Like you assumed that anyone who disagrees with it is racist.
So tell us, oh knower of all things, how opposing extra bond hearings for immigrants is racist, when no one else gets one?
Advertisement
by Ethel mermania » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:56 am
by Kramanica » Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:07 am
by Hallistrom » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:55 pm
by Kramanica » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:56 pm
by Kernen » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:04 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:21 am
by Hallistrom » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:49 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:51 am
by Kernen » Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:32 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:25 am
by Hallistrom » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:30 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:32 am
by Hallistrom » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Hallistrom wrote:
I'm not quoting anything. You are wrong and that's that.
AKA "I'm making shit up and I got called out for it but I'm gonna keep pretending I'm right anyways."
You don't even know who wrote the opinion lol, don't act like you know what's in it. It's honestly just kinda pathetic.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:41 am
Hallistrom wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
AKA "I'm making shit up and I got called out for it but I'm gonna keep pretending I'm right anyways."
You don't even know who wrote the opinion lol, don't act like you know what's in it. It's honestly just kinda pathetic.
Your attempt at baiting is noted and ignored.
by Ransium » Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:30 am
Hallistrom wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
AKA "I'm making shit up and I got called out for it but I'm gonna keep pretending I'm right anyways."
You don't even know who wrote the opinion lol, don't act like you know what's in it. It's honestly just kinda pathetic.
Your attempt at baiting is noted and ignored.
by Kernen » Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:35 am
Under the constitutional-avoidance canon, when statutory language is susceptible of multiple interpretations, a court may shun an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts and instead may adopt an alternative that avoids those problems. But a court relying on that canon still must
interpret the statute, not rewrite it. Because the Court of Appeals in this case adopted implausible constructions of the three immigration provisions at
issue, we reverse its judgment and remand for further proceedings.
In United States constitutional law, the doctrine of constitutional avoidance dictates that a federal court should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a nonconstitutional basis. When a federal court is faced with a choice of ruling on a statutory, regulatory or constitutional basis, the Supreme Court has instructed the lower court to decide the federal constitutional issue only as a last resort: "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The canon of constitutional avoidance “comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction.” Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 385 (2005). In the absence of more than one plausible construction, the canon simply “‘has no application.’” Warger v. Shauers, 574 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 10) (quoting United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coopera-
tive, 532 U. S. 483, 494 (2001)).
The Court of Appeals misapplied the canon in this case because its interpretations of the three provisions at issue here are implausible. In Parts III–A and III–B, we hold that, subject only to express exceptions, §§1225(b) and 1226(c) authorize detention until the end of applicable proceedings. And in Part III–C, we hold that there is no justification for any of the procedural requirements that the Court of Appeals layered onto §1226(a) without any arguable statutory foundation.
Because the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that periodic bond hearings are required under the immigration provisions at issue here, it had no occasion to consider respondents’ constitutional arguments on their merits. Consistent with our role as “a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), we do not reach those arguments. Instead, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals to consider them in the first instance.
by Kramanica » Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:16 am
Kernen wrote:Hallistrom wrote:
Yes they did.
No. They didn't. See the following:Under the constitutional-avoidance canon, when statutory language is susceptible of multiple interpretations, a court may shun an interpretation that raises serious constitutional doubts and instead may adopt an alternative that avoids those problems. But a court relying on that canon still must
interpret the statute, not rewrite it. Because the Court of Appeals in this case adopted implausible constructions of the three immigration provisions at
issue, we reverse its judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Huh, look at that. Alito is using the constitutional-avoidance canon. For the record:In United States constitutional law, the doctrine of constitutional avoidance dictates that a federal court should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a nonconstitutional basis. When a federal court is faced with a choice of ruling on a statutory, regulatory or constitutional basis, the Supreme Court has instructed the lower court to decide the federal constitutional issue only as a last resort: "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The opinion goes on:The canon of constitutional avoidance “comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction.” Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 385 (2005). In the absence of more than one plausible construction, the canon simply “‘has no application.’” Warger v. Shauers, 574 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 10) (quoting United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coopera-
tive, 532 U. S. 483, 494 (2001)).
The Court of Appeals misapplied the canon in this case because its interpretations of the three provisions at issue here are implausible. In Parts III–A and III–B, we hold that, subject only to express exceptions, §§1225(b) and 1226(c) authorize detention until the end of applicable proceedings. And in Part III–C, we hold that there is no justification for any of the procedural requirements that the Court of Appeals layered onto §1226(a) without any arguable statutory foundation.
After a lot of statutory interpretation (not constitutional interpretation), they round out the opinion with this:Because the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that periodic bond hearings are required under the immigration provisions at issue here, it had no occasion to consider respondents’ constitutional arguments on their merits. Consistent with our role as “a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), we do not reach those arguments. Instead, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals to consider them in the first instance.
So, since I've got a quote here from the majority opinion pointing out that constitutional questions are NOT considered in this opinion, are you going to insist that you're right without evidence, or admit you were incorrect?
by Greed and Death » Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:08 pm
Kramanica wrote:Kernen wrote:
No. They didn't. See the following:
Huh, look at that. Alito is using the constitutional-avoidance canon. For the record:
The opinion goes on:
After a lot of statutory interpretation (not constitutional interpretation), they round out the opinion with this:
So, since I've got a quote here from the majority opinion pointing out that constitutional questions are NOT considered in this opinion, are you going to insist that you're right without evidence, or admit you were incorrect?
But.. but he said he's right and that's that! /s
by Thermodolia » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:33 am
by Kernen » Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:26 am
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Cerespasia, Cerula, Cyptopir, Kostane, Philjia, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Republic of Western Sol