- 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
30
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:05 am to KeyserSoze999
Chief Cuck
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
frick him.
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 The Maj
quote:
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?
no kidding
wow
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 9:10 am to FightinTigersDammit
I believe the law states that ANY lie on a federal form is grounds to lose citizenship, that simply hasn't been strictly enforced until now.
SCOTUS's job isn't to determine whether a law should be strictly enforced, it's job is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
Do we really want the Court making this subjective "okay this lie okay, this one is not"
SCOTUS's job isn't to determine whether a law should be strictly enforced, it's job is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
Do we really want the Court making this subjective "okay this lie okay, this one is not"
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:10 am to The Maj
quote:
Uh, leaving out the fact that your husband served in the Bosnian Serb Army doesn't really constitute a "trivial lie or omission"...
Particularly given the fact that the Bosinan Serb Army was involved in Nazi like ethnic cleansing crimes and the US was militarily engaged with them in the 90's.
Not a minor omission.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:11 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
People need to settle down.
While Roberts may be against your position on this, tough questioning in oral argument is not indicative that the Court is about to rewrite the law.
This is irresponsible reporting by Reuters.
While Roberts may be against your position on this, tough questioning in oral argument is not indicative that the Court is about to rewrite the law.
This is irresponsible reporting by Reuters.
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 9:12 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Do we really want the Court making this subjective "okay this lie okay, this one is not"
No. No we most definitely do not want that.
Justice Roberts, I'm alarmed by your stance. It appears that you believe the rule of law should be ignored when it's convenient.
That's not how this works.
This post was edited on 4/27/17 at 9:14 am
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News