- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
U.S. chief justice alarmed at Trump
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:03 am
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:03 am
dis MFer, what was his excuse for upholding ACA? something like he didn't want to politicize the SC? worse SC nominee ever
LINK
LINK
quote:
U.S. chief justice alarmed at Trump administration immigration case stance
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts took issue on Wednesday with the Trump administration's stance in an immigration case, saying it could make it too easy for the government to strip people of citizenship for lying about minor infractions.
Roberts and other Supreme Court justices indicated support for a deported ethnic Serb immigrant named Divna Maslenjak over her bid to regain her U.S. citizenship after it was stripped because she falsely stated her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s after Yugoslavia's collapse.
Roberts seemed particularly concerned that the government was asserting it could revoke citizenship through criminal prosecution for trivial lies or omissions.
He noted that in the past he has exceeded the speed limit while driving. If immigrants failed to disclose that on a citizenship application form asking them to list any instances of breaking the law, they could later lose their citizenship, the conservative chief justice said.
"Now you say that if I answer that question 'no,' 20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, 'Guess what, you're not an American citizen after all?'" Roberts asked Justice Department lawyer Robert Parker.
Roberts described the administration's interpretation as inviting "prosecutorial abuse" because the government could likely find a reason for stripping citizenship from most naturalized citizens.
"That to me is troublesome to give that extraordinary power, which, essentially, is unlimited power, at least in most cases, to the government," Roberts added.
President Donald Trump has sought to restrict immigration and deport people who have entered the United States illegally.
This post was edited on 4/27/17 at 9:08 am
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:05 am to KeyserSoze999
Speeding ticket is a bit different than serving in the army.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:05 am to KeyserSoze999
Uh, leaving out the fact that your husband served in the Bosnian Serb Army doesn't really constitute a "trivial lie or omission"...
What frickin planet are these people from?
What frickin planet are these people from?
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:06 am to KeyserSoze999
Is Robert's interested in the Law or only his own agenda?
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:06 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
lying about minor infractions.
ummm.... don't lie and there's not a problem.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:07 am to KeyserSoze999
I'm a bit alarmed about our chief justice
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:08 am to KeyserSoze999
So the administration is continuing a position argued by Obama's DOJ at the 6th Circuit, and now Trump is doing something alarming?
This sounds more like sensationalized reporting of normal questioning by SCOTUS than it does news about Roberts' position on Trump policy
This sounds more like sensationalized reporting of normal questioning by SCOTUS than it does news about Roberts' position on Trump policy
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:09 am to KeyserSoze999
If we stripped every person of citizenship who told a lie, we'd not have a president or a congress.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:09 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
Roberts and other Supreme Court justices indicated support for a deported ethnic Serb immigrant named Divna Maslenjak over her bid to regain her U.S. citizenship after it was stripped because she falsely stated her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s after Yugoslavia's collapse.
Roberts seemed particularly concerned that the government was asserting it could revoke citizenship through criminal prosecution for trivial lies or omissions.
He noted that in the past he has exceeded the speed limit while driving. If immigrants failed to disclose that on a citizenship application form asking them to list any instances of breaking the law, they could later lose their citizenship, the conservative chief justice said.
"Now you say that if I answer that question 'no,' 20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, 'Guess what, you're not an American citizen after all?'" Roberts asked Justice Department lawyer Robert Parker.
Roberts described the administration's interpretation as inviting "prosecutorial abuse" because the government could likely find a reason for stripping citizenship from most naturalized citizens.
While I don't completely disagree with Roberts here, technically if the law says (I don't know if it does) that lying on your citizenship application means possibility of it being stripped, then to go back and say 'its unfair, so we're going to re-write the law' is exactly the wrong answer.
Roberts worries me more than any of the other justices that he is going to end up being a Souter.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:11 am to KeyserSoze999
I'd like to hear Roberts explain in Constitutional language, his Lawful reasoning re the ACA 'tax/penalty' scenario.
Though I do agree that employing minor/trumped-up offenses to inflict major punitive damage to an opponent is problematic. I'm thinking of D'nesh D'Sousa, and how Obama put him in jail for a common tax/political contribution issue.
Though I do agree that employing minor/trumped-up offenses to inflict major punitive damage to an opponent is problematic. I'm thinking of D'nesh D'Sousa, and how Obama put him in jail for a common tax/political contribution issue.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:11 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
"That to me is troublesome to give that extraordinary power, which, essentially, is unlimited power, at least in most cases, to the government," Roberts added.
Robert's make a good point. You libertarians should be in agreement.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:12 am to KeyserSoze999
Wow!
Within the 1st hundred days, Trump actually has a case being argued at the Supreme Court!!!!
Oh, wait...this would stem from immigration actions occurring under a previous administration and it, and Roberts' statements, have NOTHING to do with Trump.
And to be clear, I hate Roberts.
Within the 1st hundred days, Trump actually has a case being argued at the Supreme Court!!!!
Oh, wait...this would stem from immigration actions occurring under a previous administration and it, and Roberts' statements, have NOTHING to do with Trump.
And to be clear, I hate Roberts.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:12 am to KeyserSoze999
How dare the Supreme Court question the government's position in oral arguments, this is unprecedented
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:13 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
Roberts seemed particularly concerned that the government was asserting it could revoke citizenship through criminal prosecution for trivial lies or omissions.
quote:
she falsely stated her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s after Yugoslavia's collapse
Bosnian Genocide
quote:
The ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serbs targeted Muslim Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery, and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals, and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship
I mean she is not her husband nor is she necessarily responsible for any actions he may have been a part of. But I wouldn't call that a "trivial omission."
Your spouse's involvement in a war doesn't slip your mind. Especially a controversial one involving war crimes.
This post was edited on 4/27/17 at 9:19 am
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:19 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
she falsely stated her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s after Yugoslavia's collapse.
quote:
for trivial lies or omissions.
If you didn't know:
quote:
The ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serbs targeted Muslim Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery, and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals, and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship.
In the 1990s, several authorities asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide. These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts (the convictions were based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts). In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that "the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide".
quote:
for trivial lies or omissions.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:23 am to KeyserSoze999
Alarmed at Trump? That's your headline? Come on man. How long has that case been in the court system to have landed before the USSC?
His point is valid and maybe it's an important issue. What constitutes minor vs serious dishonesty/perjury in citizenship applications, and is there a consideration for how long ago it happened. There is no need to make that legal question a political bully pulpit.
The job of the DOJ is to enforce the law and to make reasonable interpretations. There are going to be disagreements and different interpretations and this is the process by which those issues are resolved.
I doubt Trump has any direct involvement in this at all.
His point is valid and maybe it's an important issue. What constitutes minor vs serious dishonesty/perjury in citizenship applications, and is there a consideration for how long ago it happened. There is no need to make that legal question a political bully pulpit.
The job of the DOJ is to enforce the law and to make reasonable interpretations. There are going to be disagreements and different interpretations and this is the process by which those issues are resolved.
I doubt Trump has any direct involvement in this at all.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:28 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
U.S. chief justice alarmed at Trump
quote:
Maslenjak's citizenship was revoked. She and her husband were deported to Serbia last October.
:|
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:33 am to KeyserSoze999
Roberts needs to understand what his fricking job is and it's NOT speculating on what MAY happen 20 years from now.....hey John, your job is to make sure a law is IAW the Constitution to a-hole.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News