Crazy idea. Congress enacted a law. It was constitutional. The US Supreme Court then ruled that it was constrained by the law congress enacted. But only barely.
Related: On Michelle Malkin’s Barn-Burner Pro-America Fix-Immigration Now CPAC Speech
The matter at hand is Barton v. Barr. A Green cardholder found guilty of crimes in the United States can avoid deportation if they have been in the country for at least seven years.
However, the law also provides that if a noncitizen has committed crimes within his or her first seven years of residence in the U.S., something called a “stop time” provision kicks in that then renders the person ineligible to claim protection under the law.
The 5-4 decision, penned by Justice Kavanaugh (for the majority), was one vote shy of engaging in what we call judicial activism. Reinventing the law or rewriting it from the bench. Unelected judges decided what elected legislators really meant.
But the law is so clear to the majority Justice Kavanaugh noted what should seem obvious to any judge in any court.
“Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens — even lawful permanent residents — who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress.”
Congress is responsible for legislation and is free to make changes as it sees fit, assuming it has the votes as expressed by the people in their choice of representation.
In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress.”
That’s not something you will hear from a liberal judge or a liberal majority court. Keep that in mind when you vote come November. Elections can have a lot of consequences. Some of them last for decades.
