0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

While I don’t like the result in this instance, I agree with the point he was making.

0
0

[–] 12521961? ago 

The case was a non-violent burglary that the feds were trying to redefine as a violent crime for deportation purposes. They used the fact that there might have been violence used if there was any confrontation during the burglary. Really the Court just told the government to amend the law to include just any felony or crime that included actual violence along with a definition of violence.

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago  (edited ago)

Exactly, the problem with the law is that it is not well enough drafted to cover what the government wanted it to cover. Vague laws being unenforceable is a very important jurisprudential concept. I’m a little disturbed the rest of the conservative members of the Court did not think Johnson applied (other than Alito who dissented in the earlier case, too). That said, I have only skimmed the two cases, not perused them, so it is possible I am missing some finer points.