Read time: 2 minutes

Trump Loses SCOTUS Immigration Case Because Of Gorsuch

It's not like Gorsuch all of a sudden went liberal. BUT...
Views:

Three things about Trump:

1. It's not about principle, it's about loyalty to Trump
2. Trump is against immigration and immigrants, period, to soothe his racist base.
3. Trump can't fire a Supreme Court justice.

So when Trump's appointee, Neil Gorsuch, voted against the Trump argument that undocumented immigrants who "commit crimes of violence" should be immediately deported?

Hard to say who was more upset, Ann Coulter or the MAGA types on Twitter.

And the thing is, Gorsuch's vote was entirely predictable, given his philosophy matches that of his conservative mentor Antonin Scalia: If the word isn't written on the statute, it's not there.

So while the liberals on the court likely voted against Trump because RACISM, Gorsuch didn't see a specific word in the statute that defined "crime of violence" in a way that wasn't too vague to be enforced.

Here's how CNN covered it:

JOHN BERMAN (HOST): We have breaking news out of the Supreme Court. Our justice correspondent Jessica Schneider joins us now. This is a ruling about immigration and the breakdown is fascinating.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER AT SCOTUS: It is, John. Just minutes ago, the supreme court ruled here they invalidated a federal immigration law that allowed for the deportation of immigrants on the basis of a crime of violence. That was the definition. The Supreme Court here saying that crime of violence, it was unconstitutionally vague, needed a clear definition to allow for the deportation. But what is particularly interesting here is the way this decision came down. This was a 5-4 decision. And the newest justice here at the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, he sided with the liberal justices here. That may seem surprising, but it goes exactly in line with Neil Gorsuch's judicial philosophy. He believes in textualism, he believes in reading statutes as they're written and not reading more into them. So this basically means the statute didn't have that definition. Neil Gorsuch, of course, his mentor, the late justice Antonin Scalia, that's likely exactly how justice Scalia may have ruled here. So, again, the Supreme Court invalidating a federal immigration allowing for deportation for crimes of violence and the conservative justice casting the deciding vote, siding with the liberals. A little surprising. John?

BERMAN: Jessica Schneider at the Supreme Court, thank you very much.

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team