• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case[W:116]

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. tried to test the limits of the government’s position at a Supreme Court argument on Wednesday by confessing to a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

The government is taking a hard line on this, a line that is so hard that both Roberts and Kennedy are certain to shoot it down. Roberts himself scoffed, and even poked a little fun, at the government lawyer who was presenting the case. The case itself has to do with when the government has the right to strip a naturalized citizen of his or her citizenship. You can read the transcript at the link provided in my link (yea, I'm in a recursive mood today - LOL).

I had some problems with Bush, but I absolutely loved his pick in judges, judges which would prevent the government from trampling on the rights of people. Republicans love to talk about limited government, but in practice, they can be extremely authoritarian assholes. But let's not put this all on Republicans. True, it's the Trump regime that is presenting the case at SCOTUS, but this case originated from the Obama regime. Just in case you didn't know it, Obama's nickname was the Deporter in Chief. Trump's DOJ is merely continuing a case that was originally prosecuted by Obama's DOJ.

This goes back, once again, to SCOTUS picks. A good SCOTUS pick is one that will follow the Constitution. Bush's picks of Roberts was not a good pick. It was a great pick, Citizens United decision nonwithstanding.

Trump is about to lose here, and yes, it will be an Obama loss as well, and it's a win for the people against governmental overreach.

Que armchair lawyers whining about Roberts' "judicial activism" in 3... 2... 1.................

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/supreme-court-naturalization.html?_r=2
 
Last edited:
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

Maslenjak is a Serbian native who requested refugee status in 2000. She claimed that she was fleeing Serbia because her husband had refused conscription and the Serb government was after them. The truth was that her husband not only served but was a commander in a unit suspected of war crimes. The 6th Circuit court considered that to be rather significant and allowed her citizenship to be stripped.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/16-309-op-below-6th-cir.pdf

Personally, I find it a whole lot disingenuous of the Chief Justice to equate this omission with failing to disclose a time you exceeded the speed limit while driving. Kagan was no better when equating it with failing to disclose an embarrassing nickname.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
The government is taking a hard line on this, a line that is so hard that both Roberts and Kennedy are certain to shoot it down. Roberts himself scoffed, and even poked a little fun, at the government lawyer who was presenting the case. The case itself has to do with when the government has the right to strip a naturalized citizen of his or her citizenship. You can read the transcript at the link provided in my link (yea, I'm in a recursive mood today - LOL).

I had some problems with Bush, but I absolutely loved his pick in judges, judges which would prevent the government from trampling on the rights of people. Republicans love to talk about limited government, but in practice, they can be extremely authoritarian assholes. But let's not put this all on Republicans. True, it's the Trump regime that is presenting the case at SCOTUS, but this case originated from the Obama regime. Just in case you didn't know it, Obama's nickname was the Deporter in Chief. Trump's DOJ is merely continuing a case that was originally prosecuted by Obama's DOJ.

This goes back, once again, to SCOTUS picks. A good SCOTUS pick is one that will follow the Constitution. Bush's picks of Roberts was not a good pick. It was a great pick, Citizens United decision nonwithstanding.

Trump is about to lose here, and yes, it will be an Obama loss as well, and it's a win for the people against governmental overreach.

Que armchair lawyers whining about Roberts' "judicial activism" in 3... 2... 1.................

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/supreme-court-naturalization.html?_r=2
Click to expand...
If you don't like poorly written laws then demand Congress write better laws.

I can't read the NYT article, which is fine because it's probably a liberal hit piece anyway.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ibbing-supreme-court-justices-fume/100935202/
It turned out Maslenjak lied when applying for refugee status in the United States during the 1990s, both about her husband's service in a Bosnian militia unit implicated in war crimes and other matters. She was convicted, sentenced to two years' probation and had her naturalization revoked, a conviction upheld by a federal appeals court. She was deported in October while her case was still pending.
...
...
Even some liberal justices acknowledged that Maslenjak's lies might have helped her gain citizenship in 2007. Her troubles started six years later, when a federal grand jury indicted her for winning naturalization "contrary to law" by stating that she had not lied during the immigration process.
Click to expand...
So she lied and those lies helped her get into this country. It's no surprise that some Americans want people in this country who lie about war crimes be allowed into this country. She lied about material matters regarding being granted her right to stay.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

Lutherf said:
Maslenjak is a Serbian native who requested refugee status in 2000. She claimed that she was fleeing Serbia because her husband had refused conscription and the Serb government was after them. The truth was that her husband not only served but was a commander in a unit suspected of war crimes. The 6th Circuit court considered that to be rather significant and allowed her citizenship to be stripped.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/16-309-op-below-6th-cir.pdf

Personally, I find it a whole lot disingenuous of the Chief Justice to equate this omission with failing to disclose a time you exceeded the speed limit while driving. Kagan was no better when equating it with failing to disclose an embarrassing nickname.
Click to expand...
liberals have embraced fascism so the idea of committing war crimes is no different than having an embarrassing nickname to them.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
liberals have embraced fascism so the idea of committing war crimes is no different than having an embarrassing nickname to them.
Click to expand...

How do you purpose to rid the US of liberalism? A Constitutional amendment, perhaps? Military action? Martial law to round up all known liberals, put them on trains and send them to camps with large gas chambers?
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
liberals have embraced fascism so the idea of committing war crimes is no different than having an embarrassing nickname to them.
Click to expand...

So when did Justice Roberts become a Liberal? Or is your political hackery slip showing? Roberts indeed made an excellent point when he admitted to committing a crime in the past, namely speeding. I can personally relate to his question to the government lawyer. I like to brag about never having had a traffic ticket in my life, but I remembered, not long ago, that I did have a speeding ticket in Schulenberg Texas back in 1976. I had forgotten all about it until I had a conversation with a fellow musician who was talking about how Schulenberg is a speed trap. Then I remembered. If I was a naturalized citizen instead of a home grown one, the government, according to their argument at SCOTUS, could strip me of that citizenship merely for not remembering that I had that ticket back in 1976. By bringing up the point that he had violated the law in the past, merely by speeding, he demonstrated how ridiculous the government's argument was. But, since he does not agree with you, then he must be one of dem dere evul leebruls. Your argument and name calling here is nothing short of ridiculous.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
So when did Justice Roberts become a Liberal? Or is your political hackery slip showing? Roberts indeed made an excellent point when he admitted to committing a crime in the past, namely speeding. I can personally relate to his question to the government lawyer. I like to brag about never having had a traffic ticket in my life, but I remembered, not long ago, that I did have a speeding ticket in Schulenberg Texas back in 1976. I had forgotten all about it until I had a conversation with a fellow musician who was talking about how Schulenberg is a speed trap. Then I remembered. If I was a naturalized citizen instead of a home grown one, the government, according to their argument at SCOTUS, could strip me of that citizenship merely for not remembering that I had that ticket back in 1976. By bringing up the point that he had violated the law in the past, merely by speeding, he demonstrated how ridiculous the government's argument was. But, since he does not agree with you, then he must be one of dem dere evul leebruls. Your argument and name calling here is nothing short of ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Justice Sotomayor made reference to committing war crimes as similar to having an embarrassing middle name. Justice Sotomayor is a liberal extremist and war crimes sympathizer and a fascist. I made no reference to anything John Roberts said. Do try to keep up.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

Removable Mind said:
How do you purpose to rid the US of liberalism? A Constitutional amendment, perhaps? Military action? Martial law to round up all known liberals, put them on trains and send them to camps with large gas chambers?
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, you appear to have made a mess. Clean up needed in aisle post #5
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
So when did Justice Roberts become a Liberal? Or is your political hackery slip showing? Roberts indeed made an excellent point when he admitted to committing a crime in the past, namely speeding. I can personally relate to his question to the government lawyer. I like to brag about never having had a traffic ticket in my life, but I remembered, not long ago, that I did have a speeding ticket in Schulenberg Texas back in 1976. I had forgotten all about it until I had a conversation with a fellow musician who was talking about how Schulenberg is a speed trap. Then I remembered. If I was a naturalized citizen instead of a home grown one, the government, according to their argument at SCOTUS, could strip me of that citizenship merely for not remembering that I had that ticket back in 1976. By bringing up the point that he had violated the law in the past, merely by speeding, he demonstrated how ridiculous the government's argument was. But, since he does not agree with you, then he must be one of dem dere evul leebruls. Your argument and name calling here is nothing short of ridiculous.
Click to expand...

his question is an equivalency fallacy.
as the head of the SCOTUS I expect him to know this.

he should also know that lying on a federal form is a felony.

no they couldn't strip you of your citizenship over a speeding ticket that is absurd
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
Oh my goodness, you appear to have made a mess. Clean up needed in aisle post #5
Click to expand...

:lol: Gezzzzzus Gawd, your constant ragging on about liberals sounds like Hitler talking about Jews and every other subhumans that he hated.

Liberals are fascists? Really? I've seen you post so much bull**** about liberals...it makes me want to use all of your anti-liberal posts to make a book on "How to Hate Liberals".
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

IMO the only thing that should possibly cause someone to lose their citizenship is if they obtained their citizenship fraudulently, which appears to be the case here.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
Justice Sotomayor made reference to committing war crimes as similar to having an embarrassing middle name. Justice Sotomayor is a liberal extremist and war crimes sympathizer and a fascist. I made no reference to anything John Roberts said. Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

I AM keeping up. I posted what Justice Roberts said which, in case you didn't know it, is part of the process. Also, what Sotomayor said is definitely applicable, since the government's position is that, whether someone committed war crimes or did not admit to an embarrasing name, is equal when it comes to stripping someone of it's citizenship. This is also the reason that Roberts ridiculed the government's position by admitting he broke the law in the past by speeding. But do keep up your political hackery. It's entertaining. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

ludin said:
his question is an equivalency fallacy.
as the head of the SCOTUS I expect him to know this.

he should also know that lying on a federal form is a felony.

no they couldn't strip you of your citizenship over a speeding ticket that is absurd
Click to expand...

According to the government's argument, they CAN, which is why Roberts approached it in the way he did. I had a speeding ticket I forgot all about. If I was a naturalized citizen, I could be stripped of my citizenship for not putting it on the form because I didn't remember it.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
liberals have embraced fascism so the idea of committing war crimes is no different than having an embarrassing nickname to them.
Click to expand...

Golly! That's really disturbing!

Where/when did liberals 'embrace fascism'?

Please be very specific.

Thanks in advance!
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
I AM keeping up. I posted what Justice Roberts said which, in case you didn't know it, is part of the process. Also, what Sotomayor said is definitely applicable, since the government's position is that, whether someone committed war crimes or did not admit to an embarrasing name, is equal when it comes to stripping someone of it's citizenship. This is also the reason that Roberts ridiculed the government's position by admitting he broke the law in the past by speeding. But do keep up your political hackery. It's entertaining. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
And I wasn't posting about what Roberts said. Please try to limit the number of strawment arguments you're going to present. I have not, and still have not commented on anything Roberts has said about the case. Sotomayor's position is that an embarrassing middle name is the same as not admitting that someone committed possible war crimes. We shouldn't give citizenship to people in this country who want to commit atrocities.

And again, if you don't like the law as written then contact your member of Congress and have them re-write the law so that only MATERIALLY RELEVANT information is relevant. As it is, a false statement on a citizenship application is grounds for revocation of citizenship.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

Tanngrisnir said:
Golly! That's really disturbing!

Where/when did liberals 'embrace fascism'?

Please be very specific.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Liberals have praised the antifas movement and have dominated and been supported all over the country on our college campuses. Berkeley recently acknowledged that antifas' actions are legitimate and decided to acquiesced to their terrorist demands.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
Liberals have praised the antifas movement and have dominated and been supported all over the country on our college campuses. Berkeley recently acknowledged that antifas' actions are legitimate and decided to acquiesced to their terrorist demands.
Click to expand...

OMG! That could be bigger than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined!!!!

Which liberals did that, where and when??!?!?!

I simply MUST know!!!
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
According to the government's argument, they CAN, which is why Roberts approached it in the way he did. I had a speeding ticket I forgot all about. If I was a naturalized citizen, I could be stripped of my citizenship for not putting it on the form because I didn't remember it.
Click to expand...

No they can't and Roberts should know this or he is dumber than I thought.
They are saying they can strip her because she lied to get citizenship.

You see you sign a statement that you swear the information you give is the truth.
That lying is a felony offense and can invalidate what you sign.

Parking tickets are civil infractions. So unless you primary job is a driver you are fine.
Lying about being part of a group that committed war crimes is a big deal.

If Roberts can't see the difference then well he needs to step down as Chief Justice.
I expect him to use a bit of logic not logical fallacies.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
And I wasn't posting about what Roberts said. Please try to limit the number of strawment arguments you're going to present. I have not, and still have not commented on anything Roberts has said about the case. Sotomayor's position is that an embarrassing middle name is the same as not admitting that someone committed possible war crimes. We shouldn't give citizenship to people in this country who want to commit atrocities.

And again, if you don't like the law as written then contact your member of Congress and have them re-write the law so that only MATERIALLY RELEVANT information is relevant. As it is, a false statement on a citizenship application is grounds for revocation of citizenship.
Click to expand...

I don't regard a legitimate question by Justice Roberts as a straw man argument. This was argued in SCOTUS..... Or perhaps you believe that a Justice you disagree with should just be ignored. Yea, that's the ticket. Justice Roberts is just an evul leebrul, and we should pay no attention to him. Sheesh. LOL.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

Tanngrisnir said:
OMG! That could be bigger than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined!!!!

Which liberals did that, where and when??!?!?!

I simply MUST know!!!
Click to expand...

You shouldn't surprised... authoritarian leftists are just as bad as the authoritarian right... and arguably worse, they certainly have more blood on their hands.
If you continue to walk in your ignorance we'll all pay for playing these political sports games.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

celticwar17 said:
You shouldn't surprised... authoritarian leftists are just as bad as the authoritarian right... and arguably worse, they certainly have more blood on their hands.
If you continue to walk in your ignorance we'll all pay for playing these political sports games.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Liberals constantly accuse Republicans of being war mongers, despite the fact that it was Jimmy Carter who supplied the weapons that the Indonesian government used to commit the Dili Massacre.
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

celticwar17 said:
You shouldn't surprised... authoritarian leftists are just as bad as the authoritarian right... and arguably worse, they certainly have more blood on their hands.
If you continue to walk in your ignorance we'll all pay for playing these political sports games.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ignorance, I see you, too, are laughably unable to substantiate the claim I was questioning.

If you can't answer what I asked, why bother answering?
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
The government is taking a hard line on this, a line that is so hard that both Roberts and Kennedy are certain to shoot it down. Roberts himself scoffed, and even poked a little fun, at the government lawyer who was presenting the case. The case itself has to do with when the government has the right to strip a naturalized citizen of his or her citizenship. You can read the transcript at the link provided in my link (yea, I'm in a recursive mood today - LOL).

I had some problems with Bush, but I absolutely loved his pick in judges, judges which would prevent the government from trampling on the rights of people. Republicans love to talk about limited government, but in practice, they can be extremely authoritarian assholes. But let's not put this all on Republicans. True, it's the Trump regime that is presenting the case at SCOTUS, but this case originated from the Obama regime. Just in case you didn't know it, Obama's nickname was the Deporter in Chief. Trump's DOJ is merely continuing a case that was originally prosecuted by Obama's DOJ.

This goes back, once again, to SCOTUS picks. A good SCOTUS pick is one that will follow the Constitution. Bush's picks of Roberts was not a good pick. It was a great pick, Citizens United decision nonwithstanding.

Trump is about to lose here, and yes, it will be an Obama loss as well, and it's a win for the people against governmental overreach.

Que armchair lawyers whining about Roberts' "judicial activism" in 3... 2... 1.................

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/supreme-court-naturalization.html?_r=2
Click to expand...

No ****ing ****? What a galactic understatement! Then you follow with a shallow complement of his judges, then take it back about conservatives being authoritarian assholes. Oh but not all Republicans. I wish you were as wishy-washy about Obama. I'm straining to remember you being as faux objective about him. For a guy that got pissed at me for claiming you're liberal, you sure TEND to vere toward the left when there's a benefit of the doubt. Here we are again with another Republican in the WH, and you as bad about him as you were with Bush; but Obama you were nowhere to be seen, and if you were seldom seen. smh
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

danarhea said:
So when did Justice Roberts become a Liberal? Or is your political hackery slip showing? Roberts indeed made an excellent point when he admitted to committing a crime in the past, namely speeding. I can personally relate to his question to the government lawyer. I like to brag about never having had a traffic ticket in my life, but I remembered, not long ago, that I did have a speeding ticket in Schulenberg Texas back in 1976. I had forgotten all about it until I had a conversation with a fellow musician who was talking about how Schulenberg is a speed trap. Then I remembered. If I was a naturalized citizen instead of a home grown one, the government, according to their argument at SCOTUS, could strip me of that citizenship merely for not remembering that I had that ticket back in 1976. By bringing up the point that he had violated the law in the past, merely by speeding, he demonstrated how ridiculous the government's argument was. But, since he does not agree with you, then he must be one of dem dere evul leebruls. Your argument and name calling here is nothing short of ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Roberts became a lib when he ruled it Constitutional to force citizens to purchase insurance against their will. It was in all the papers. :roll:
 
Re: Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

reinoe said:
liberals have embraced fascism so the idea of committing war crimes is no different than having an embarrassing nickname to them.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what those terms mean? Liberal and fascism are about as opposite as ideologies can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom