The Supreme Court handed down a stinging defeat for the Trump Administration in a unanimous decision in Maslenjak v. United States, where the Administration sought to strip an immigrant of U.S. citizenship over a false statement made on an immigration form. In a decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the justices declared that the government could not strip citizenship from Divna Maslenjak because she falsely stated that her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s. Notably, the Obama Administration had taken the same hard position in the case and the Trump Administration continued that position on the appeal.
The Trump administration argued that the government should be able to revoke citizenship of people for even minor misstatements in the citizenship application process. In this case, Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb, falsely answered the question after entering the United States as a refugee. Kagan wrote that “We have never read a statute to strip citizenship from someone who met the legal criteria for acquiring it. We will not start now.” She added “We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship.”
The case will now go back to the Sixth Circuit to determined whether Maslenjak’s false statements had a material effect on the U.S. decision to grant her refugee status.
Here is the decision: Maslenjak ruling
@Jyo, June 25, 2017 at 5:25 AM
“KEN ROGERS….NO, THE USA WILL NEVER ADOPT DUTERTE’S SOLUTION”
“..if PRESIDENT TRUMP Martial laws the USA, picks up all these violent satanic people who are trying to overthrow the govmnt,…to prevent a bloody civil war, .he probably won’t get any backing from the population.”
—————–
Well, judging from a few of the comments here, he’d apparently get some backing, it just wouldn’t be from people who have a problem with totalitarianism.
To whom are you referring when you say, “all these violent satanic people who who are trying to overthrow the govmnt (sic)…” ?
Do you mean the agents of the Deep State who are “investigating” him, or are you referring to someone else?
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, June 24, 2017 at 9:38 PM
Before we go any further, please respond to my post of yesterday at 3:00 PM, which I think you may have overlooked.
It is a felony to submit false information on a federal employment application.
Of late, it seems more often then not the judicial branch of government is taking an active part in politics! Is that not undermining both the White House & Congress? Will this form of judiciousness not, overtime, threaten the principles behind the separation of power? Is the question too presumptuous? Is the question not warranted?
@Squeeky Fromm
I just realized that you’d written that the ‘30,000 drug-related deaths” were all in the US, so excuse my question regarding where they applied.
I’d still like to know, though, where you obtained the figure.
Sorry for not replying sooner, but if you don’t put your reply in the reply section, it does not show up when I check to see if anybody has replied to me.
First, HUH??? You are asking where I got the 30,000 number of dead, and right before that, at 6:45PM you yourself said 37,000 died from drugs. But, where I got mine was adding 24,000 drug overdoses to about 8,000 murders, just in the U.S. Before you say, “Wait, a lot of those were pain killer overdoses!” let me inform you, in case you are new to the drug scene, that people who use pain killers are also quite often crack, meth, heroin, cocaine, pot, and whatever users.
Penelope has many criminal clients, sooo I sort of have a good perspective on this. Some people will crush up the pain killer in a spoon, and then add some water, and then inject the stuff. Some snort it, and some just swallow mega doses of pills. Often, it is because they can not get hooked up on heroin or crack for whatever reason, so they do the pain killers. But truthfully, a lot of the ones I come in contact with would rather be doing the harder stuff, even if they end up croppy flopping all over the place.
Plus, even when the COD is overdose from a painkiller, and the stiff has a prescription, that does not mean that is their own personal little prescription that they croaked from. It could be, or it could be some other pills of the same kind that they got from an illegal source. Because often the user has a prescription. for say, 180 pills per month, from maybe two different doctors. Which say the 360 pills may equate to 12 pills per day. But as addicts, they may be taking as many as 25 pills per day, or I have been told by several people, they were taking 50 plus pain pills per day, and stealing like crazy to pay for them. Before you poo poo that number, I will remind you that Shane Olivea, the football guy, took as much as 125 vicodin pills per day when he was addicted.
Sooo, I feel pretty safe on the 30,000 number, and truthfully, I think it is a lot more than that. Some people just blow their hearts out on coke, for example, and their COD would be listed as Heart Failure, not drugs.
As far as your medical malpractice issue, and those deaths, how about we tackle one problem at a time here, and not do the “Hey! Look! A squirrel!” thingy.
Plus, I wish one of you guys would answer my question about how many innocent people dying in the U.S. from illegal drugs that you are comfortable with.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I’m heading out now and will respond tomorrow to your last comment.
I was not in the SS back in World War II. If I had lied about that on my papers when I came to Ellis Island back in 1948 then they might want to kick me out now. There is no difference between the SS and the Serbian Army. The Supreme Court needs to make it a little easier on all of us. Heil. Or is it Hiel? One spulling or another. Sieg Hiel. Sieg Heil. Which one? Ask Trump.
Oh, my gosh. I should not have said the Heil Hitler thing. If the Americans kick me out and send me back to Austria I could get prosecuted for this blog comment above. Look at this from wikipedia:
The Nazi salute or Hitler salute (German: Hitlergruß – literally “Hitler Greeting”) is a gesture that was used as a greeting in Nazi Germany. The salute is performed by extending the right arm from the neck into the air with a straightened hand. Usually, the person offering the salute would say “Heil Hitler!” (Hail Hitler!), “Heil, mein Führer!” (Hail, my leader!), or “Sieg Heil!” (Hail victory!). It was adopted in the 1930s by the Nazi Party to signal obedience to the party’s leader, Adolf Hitler, and to glorify the German nation (and later the German war effort). The salute was mandatory for civilians,[1] but was mostly optional for military personnel who retained the traditional military salute until shortly after the failed assassination attempt on Hitler in July 1944.[2]
Use of this salute is currently a criminal offense in Germany,[3] Slovakia,[3] and Austria.[3] In Canada, the Czech Republic,[4] France, the Netherlands, Sweden,[3] Switzerland, and Russia, the salute is illegal hate speech if used for propagating Nazi ideology.[5][6][3]
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, June 24, 2017 at 11:49 AM
“I have a better question. How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice to avoid killing drug dealers, as Duterte is doing?
“Because right now, at least 30,000 people a year die from overdoses, or drug-related murders. That is just in the U.S. Whole countries have been torn up and made unsafe to live in because of the drug trade. Whole communities in American inner cites are unsafe. Not to mention the damage to the families, and the economy. Admittedly, not all of these people are “innocent”. Many of the murders are murders of one druggie by another. But still….
“Sooo, how many innocent people are you willing to continue to sacrifice each year because you don’t want to trample on the ‘rights’ of drug dealers?”
1) Ask your attorney friend to explain to you some time the difference between a “suspect” and a “convict”;
2) What’s your source for the 30,000 deaths figure? Is that in the Philippines, the US, or the world?
3) Speaking of drug-related deaths, what do you propose doing about the people who sell drugs, taken as prescribed, that kill 106,000 people each year in US hospitals? Note that this figure includes neither deaths in the US from prescription drugs taken as prescribed by outpatients, nor serious side effects that are injurious, but don’t result in actual death;
https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf
4) What people in the supply chain would you like to see executed for their contributions to the following problem?
“Death by medicine is a 21st-century epidemic, and America’s ‘war on [some] drugs’ is clearly directed at the wrong enemy!
“Prescription drugs are now killing far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are increasing, an analysis of recently released data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by the Los Angeles Times revealed.
.
“The Times analysis of 2009 death statistics, the most recent available, showed:
For the first time ever in the US, more people were killed by drugs than motor vehicle accidents
37,485 people died from drugs, a rate fueled by overdoses on prescription pain and anxiety medications, versus 36,284 from traffic accidents.
“Drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69.
“Again, these drug-induced fatalities are not being driven by illegal street drugs; the analysis found that the most commonly abused prescription drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma now cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/26/prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx#!
It would seem that if you and your Filipino mentor were to succeed in killing every suspected (illicit) drug dealer on earth, there would still remain a formidable drug problem.
By the way, do you agree with Duterte that all drug addicts should be killed, as well?
“Authoritarian firebrand Rodrigo Duterte was sworn in as the Philippines’ president on Thursday, extending an olive branch to the country’s elites in his official speech, only to later vow to wipe out drug traffickers and urge the population to kill addicts.” (See The Guardian June, 2016).
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, June 23, 2017 at 9:33 PM
“Which is why I think Duterte’s approach [State murder] will catch on worldwide. It’s simpler, it works, and it is much more cost effective than catching and releasing druggies. Plus, the ‘civilized’ world has been playing with itself sooo long on this problem, that it has allowed the drug problem to get out of hand.”
Your contempt for human life seems remarkably deep, Squeeky, even for an enthusiastically committed authoritarian follower.
Have I overlooked your response to my question regarding whether there’s anything about Duterte worth emulating other than his extra-judicial murdering of people suspected of unapproved drug dealing?
In other words, are suspected drug dealers the only legitimate targets of State murder, or do you see benefits in a broader application of Duterte’s “simple and effective” policy?
One additional question: is there any connection between your support for President Duterte and for President Trump, or is that just coincidental?
Meanwhile in Europe…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448935/europe-suppress-free-speech-political-right-wing-ignore-muslim-terrorists
Oops. Meant to post this on the article about the patent suit. No way to delete, so…
@mespo727272, June 23, 2017 at 10:29 PM
“I don’t think courts should be intervening in. Auto so security matters except to determine if it is a national security matter,”
Were you trying to say that you don’t think US courts should be intervening in national security matters except to determine if it is a national security matter?
What a misleading heading . So it was initiated by obuma but the heading tries to suggest omg what is trump doing . God help our liberal elites
Why is the headline about “Trump” administration when article says US govt position formulated and pressed by Obama administration, and just not changed in the 5 months since Trump took office.More accurate would be “Obama/Trump position” struck down by Supremes.
Exactly , before I read your post I wrote the same! I’m so sick of these people !
Finally the democrats won one. But it seems that they have to do it as an inside job through government channels. They have to win through the buracracy.
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, June 23, 2017 at 9:33 PM
“I would first like to see the U.S. Gov’t adopt a meaningful judicial system of executing drug dealers. Quick trials and quick executions. If that system did not bog down in prolonged challenges and ridiculous stays, then that might work, just as it does in Singapore.
“However, there would have to be a slew of executions to get ahead of the drug gangs, and our gov’t tends toward incompetence, and towards losing focus. Sooo I suspect that we would need to emulate Duterte pretty quickly.”
Is there anything else about Duterte that you think worthy of emulation?
Ken Rogers…….why do you want to know……………? you will not understand nor appreciate DUTERTE even if explained to you. Suffice for you to know the filpinos overwhelmingly support him, they agreed and demanded that these drug users and dealers be erased from their communities. He ran his candidacy on this promise and he seems to be delivering his promise to the people. the USA is making a big case against him, deliberately forgetting the hard fact that it is the will of the people. He said “”We are a sovereign county. Don’t tell us what to do. We are no longer your US colony. Live with it””
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, June 23, 2017 at 2:24 PM
“See how ‘hard’ can be built into the law. So yes, there are truly things in the law that require some deep thinking, but quite often that “hardness” is built into the law by the lawyer class. For their own benefit. As a prime example, think death penalty cases, where lawyers have mucked it up to the point that it is extremely costly to rid society of its worst members, and to where prisons are both numerous and overcrowded, thus insuring even more work for the lawyer class.
“Which is why the lawyers scream about Duterte, who opts for the simple and effective solution of just killing the drug dealers outside of the judicial system.”
As an authoritarian follower who unabashedly endorses extra-judicial democide, would you like to see the US Government adopt Duterte’s “simple and effective solution” to the existence of people who traffic in drugs not approved by the Government?
I would first like to see the U.S. Gov’t adopt a meaningful judicial system of executing drug dealers. Quick trials and quick executions. If that system did not bog down in prolonged challenges and ridiculous stays, then that might work, just as it does in Singapore.
However, there would have to be a slew of executions to get ahead of the drug gangs, and our gov’t tends toward incompetence, and towards losing focus. Sooo I suspect that we would need to emulate Duterte pretty quickly.
Plus, you still have the logistical problem of gangs. My theory is that our legal system is not capable of addressing a gang problem, whether it is the Mafia, or the Crips, or MS13, because of its emphasis on individual rights and due process. I think the situation would be like trying to arrest and hold a trial for an enemy soldier, instead of just dropping a bomb on him, or an artillery shell. Simply put, trying to arrest and try gang members as individuals just doesn’t work. How long has the FBI been after the Mafia? How many millions of bucks and millions of man hours, over 6 or 7 decades, and they still have not gotten rid of them. How long has Italy struggled with the Mob in their country? Trying to eradicate a gang thru a complex legal process just doesn’t work. It’s smarter to treat organized gangs the same way we treat organized enemy combatants (an army) and just kill them.
Which is why I think Duterte’s approach will catch on worldwide. It’s simpler, it works, and it is much more cost effective than catching and releasing druggies. Plus, the “civilized” world has been playing with itself sooo long on this problem, that it has allowed the drug problem to get out of hand.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice to get at each guilty one?
I have a better question. How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice to avoid killing drug dealers, as Duterte is doing?
Because right now, at least 30,000 people a year die from overdoses, or drug-related murders. That is just in the U.S. Whole countries have been torn up and made unsafe to live in because of the drug trade. Whole communities in American inner cites are unsafe. Not to mention the damage to the families, and the economy. Admittedly, not all of these people are “innocent”. Many of the murders are murders of one druggie by another. But still….
Sooo, how many innocent people are you willing to continue to sacrifice each year because you don’t want to trample on the “rights” of drug dealers?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So, do you favor the Duterte method? Start shooting anyone you think might be a drug dealer? Street traffickers? Middlemen? Kingpins? How would you figure out who was who? Or just shoot them all and let God figure it out?
First, you didn’t answer my question, or address my comments about the current system’s inability to deal with the massive numbers of gangs, and gang members.
Second, you didn’t answer my question about how many innocent people that you are willing to see continue to die because of the druggies.
But still, you want me to answer your questions. That doesn’t seem fair to me. Why don’t you answer my questions???
Nonetheless, we could set up a special court, like the current Wiretap Court (FISA), and we could call it the Double Tap Court! (DTC) A LEO could present the name and gang affiliation of the druggie, along with a rap sheet, and the DTC could issue a warrant to terminate with prejudice, the named party.
See, something like that is easy to figure out. Now, be fair, and answer my questions, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
That’s all well and good…However, there’s this little thing call the Constitution of the United States that stands in the way. Good luck with all that, and, uh, hope you’re happy with that copy of Mein Kampf?
This is to girl reporter
KEN ROGERS….NO, THE USA WILL NEVER ADOPT DUTERTE’S SOLUTION……the USA as a nation,.does not have a consensus decision in anything…You are on the verge of a bloody civil war and still screaming that those highly incendiary tthreats, and actual criminal attacks, by the SATANIC MINIONS be PROTECTED , so as not to infringe on your freedom of speech.(And will also,..DEFINITELY infringe on the govt drug business. and..
..if PRESIDENT TRUMP Martial laws the USA, picks up all these violent satanic people who are trying to overthrow the govmnt,…to prevent a bloody civil war, .he probably won’t get any backing from the population. Ohhh.well. Sad.
The Serbian Army committed untold war crimes from ethnic cleansing to genocide to day long mass gang rapes in the Yugoslav Wars. Membership in that murderers’ row seems important to me in assessing immigration status of folks. That our lovely Divna lied about that connection seems damn material to me but apparently not to the Ivy League wizards of foreign policy who patrol the halls of the SCOTUS.
And if her “omission” was hiding relevant facts, she can be stripped of her citizenship and deported. It seems that SCOTUS remanded it to lower courts to settle that issue. She is still an American citizen and is entitled to due process.
I don’t think courts should be intervening in. Auto so security matters except to determine if it is a national security matter,
That comment was well thought out!!
Maybe go back to the bourbon, Mespo; your mind was admirable in those times.
I was using my cell phone my grammarian constable. Maybe you’re projecting — given your unintelligible comments. Cheers.
Mespo, is it true?
Do you now or have you ever drunk bourbon?
Grammar has nothing to do with it; your response is gibberish even allowing for clumsy thumbs.
Have faith in your persistent truculence.
Actually, I have utmost faith in your charactersitc buffoonery. Carry on.
Supreme Court had no right to even hear the case and should have established that the courts had no powers on the matter
Who decides what cases the Supreme Court has the “right” to hear? Who do you think SHOULD decide?
Jay S – there are a few cases that are required by the Constitution to be heard by the SC, the rest is over-reach. However, the SC only decides 200 cases a years where they come to a decision of their own. Often they kick the can down the road by refuse the case so the lower court stands.
Congress can restrict them from hearing cases, but they seem to intent on fighting among themselves.
So, do you disagree with Marbury v Madison ?
Jay S – yes
So, who should get to decide what is the “supreme law of the land”?
Jay S – the state courts.
How would that work when the criminal conviction was under federal law and tried in the federal courts?
Richard – there would be NO federal crimes. All crimes would be handled by the states.
Hmmmm…. Would you favor a return to the Articles of Confederation?
Jay S – I favor restoring the monarchy.
Aha !! King Donald the First…..
Jay S – I am for restoring the British monarchy. Long live the Queen!!!
Be careful, I heard that the Articles of Confederation literally required a gold-backed currency…no more affirmative action welfare state and “too big to fail” bailouts.
To disagree with Marbury v Madison is to disagree with the Constitution. It is the singular charge of the Supreme Court to assure that actions comport with law. The fundamental law is the Constitution which all citizens and all three branches of government must adhere to. The actions it considers are global and include those of the legislative and executive branches.
For 228 years, the Supreme Court has failed to support and uphold the Constitution. The executive branch, under “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, was unconstitutional in its denial of secession, suspension of Habeas Corpus, issuance of a proclamation during a time of secession, prosecution of war, etc.
The legislative branch has been unconstitutional for one hundred years as it has repealed the constitutional right to private property (the definition and right to private property are violated when government confiscates private property from one man and awards that private property to another) and implemented the principles of the Communist Manifesto:
Central Planning
Control of the Means of Production
Social Engineering
Redistribution of Wealth
Over the past 228 years, the Supreme Court should have struck down these and all other unconstitutional acts. Alas, it has failed miserably to do so.
George – the SC did not have standing in Marbury and over-reached, carving out a new fiefdom for itself.
Not to put to fine a point on it, what does “supreme” mean if not the final arbiter in all cases? In Marbury, how did the SC not have jurisdiction – original jurisdiction?
George – they took the case so they could be the final arbiter.
Which court should have been the final arbiter?
George – in this case the court could have said they didn’t want to hear the case. The SC was the right place to go, but the SC does not take all cases, only 200 a year now.
If they followed the Constitution, they were correct. If they subverted the Constitution, they should have been impeached.
PCS,
That’s like the military telling the President it’s not going to “take” a particular war. The Supreme Court does not have the option of refusing cases the Constitution requires it to decide, which must include the egregious and those without resolution. The battle weary soldiers had no option in following the orders to charge Pork Chop Hill. Who’s running this place, the Supreme Court or the Constitution?
What America needs is a strengthened and accelerated impeachment process. The SC acts with impunity. This is not rocket science. It is not plausible that the Constitution is so ambiguous that nine justices cannot agree on its manifest tenor, verbal obfuscation notwithstanding. Marbury v Madison must have been constitutionally correct or the legislative branch should/would have impeached for treason Marshall et al. under Article 2, Section 4.
Presumably, if Justice Marshall were presiding now, he would have read and easily understood that the constitutional right to private property precludes redistribution of wealth and found the entire welfare state to be unconstitutional.
Seems like Marbury v Madison is simply a statement of the obvious. The problem I see is the entire judicial branch assuming it is also the legislative branch.
George – the SC refuses cases all the time, probably 10 for every one they accept. And your analogy is all screwed up, the military is under the Commander-in-Chief which would just get new commanders.
I think your position would imply that we should have 2 – 1/4 “co-equal” branches of government, not three.
The People are the unequaled and dominant branch of government.
The legislative branch represents the People.
The People may impeach and convict the judicial branch.
The question is, why haven’t they?
The judicial branch did not stop “Crazy Abe” Lincoln or the implementation of communism.
The Supreme Court Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
The Imperial Judiciary rules by decision or omission with impunity.
The judicial branch had but ONE case in its first year.
What the —- do those lazy ——– do all day?
Is this an argument in favor of a parliamentary system of government, like in Great Britain?
“… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. ” — Thomas Jefferson Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825
“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. ….” Thomas Jefferson
— Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
Here, the statute at issue was ambiguous as to whether it required that the illegal conduct be material to obtaining naturalization, or merely had to occur in the course of the defendant obtaining naturalization. The ambiguity must be resolved before it can be determined whether the conviction can legally stand. Who would you suggest should resolve the ambiguity? If you want Congress (or other legislative body) to do it, then a great many criminal proceedings in this Country would grind to a halt because the courts have to consider and resolve similar ambiguities every day.
Richard – an immigration officer can decide.
No amount of verbal obfuscation can hide the facts.
A sanitation engineer can decide.
If any portion of the petition is false, the petition in toto is null and void.
Upon submission of false statements in legal proceedings, the petitioner becomes guilty of perjury.
It is impossible for the court to rule for the perpetrator of a crime.
Period.
Next case.
First, the idea of a front line immigration officer being responsible for interpreting ambiguities in the law is incredibly frightening. Second, this wasn’t an immigration case–it was a criminal prosecution.
Richard – I have always thought we should give front line personnel more authority.
so whether someone committed a crime should be determined by individual officers based on each one’s own interpretation of the relevant statute? Sine the courts have basically determined that officers cannot be expected to know the details of traffic laws they enforce, you would be leaving the population very vulnerable, and that doesn’t even factor in the percentage who would use the resulting power for personal gain or out of malice.
Richard – cops often decide whether to write or not write a ticket based on the attitude and response of the driver. In fact, when I was at my last high school reunion, I was wrongly ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. For me to clear up the matter, I would have had to stay in town for two more days. However, I got the cop to take care of it for me. Speaking of that, he did not look old enough to give me a ticket. 😉
This may be interesting to some, but it has little to do with what was actually written into the Constitution. Nice reach, though….
This is to mouse