Already hard at work as part of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made clear that he believes criminal actions committed by individuals decades ago justify harsh punishment without normal due process.
The question in the case was whether the federal authorities must detain immigrants who had committed crimes, often minor ones, no matter how long ago they were released from criminal custody. Justice Kavanaugh said a 1996 federal law required detention even years later, without an opportunity for a bail hearing.
“What was really going through Congress’s mind in 1996 was harshness on this topic,” he said.
But Justice Gorsuch suggested that mandatory detentions of immigrants long after they completed their sentences could be problematic. “Is there any limit on the government’s power?” he asked [Adam Liptak, “At Immigration Argument, Justice Kavanaugh Takes Hard Line,” New York Times, 2018.10.10].
The plaintiffs challenging this federal law contend that Congress meant to apply this detention to immigrants right after their release from custody, not give law enforcement the excuse to riffle through old files and scoop up immigrants for long-past offenses:
“Because Congress’s use of the word ‘when’ conveys immediacy,” Jacqueline H. Nguyen wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel, “we conclude that the immigration detention must occur promptly upon the aliens’ release from criminal custody.”
Justice Kavanaugh disagreed, saying the 1996 law put no time limits on the detentions it required.
“That raises a real question for me whether we should be superimposing a time limit into the statute when Congress, at least as I read it, did not itself do so,” he said [Liptak, 2018.10.10].
No excuses, says Justice Kavanaugh to immigrants: commit an infraction as a young person, and no matter how sterling your character in decades since, you disqualify yourself from residency in the United States.
The 1996 law includes a contested phrase. It says the federal authorities “shall take into custody any alien” convicted of certain crimes, some serious and some minor, “when the alien is released.” The key word is “when.”
Mr. Tripp eventually responded, “This applies regardless of time.” He added that Congress had intended that harsh result.
This is about Aliens, not US Citizens. Why did you fail to mention that Cory?
Ah, the irony, it runs deep.
Meanwhile, many people will miss the most obvious thing in the world: Everyone has legal rights, and should have legal rights, to a hearing after arrest for one simple reason. Quid pro quo. Some day an American citizen might be arrested in a foreign country (it has been known to happen), and they may model their legal behavior on ours, and deny an American citizen their right to a hearing, even for something as minor as “stealing some bus transfers”.
It’s also why we have (1) diplomatic immunity – not because their diplomats are so charming, but because we want to protect our own overseas from what just happened to Adnan Khashoggi; and
(2) the Geneva Conventions for humanitarian treatment of soldiers and other POWs – to protect our own soldiers and civilians. (And, BTW, why calling enemy soldiers “unlawful enemy combatants” and thus evading Geneva Conventions is a very dangerous precedent that will, undoubtedly, come back to haunt us some day.)
Jason, why did you fail to mention what you ate for breakfast this morning?
Eve accurately identifies both the irony and the legal issues in question.
What if the aliens have a calendar that clearly states they were not committing crime that day?
Jason, is your implication that aliens – even “legal” – do not have rights in the US?
The term “alien” is employed by too many folks these days as an euphemistic dogwhistle to replace the more truthful and accurate: “people not in my tribe who do not deserve fairness, due process, a safe place to live, care for children, or any other of the basic human rights my tribe has.”
As so used it is a badge of hatred and discrimination singling out whatever people of the day are to be deemed less than human, which in turn enables mistreatment and discrimination while in many cases aleviating the normal guilty conscience decent moral people would experience for treating others in such a miserable manner.
Justicky kavernmouth says youthful transgressions are never punishable for privileged white males. Fixed it for him.
This article says “No excuses, says Justice Kavanaugh to immigrants: commit an infraction as a young person, and no matter how sterling your character in decades since, you disqualify yourself from residency in the United States.”
He didn’t say that, Cory. Words matter, remember? You make so many good points without making things up, so why so much putting-words-in-peoples’-mouths lately?
I’m in Ohio in a very real area. Lebanon actually. Guess who’s speaking here tonight?
WINNING!!!!
No, Ryan, I stand by my interpretation of his position and its legal import. Isn’t what I said exactly what will happen to exactly the kind of person I describe if Kavanaugh’s position prevails?
No excuses, I say to Jason/Ryan: Me thinks doth protestus too much.
Sarge: your biliousness is something Shakespeare would likely ignore.
Now, if only OldSebaciousblowhard knew the meaning of ‘when’. How many lies did Drumpf tell you in loserville Ohio? Can’t wait for Politifact or Snopes to detail the falsities in wingnuts.
Protester demands that GOP Senator @BillCassidy “apologize to my children for ruining their futures.”
Cassidy looks at the kids: “Guess what? Your parents are using you as tools. In the future if somebody makes an allegation against you & there’s no proof for it, you’ll be OK.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/cassidys-kavanaugh-lesson.php
Cory is using his fellow Democrats as tools.
I will say it again, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make law.
If you don’t like the law Cory, lobby Congress to change it.
I have a feeling you don’t understand your role as a would be Senator do you?
How did corporations become people?
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/
Head of wingnut party lied to the Scotus way back when.
This is the problem with trying to interpret one word in one statute. It’s why we need non-drunken justices with common sense, rather than people of the ilk of Kavanaugh.
Sure, Congress could have specified, say, “206 days, 6 hours, 2 minutes and 35 seconds,” as Kavanaugh seems to want. But why would they? They were making a general statement about many very different potentially illegal acts. Do you treat a sexual assault the same as littering, for example? Not in the real world, but Kavanaugh lives in a permanent, right-wing adolescent stupor where sexual assault doesn’t matter and littering should get you deported. Congress assumed some commonsense will be applied by those carrying out the laws. That was probably a good assumption in 1996, when Clinton was President. Today, we have a President with zero sense, common or otherwise.
Commonsense says that those who commit violent crimes go to prison and get deported. Those who commit littering go to the Group W bench.
Amen, Donald!
leslie, i don’t even understand your misquoted comment. I don’t support kavanaugh, he seems like a terrible selection for a supreme court justice. I also don’t support his interpretation of the law at issue here.
All I’m saying is when you publish an article and you put words in peoples’ mouths, it dilutes the message and damages the credibility of the messenger. If what kavanaugh is saying or doing is bad, let that speak for itself. Don’t use tabloid hype tactics to pretend he said something he didn’t to make a boring article exciting. That’s something fox news would do. Don’t be like fox news.