- 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
re: U.S. chief justice alarmed at Trump
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:13 am to Big12fan
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:13 am to Big12fan
quote:
If we stripped every person of citizenship who told a lie, we'd not have a president or a congress.
Last I checked, they were not applying for citizenship, they were more than likely already citizens. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there is little help for you.
2
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 9:21 am to Iosh
quote:
How dare the Supreme Court question the government's position in oral arguments, this is unprecedented
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.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:36 am to The Maj
quote:
Last I checked, they were not applying for citizenship, they were more than likely already citizens. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there is little help for you
What I understand is that there are two standards for character and that being born in America give you a pass.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:38 am to The Maj
quote:
Last I checked, they were not applying for citizenship, they were more than likely already citizens. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there is little help for you.
They are dishonest, not stupid. They fully understand the falsehood of their arguments.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:44 am to KeyserSoze999
I thought that was a big no-no? Giving an opinion on a possible upcoming case by a sitting SCOTUS judge is O.K. now?
Posted on 4/27/17 at 9:59 am to Wtodd
quote:
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.
Roberts was doing his job in asking those questions.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 10:00 am to Dale51
quote:
I thought that was a big no-no? Giving an opinion on a possible upcoming case by a sitting SCOTUS judge is O.K. now?
FFS
this was during oral argument
Posted on 4/27/17 at 10:44 am to Pettifogger
While lying about serving in an army is probably not trivial... if the wording of the clause is so incredibly broad that an agency could use it at its whim to go after pretty much anyone they want... well, none of us should be happy about the government having that at its disposal.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 10:53 am to KeyserSoze999
Who determines which lies are ok, and which ones aren't?
Posted on 4/27/17 at 10:53 am to Big12fan
quote:
What I understand is that there are two standards for character and that being born in America give you a pass.
Did they lie to obtain their citizenship? That is the crux of the issue here but it is obvious that you are too stupid to understand the difference.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 10:57 am to Lsuchs
quote:
Roberts seemed particularly concerned that the government was asserting it could revoke citizenship through criminal prosecution for trivial lies or omissions.
The Justice Department contended in oral arguments that even trivial lies are grounds for revoking citizenship.
Giving prosecutors and the Justice Department such leeway is a bad idea. Material lies - sure. Immaterial ones, no. I'm not suggesting her lie is immaterial but the JD wants even more power than that.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 10:59 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:Interestingly, this is an Obama era case. The original trial judge apparently instructed the jury that making a false statement under oath in an immigration proceeding was grounds for deportation regardless as to whether the false statement was "material".
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.
As I understand it, that is the crux of the case. I am amazed anyone would interpret the situation here, lying about war criminality/atrocities, as "immaterial". However, based on original jury instructions, I believe that is the position Trump's team is stuck defending.
So the question becomes ... should someone be subject to losing his/her citizenship because they answered immaterial questions incorrectly or improperly? IMO, I don't think so.
I think that's what Roberts is getting at too.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 11:00 am to Damone
A whole bunch of people here just don't understand how appellate law works. Yes, lying about serving in an army that committed war crimes is probably not trivial. But as an appellate court they're not just ruling for this one specific case, their opinion is going to have to set out some explicit standards for interpreting this statute so lower courts can use them, so this issue isn't constantly before SCOTUS every time someone lies. That's why Roberts is testing the bounds of the government's argument.
This post was edited on 4/27/17 at 11:02 am
Posted on 4/27/17 at 11:03 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
U.S. chief justice alarmed at Trump
One more reason why #Draintheswamp is more than just a slogan. Of course, the snake known as Justice Roberts will have to drained by God himself. Trump can't touch him.
Posted on 4/27/17 at 11:04 am to Iosh
quote:This is far more your realm than mine, but don't the original jury instructions take "lack of triviality" off the table?
Yes, lying about serving in an army that committed war crimes is probably not trivial.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News