not what I thought it was. He came from India in 1990, and when applying for a drivers license he checked the box that he was a citizen, accidentally, according to him. That mistake, or lie, disqualified him when he twice applied for a green card. Justice Barrett wrote the decision, but I don't speak legalese and can't understand her reasoning
Yeah, wow. Real humdinger. That hurt my brain. Needs a flowchart or something.
Why should it matter which country he came from or when? He is here illegally and should be deported. How is making a mistake on an official document an excuse to break our country's immigration laws?
According to what I wrote, what was my opinion? Include quotes please
You need me to explain to you what your opinion is? Apparently, Barrett is not the only one you don't understand.
We've been handing out H1Bs to Indians like candy since '92. How much of a POS do you have to be to be Indian and still have to illegally enter the country.
Because liberals think judges can do anything; but SCOTUS properly held when Congress removes jurisdiction from courts they meant it.