Bad Reporting, Politics, or Both?

[SciFi Chick]

This article has so many flaws, I don't know where to start.

First of all, comparing lying about serving in the military to omitting information about a speeding ticket - something they don't even ask about - is absurd.

Secondly, this happened under the Obama administration and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Trump administration.

Okay - maybe it's just two flaws. But they are huge, glaring flaws. Or glaring scariness if this is being reported accurately.

[vendic]

WASHINGTON, April 26 (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.

Seems like Chief Justice Roberts or the reporter have some facts mixed up regarding the date:

Maslenjak's citizenship was revoked. She and her husband were deported to Serbia last October.

He's blaming Trump when they were deported in October during Obama's watch. WTF?

As someone that has actually immigrated to the USA, let me just state that when you apply to get into the USA, you are asked a series of questions, including military service of yourself or any of your immediate family. You are asked to sign the document with the understanding that if you falsified anything on the list that you may lose your residency and if you became a citizen will also be subject to having you citizenship revoked.
Other questions asked are:
Have you ever committed a terrorist act?
Have you ever been involved in attempts of genocide?
have you committed any war crimes?
Have you ever been convicted of a felony where you served 1 year or more in prison?

These are not trivial offences or traffic infringments. These are specific and serious questions that were asked and you are acknowledging that you are subject to deportation and loss of citizenship if you lie when answering them. Then you sign in blood...ok, that part was bullshit. You sign with a black pen.

I do not have any issues with this at all and it sure wasn't Trump that did it.

[SciFi Chick]

I do not have any issues with this at all and it sure wasn't Trump that did it.

And it's not Obama that did it either. This is established law. We shouldn't blame sitting Presidents when laws are enforced that they didn't establish.

[vendic]

Here is a more detailed article. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argum ... tion-case/

They seemed to be arguing the naturalization questions. In my above post I was referring to the entry requirements to get a permanent residency in the USA, something that needs to be done before applying for naturalization. I have no idea why they didn't address those questions since they are far more specific. For the record, Australia has the same sort of questions and I imagine most countries would.

You have to wonder about the irony of a person asking for refugee status because they are afraid for their safety when they were part of a group that committed acts of genocide against the people there. No different to a Nazi involved in mass killing of Jews asking for refugee status in the USA because he fears his life is in danger in Israel. wtf

[Rommie]

My understanding about this is presidential administrations have the leeway in how they order their attorneys to defend the law, and the reason Trump came into it is because it's pretty clear his interpretation of what you can revoke citizenship for is far more strict than the previous one. (Saying citizenship should be revoked for flag burners, for example.) The Supreme Court is not as much in the business of what the previous administration did but the precedent it can be setting for the future- if they always cared about the specific case over settling matters of the law, many would never come to fruition because their plaintiff's issues were in the past by the time they reach the Supreme Court. (I'm thinking of the one recently where a girl who said she didn't get into University of Texas sued saying it was because of affirmative action- she'd long ago graduated from another university by the time the Supreme Court heard that case.) And the Supreme Court does adjust for when there's a new administration in power- last month they vacated a case they were set to hear about trans rights in bathrooms because the Trump administration had changed guidelines about that, for example.

FWIS legal team (ie geonuc) can say if I'm wrong in any of the above though, I might have the wrong impression.

OTOH, I read the NY Times article about this hearing and thought it sounded like a hilarious time, as far as legal matters go. Like, hearing Roberts say “Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone," then Kagan talking about lying about her weight, etc etc, would have been highly entertaining!

[vendic]

I agree with you on the setting of a precedent, though they were deported before Trump got in and this is the appeal.
It's clear that the previous administration also felt they should be stripped of their citizenship and deported, since that's what they did.
I personally would have also used the visa entry requirements they had to sign as a reason not to let them back in.
Those are far more specific questions that detail the consequences of falsifying statements on the application. The naturalization questions probably assumed that to get in you were vetted already but I'm speculating there.

r.e. the case goes on is not just about precedent. e.g. I had a guy pull out in front of me while on my motorbike and caused about $1800 damage. He wouldn't pay claiming that I went off my path and hit him while he was stationary and he did not pull out. A complete lie and I had a witness who lived on the corner who saw the whole thing and took pictures.
Anyways, a couple of months later I got into another accident. This time a learner rider lost control of his motorbike on a mountain bend and hit my friend's bike first, clipping it and then hitting me head on. It wrote off my bike. The guy put it through his insurance and apologized for being a dickhead.
The end result was that I got paid the replacement value of the bike and then the other case was settled about a month later and I got the $1800 to fix a bike I no longer owned. Once the process is started it continues unless the party that initiated it decides not to pursue it. In my case it would have meant me paying the legal fee's for the lawyers I engaged instead of the other guy's insurance company. So I chose to let the case go on.

So I don't think it can't be all about precedent or we could convict knowingly innocent people or release the knowingly guilty because we don't want to set a bad precedent. A case should be heard on it's merits, and value of that judgement can be gained for later similar cases. Otherwise, we may as well just perform thought experiments to set precedents.

Maybe they should compromise and let him back in but on the condition that if he enters the USA he will be charged for war crimes...

[Rommie]

Yeah, to be clear, I do think that one can make the case that this particular guy shouldn't be let in. But I'm gathering from the NYT article that's not the issue at hand- the issue is the government lawyers are arguing that speeding 5mph over a speed limit means your citizenship can be revoked at any time. And that's what the Supreme Court has issue with.

[vendic]

Seems this needs more investigation. I thought it was Judge Roberts that stated that, not the government lawyers, but, I could be wrong.
I know I don't have the time or the inclination to research the whole thing so was relying on the reported articles. I imagine you're in the same boat.
To be honest, I don't particularly care about this case. I don't think they should be allowed back in but it's not something that I find super important either. Both the wife and I had similar questions to answer when we got our PR (in different countries) and we knew the repercussions of lying as does anyone that reads the paperwork and signs it. So I have little sympathy for someone that lies flat out to get in and then complain that they got caught.

[geonuc]

A few comments, since I was asked.

- Insurance claims are not the same as court cases and certainly not comparable to the subject at hand (a constitutional question being discussed by current SC members).

- The Supreme Court is indeed concerned with precedent. They live and breathe precedent.

- Without having read the relevant articles, I seriously doubt the Chief Justice is unaware that the deportation case he mentioned was Obama-era. It seems he was using that as an example to illustrate his point, not accuse the current administration of over-reaching on that particular case. He is concerned that statements by the administration might indicate more serious overreach in the future. He also certainly was not saying lying about (your spouse's) military service in a foreign army is the same or comparable to lying about speeding. He is concerned that the administration seems to be heading in the direction where lying about a trivial matter (such as speeding) will be enough to get someone deported and, in his opinion, lying about the military service shouldn't have resulted in deportation. I have no great love for the Chief Justice but he's an extremely intelligent and thoughtful man.

- US Attorneys (and State's/District Attorneys) indeed have considerable leeway in what laws are enforced and to what extent. For federal cases, the president has great influence in setting the tone with the Justice Department. A good example is the recent change in attitude concerning enforcing federal marijuana laws.

- The Supreme Court does not so much adjust for a new administration when considering current cases before them. Rather, they adjust to revised documents put before them. In other words, the Solicitor General (the administration's lawyer before the Supreme Court) will file a revised brief that reflects the new administration's legal stance. The SG may even withdraw an appeal or a challenge to an appeal from a lower appellate court.

Other than that, I have no opinion on the actual subject.

[Rommie]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm satisfied.

[SciFi Chick]

So, as I suspected, it's bad reporting.

[vendic]

Works for me.

I do have a question though. If the SC is in the business of precedent, how do they separate the specifics of the case without conflict?
Is that why they pick and choose which cases they want to hear?

[Tarragon]

If you want to get a feeling for the discussion, read the Oral Arguments. FYI, the justices start questioning Mr. Parker on the meaning of "scrupulously comply" almost immediately when he starts his oral argument (page 27 - prior to this were oral arguments for Mr. Landau, opposing attorney). They refer to page numbers in his brief. So, they probably found some troubling aspect of potential government overreach in his brief. I haven't read his brief, so I don't know for sure. But Mr. Parker appears to be arguing that Congress intended the interpretations to be strict, even for trivialities.


Page 27-30

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
But, scrupulously,
I -- I looked at -- on the naturalization form, there is
a question. It's Number 22. "Have you ever" -- and
they've got "ever" in bold point --

MR. PARKER: Uh-huh.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- "committed,
assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime
or offense for which you were not arrested?"
Some time ago, outside the statute of
limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a
55-mile-an-hour zone.
(Laughter.)

MR. PARKER: I'm sorry to hear that.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I was -- I was not
arrested.
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.
MR. PARKER: Well --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is that right?

MR. PARKER: If -- well, I would say two
things. First, that is how the government would
interpret that, that it would require you to disclose
those sorts of offenses
...
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- I drove over 55.

MR. PARKER: Right. You are aware that that
happened. You are aware that a truthful answer to that
question would require you to disclose that. And yet,
notwithstanding the fact that you had taken an oath to
truthfully answer that question, you chose to
deliberately lie. And if -- if all of those things
could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt -- and that's
an awful lot of ifs, and I think that --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, it's not a lot
of ifs. I knew that I drove over 60.

MR. PARKER: Uh-huh.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. I understand
the question. I saw that it even says "ever."

MR. PARKER: Uh-huh.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I researched it in
Black's Law Dictionary and it said an offense --
(Laughter.)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- no matter how
minor. The conditions that you set forth were fully
satisfied, and I would say fully satisfied in
everybody's case who don't -- who drives at -- at -- at
any time. And your position is still, you answer that
question no, we can take away your citizenship.

MR. PARKER: If we can prove that you
deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes

They talk about some other scenarios here, such as nicknames and weight.

pages 34-36

MR. PARKER: There are a number of answers
that could be given in the naturalization process that
could be false and might seem to be, in isolation,
immaterial, completely immaterial, for example. I mean,
you could, you know, lie about your weight, let's say.
You're embarrassed that you weigh 170 pounds and so you
claim that you weigh 150.
The point, though, is, Congress has
specifically attended to all false statements under oath
in these types of proceedings. It has specifically
provided that it is a crime to lie under oath in the
naturalization process, even about an immaterial matter,
and it has provided that certain of those immaterial
lies are categorical bars to naturalization
...
MR. PARKER: I -- I was just going to say
that there are a number of reasons why Congress did not
want to require that the government prove that a
particular lie is material or immaterial in this
context, and I -- I think it's important to understand
what those are.
The first is, when an individual lies,
even -- remember, this has to be a lie under oath after
you've sworn that you will tell the truth and you are
deliberately lying about something, it calls into
question the veracity of your other answers, and that is
very important in the naturalization process, for the
reason --
...
JUSTICE KAGAN: Although I am a little bit
horrified to know that every time I lie about my weight,
it has those kinds of consequences.
(Laughter.)

MR. PARKER: Only -- only under oath

Basically, the Justices were asking about absurd scenarios, and Mr. Parker admitted those scenarios were not absurd, but plausible.

Part of the problem appears to be that his brief says "procuringing naturalization contrary to law", without specifying what laws, leaving the interpretation open to any law. When asked, he summed it up with this on page 42:

But what Congress was concerned here with is
not what people lied about; rather, it was the fact that
they lied.

Then this exchange on page 44

JUSTICE BREYER: Oh, I know -- I know you
say Congress said that. But the question, of course,
for us is whether Congress said that. And we have some
words. So I want to know if those words, in your mind,
are capable of any interpretation that suggests any kind
of tendency of the unlawful act to move an immigration
judge -- if not this one, some other one -- towards a
plus decision.

MR. PARKER: I -- I don't think so, because
Congress has said, for example, that even -- and -- and
this was the Court's decision in Kungys -- that even an
immaterial false statement about the most immaterial of
matters can be a categorical bar to the abilities --
ability of the person to be naturalized.

They discuss more semantics, about what's illegal, and Mr. Parker says illegality isn't even relevant on Page 46

JUSTICE KAGAN: So the idea that procuring
naturalization illegally somehow includes illegal acts
that have no effect on naturalization, or on procuring
naturalization, it's -- it's just not how we use
language.
How could it be that that is true?

MR. PARKER: But it's not. Well, my
disagreement there is that it is not that it has no
effect. The effect, though, is the fact that the person
lied. It is not what the person lied about.

JUSTICE KAGAN: But it has -- but it has no
effect on the decision to naturalize.

MR. PARKER: Whether a truthful answer would
have had an effect on the decision to naturalize versus
an untruthful one? I -- I think that Congress has said
quite clearly that that is not the relevant
consideration for purposes of these -- applying these
statutes.

MR. PARKER: Well, I think that the
reference to being entitled in subsection (b) reinforces
our point that "contrary to law" doesn't necessarily
mean that you weren't entitled to the naturalization.
It means that you violated the rules that Congress had
set forth governing who can be naturalized and how they
must do to.

The crux of the issue for abuse comes up in pages 53-54

JUSTICE BREYER: Your interpretation on that
interpretation, and on your interpretation of 1425, and
the words that say in 1451, "shall be deprived of his
citizenship." Given the seriousness of that, your
interpretation would raise a pretty serious
constitutional question, wouldn't it?

MR. PARKER: I don't think so.

JUSTICE BREYER: It's not a serious
constitutional question of whether an American citizen
can be -- have his citizenship taken away because 40
years before, he did not deliberately put on paper what
his nickname was or what -- or what his speeding record
was 30 years before that, which was, in fact, totally
immaterial. That's not a constitutional question?

MR. PARKER: Well, I -- I don't think so,
because Congress has, number one, specified that
immaterial false statements are grounds for denying
naturalization. But I also would note that -- I mean,
there are a few responses. One is, the criminal
provision, at least, has a 10-year statute of
limitations, so it wouldn't be 40.
But I -- I think that it's important to
remember that denaturalization is not, like, a lifetime
bar on -- on citizenship. All denaturalization does, is
it returns you to the status of a lawful permanent
resident. You then have to wait 5 years, and if after
the end of those 5 years, you can demonstrate that
you're -- that you're entitled to citizenship, you can
be renaturalized. It also doesn't --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I don't think this
is problem of -- of a constitutional statute, but it is
certainly a problem of prosecutorial abuse. If you take
the position that refusing to -- not answering about the
speeding ticket or the nickname is enough to subject
that person to denaturalization, the government will
have the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want,
because everybody is going to have a situation where
they didn't put in something like that -- or at least
most people.
And then the government can decide, we are
going to denaturalize you for other reasons than what
might appear on your naturalization form, or we're not.
And that to me is -- is troublesome to give that
extraordinary power, which, essentially, is unlimited
power, at least in most cases, to the government.

MR. PARKER: Well, I --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That strikes me as
a serious problem.

Mr. Landau, the opposing attorney, finishes with this in his rebuttal:

...we have to assume that this -- the --
the government -- you have to look at how the harshest
prosecutor in the land will apply this. And I think the
questioning today makes it chillingly clear that the
government's position in this case would subject all
naturalized Americans to potential denaturalization at
the hands of an aggressive prosecutor.
That is not what Congress intended. That is
not what is in the language of the statute. Nothing in
the statute compels this Court, that -- this would be
breaking entirely new ground, and we urge this Court no
to go there.

[geonuc]

Works for me.

I do have a question though. If the SC is in the business of precedent, how do they separate the specifics of the case without conflict?
Is that why they pick and choose which cases they want to hear?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[geonuc]

Part of the problem appears to be that his brief says "procuringing naturalization contrary to law", without specifying what laws, leaving the interpretation open to any law.

I don't see that. The 'law' in question seems to be the naturalization statutes that demand people not lie during the naturalization process.

The government (Mr Parker) is arguing that Congress stated that any lie during the naturalization process while under oath can be a bar to naturalization, even a lie about a trivial matter that would be otherwise immaterial (such as having violated speeding laws or your weight). It's important to note that the government may well be interpreting the relevant statutes correctly.

There can be four outcomes to this case:

1. A majority of justices can rule that yes, the Congress did intend that trivial lies can be a bar to naturalization and rule in favor of the government.

2. The justices can find that no, the Congress did not intend that trivial lies bar naturalization.

3. The justices can find that yes, the Congress did intend that but it violates the Constitution (probably the due process clause).

4. Something else, including sending the case back down to the lower courts for further work.

[vendic]

Works for me.

I do have a question though. If the SC is in the business of precedent, how do they separate the specifics of the case without conflict?
Is that why they pick and choose which cases they want to hear?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Maybe I'm confused. Isn't this case about the people being deported?
Or is it a case as you are suggesting in the above post which is the SCOTUS interpreting intent from Congress?

If the former my question would apply.
If the latter my question wouldn't even make sense.


BTW, thanks Tarragon for that information. Nice find.

[geonuc]

Maybe I'm confused. Isn't this case about the people being deported?
Or is it a case as you are suggesting in the above post which is the SCOTUS interpreting intent from Congress?

If the former my question would apply.
If the latter my question wouldn't even make sense.

It's about both.

When the Supreme Court hears a case, it's often about someone claiming the government did something they shouldn't do. The SC then determines if the government can or cannot do that thing. It's key to realize there are two ways the SC can determine that the government can't do something and they revolve around the two branches of government involved with 'doing something' to people.

1. The executive branch - which includes law enforcement - could be overstepping its bounds with respect to the law. In this case, the SC doesn't say the law is bad; they say the government did something other than what the law says they can do.

2. The Congress could have written an unconstitutional law. Here, the executive branch could be enforcing the law as written just fine, but the law is bad.

In both cases, the Supreme Court looks to what the intent of Congress was when they enacted the law, which may be ambiguous. Under our system, the Supreme Court defers to Congress unless the Constitution gets in the way.

With that, I still don't understand your question. What do you mean 'without conflict'? And what does how they choose which cases to hear have to do with it?

[vendic]

Well, if your primary concern is in precedent, then even though the specifics of the case at hand may lean towards a ruling in one direction, the implication of precedent by doing so may not be what they want.
e.g. They might conclude that the people shouldn't be allowed back in based on the specifics, but the clearly object to the possible misuse of the government in future. The two are in opposition.
Basically I'm asking what the court would do if they disagree with the position of the governments interpretation and use to boot out the people, but agree with the government that they should not be allowed back into the USA. I think this is where many people might stand after reading the transcripts.

IOW, I have no idea how they separate the outcome of the case itself from the precedent it may set.

[Tarragon]

Part of the problem appears to be that his brief says "procuringing naturalization contrary to law", without specifying what laws, leaving the interpretation open to any law.

I don't see that. The 'law' in question seems to be the naturalization statutes that demand people not lie during the naturalization process.

The government (Mr Parker) is arguing that Congress stated that any lie during the naturalization process while under oath can be a bar to naturalization, even a lie about a trivial matter that would be otherwise immaterial (such as having violated speeding laws or your weight). It's important to note that the government may well be interpreting the relevant statutes correctly.

There can be four outcomes to this case:

1. A majority of justices can rule that yes, the Congress did intend that trivial lies can be a bar to naturalization and rule in favor of the government.

2. The justices can find that no, the Congress did not intend that trivial lies bar naturalization.

3. The justices can find that yes, the Congress did intend that but it violates the Constitution (probably the due process clause).

4. Something else, including sending the case back down to the lower courts for further work.

I wasn't making a legal argument, I was summing up the line of questioning posed by Justice Kagan on paged 36-42. She was referring to his brief, so there's background to their discussion that may not be clear without having read it and knowing what she's referring to. It got technical, with a lot of back and forth, clarifications, reclarifications, etc. So, I didn't quote it all, but here's a part:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, number one, where is
that in the statute?

MR. PARKER: Well, I think that it is a
necessary construction of the -- of the phrase, "procure
contrary to law naturalization." So --

JUSTICE KAGAN: But it doesn't say the
statute. It just says contrary to law. It doesn't say
what laws. It doesn't say laws governing the
naturalization process. So that's -- that's one issue.
But -- but that's a different issue from the
one I'm talking about.

MR. PARKER: Uh-huh.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Whatever laws it is, whether
it's all laws or whether it's laws relating to the
naturalization process.

[Tarragon]

Well, if your primary concern is in precedent, then even though the specifics of the case at hand may lean towards a ruling in one direction, the implication of precedent by doing so may not be what they want.
e.g. They might conclude that the people shouldn't be allowed back in based on the specifics, but the clearly object to the possible misuse of the government in future. The two are in opposition.
Basically I'm asking what the court would do if they disagree with the position of the governments interpretation and use to boot out the people, but agree with the government that they should not be allowed back into the USA. I think this is where many people might stand after reading the transcripts.

IOW, I have no idea how they separate the outcome of the case itself from the precedent it may set.

I think that would be the exception that proves the rule. Lower federal courts are empowered to answer constitutional questions like this. Sometimes SCOTUS lets those stand, either by refusing to hear the case (leaving the final verdict) or by affirming it. Sometimes two different federal districts have similar cases but arrive at different verdicts, and SCOTUS can decide the issue, if they choose. They can issue a decision on the interpretation of law or precedent at issue, then remand the case back to the lower court with an order to issue a decision consistent with their interpretation of the law.

[geonuc]

Well, if your primary concern is in precedent, then even though the specifics of the case at hand may lean towards a ruling in one direction, the implication of precedent by doing so may not be what they want.
e.g. They might conclude that the people shouldn't be allowed back in based on the specifics, but the clearly object to the possible misuse of the government in future. The two are in opposition.
Basically I'm asking what the court would do if they disagree with the position of the governments interpretation and use to boot out the people, but agree with the government that they should not be allowed back into the USA. I think this is where many people might stand after reading the transcripts.

IOW, I have no idea how they separate the outcome of the case itself from the precedent it may set.

Precedent, in this context, is a prior court decision, not a prior government action. If the the case 'leans towards a ruling', it may well be because of precedent. In other words, a prior court decision already addressed the issue, at least in part. Precedent is often used to determine the outcome if the facts fit. Mind you, the court will sometimes overturn precedent if they think the prior court got it wrong, but that's kind of a big deal for them to do that.

I don't understand your last paragraph. I believe the law for stripping someone of their naturalized citizenship is the same as for granting citizenship, if that's what you mean by 'allowed back in'. If you meant just letting them back in as a legal resident, that's a different law and constitutional issue.

[geonuc]

I wasn't making a legal argument, I was summing up the line of questioning posed by Justice Kagan on paged 36-42.

OK, I see where you were coming from now.

[SciFi Chick]

Fascinating Gentlemen. I'm enjoying this discourse.

[vendic]

Geonuc, it's no big deal. This turned out to require way more time investment that I was willing to give it anyway.
I'll just stay confused. it's my natural state anyway. lol

[Tarragon]

Geonuc, it's no big deal. This turned out to require way more time investment that I was willing to give it anyway.
I'll just stay confused. it's my natural state anyway. lol

Which part is confusing? Is it a ruling that might both limit the government latitude and yet rule against the Plaintiffs? Basically, SCOTUS takes cases on appeal where the law is ambiguous. (They also have original jurisdiction for certain types of cases.) They look at historic rulings, legislative history, and the intent of the founders to help them define a principle. Then, they apply that principle to the facts of the case to see which side is right, and how right it is.