PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court ruling favors immigrants



tacitus
05-05-2009, 09:44 AM
The Supreme Court says workers using phony IDs can't be considered identity thieves unless they knew that the numbers belonged to real people.

link (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12294608)

Welcome to the new USSA.

linda22003
05-05-2009, 10:51 AM
How do you explain its being a unanimous decision?

Gingersnap
05-05-2009, 11:13 AM
This is not some kind of new and unusual favoring of illegal aliens. It's a narrow decision on a very narrow and technical issue in the wording of the statute. They can change the wording, if they want to crack down on illegal aliens and use identity theft as a tool for that.

linda22003
05-05-2009, 11:16 AM
This is not some kind of new and unusual favoring of illegal aliens. It's a narrow decision on a very narrow and technical issue in the wording of the statute. They can change the wording, if they want to crack down on illegal aliens and use identity theft as a tool for that.

Oh, you're spoiling what started out as perfectly good indignation. :p

Gingersnap
05-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Oh, you're spoiling what started out as perfectly good indignation. :p

Sorry! :o

linda22003
05-05-2009, 11:20 AM
I suppose I started it by pointing out it was a unanimous decision. Pondering why Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would be in favor may have diverted his attention. ;)

ralph wiggum
05-05-2009, 11:32 AM
The Supreme Court says workers using phony IDs can't be considered identity thieves unless they knew that the numbers belonged to real people.

Who would the numbers belong to, robots? :confused:

linda22003
05-05-2009, 11:37 AM
Has anyone actually READ the ruling yet? Anyone? Bueller? :p

stsinner
05-05-2009, 12:10 PM
Who would the numbers belong to, robots? :confused:

They could be generated by a random number generator...

patriot45
05-05-2009, 12:18 PM
Has anyone actually READ the ruling yet? Anyone? Bueller? :p

I read the article and this kinda jumped out;


But immigrants without proper documentation need identity documents and often buy them from forgers, never knowing if they belong to anyone.

Such was the case with the undocumented worker on the winning side Monday. Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican immigrant employed at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill., traveled to Chicago and bought numbers from someone who trades in counterfeit IDs

Isn't that a crime by itself?

linda22003
05-05-2009, 12:20 PM
Isn't that a crime by itself?

Yes, but it's not what this case was about. The Supremes could only rule within the parameters of the case they were actually given.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 04:58 PM
Yes, but it's not what this case was about. The Supremes could only rule within the parameters of the case they were actually given.

It's Judicial activism, I tell ya!!:rolleyes:;)

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 06:07 PM
It's Judicial activism, I tell ya!!:rolleyes:;)

Hey douche, judicial activism is ok when its a conservative cause. Cause conservative= good

Odysseus
05-05-2009, 06:54 PM
Yes, but it's not what this case was about. The Supremes could only rule within the parameters of the case they were actually given.


Technically, identity theft is a form of fraud in which the personal information of the victim is used for the financial gain of the felon at the expense of the victim, the vendor or the credit company, or to mask your own identity during the commission of a crime. If an illegal used my SSN to get a job and as a result of that, I was liable for taxes on income that I didn't receive, the issue of whether or not the illegal knew that he was using a valid ID may show a lack of intent to inflict damages on me, but the effect was the same as if he'd known that he was using my ID and didn't care. The question that the SCOTUS had to address was whether or not the purchasers of stolen IDs are liable for the identity theft if they did not know that the ID that they used was valid, and since the law did not specify that they were, they made the right call, but congress should mandate that the law hold any user of a false ID liable for damages incurred as a result of their fraud, and that intent to defraud through the use of a false ID and a stolen ID are the same.

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 07:25 PM
Hey douche, judicial activism is ok when its a conservative cause. Cause conservative= good

Thank you Johnnie Cockran for that keen legal insight.

So, in your opinion, judicial restrain is weak and that separation of powers idea is outdated?

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 08:28 PM
Thank you Johnnie Cockran for that keen legal insight.

So, in your opinion, judicial restrain is weak and that separation of powers idea is outdated?

For the love of God bonehead its a joke look it up.


Well thanks to the magic negro separation of powers (at least concering the SC) is a thing of the past.

Well since you voted for him how in the hell can you accuse me of that?

hazlnut
05-05-2009, 08:50 PM
For the love of God bonehead its a joke look it up.


Well thanks to the magic negro separation of powers (at least concering the SC) is a thing of the past.

How so?

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 10:47 PM
How so?

His picks (with help from other libs on the SC) will make laws up from whole cloth. Whatever they dont get passed in Congress they will ram through the courts. I pray everynight that the level headed and sane conservative members stay healthy (at least till a social conservative gets back into the WH) :(

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 12:17 AM
His picks (with help from other libs on the SC) will make laws up from whole cloth. Whatever they dont get passed in Congress they will ram through the courts. I pray everynight that the level headed and sane conservative members stay healthy (at least till a social conservative gets back into the WH) :(

Okay F. Lars Bailey-- as the court currently sits, who was appointed by a Democratic President and who was appointed by Republican President? I mean, who are the 'libs' currently on the high court?

His picks, huh? How many does he get?

Gee, I thought it was the legislative branch that got to 'make' the laws.

Lars1701a
05-06-2009, 12:37 AM
Okay F. Lars Bailey-- as the court currently sits, who was appointed by a Democratic President and who was appointed by Republican President? I mean, who are the 'libs' currently on the high court?

His picks, huh? How many does he get?

Gee, I thought it was the legislative branch that got to 'make' the laws.


You drunk? sleep it off and think about what you just posted.


On edit: he prolly will get at least 3 picks if he gets a second term. (God help us if a Conservative justice dies) :(

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 01:24 AM
You drunk? sleep it off and think about what you just posted.


On edit: he prolly will get at least 3 picks if he gets a second term. (God help us if a Conservative justice dies) :(

I asked a question. How many 'libs' are currently on the court? In other words, who was appointed by a Democratic president? You have no clue. That's okay. If you don't know much about the supreme court then just say so.

Sarah Palin doesn't know f-all about it either. She couldn't name one supreme court case besides Roe v Wade.

But trying to cover your own ignorance by repeating something I said to you earlier just makes you look all the more stupid.

How do you figure Obama's going to get appoint three justices in the next eight years?

Is Scalia going to bust a cap in Ginsburg's head, then take his own life?

linda22003
05-06-2009, 08:29 AM
I asked a question. How many 'libs' are currently on the court? In other words, who was appointed by a Democratic president? You have no clue. That's okay. If you don't know much about the supreme court then just say so.


There isn't always a correlation. Presidents don't always get what they anticipate in a court pick. For example, people forget, today, that Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2 by a court with six Republican appointments out of the nine justices.

Lars1701a
05-06-2009, 08:40 AM
I asked a question. How many 'libs' are currently on the court? In other words, who was appointed by a Democratic president? You have no clue. That's okay. If you don't know much about the supreme court then just say so.

Sarah Palin doesn't know f-all about it either. She couldn't name one supreme court case besides Roe v Wade.

But trying to cover your own ignorance by repeating something I said to you earlier just makes you look all the more stupid.

How do you figure Obama's going to get appoint three justices in the next eight years?

Is Scalia going to bust a cap in Ginsburg's head, then take his own life?

I am not going to waste my time answering your stupid question for one thing.

You and I know how many libs there are. So stop being a dick head (I know its hard)

Well lets see asshole um in the very near future he will have two picks (Ginsburg and Souter) and Kenndy is older then dirt. So those 3 are very likely to be replaced in next 8 years. Happy ole douche master?

Now replacing them wont change the balance but 7 years is a long time and scalia is getting up there.

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 10:48 AM
How so?

It's been an ongoing trend, at least since the Civil War, but Obama is accelerating the consolidation of power at the federal level. For example, the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill will place all sorts of crimes, including vandalism, assault, homicide and a host of other criminal acts under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the feds will have the discretion to take over the prosecution. The unconstitutionality of this act is obvious, but it is very likely to pass and when it does, expect to see the feds prosecute all sorts of things under the rubric of "hate crimes." The reductio ad absurdium to this is that, since blocking access to an abortion clinic can be deemed as a crime against women, and therefore a hate crime, any illegal act that restricts access could be prosecuted under this act, including double-parking. I don't know that the administration would go that far, but if I were a protester, I'd make sure that I parked at a meter and that it was paid up.

The bailout/stimulus bill is another example of the federalization of state authority. By including a clause that allows the legislators to bypass the governer and accept the funds, the feds have, in effect, rewritten 50 state constitutions to empower legislators to override executive branch authority, even as it takes much of the budget process out of the hands of state legislators and puts it at the federal level. Again, major breach of separation of powers.

The use of TARP funds to take control of financial institutions and other private sector companies is another power grab, one that severely impacts the separation between the public and private sectors of the economy and brings major components of the economy under federal control.

I could go on all day with this, but the trend is obvious.

linda22003
05-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Well lets see asshole um in the very near future he will have two picks (Ginsburg and Souter) and Kenndy is older then dirt.

I don't know why you characterize Kennedy that way; he's younger than Scalia.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 11:47 AM
There isn't always a correlation. Presidents don't always get what they anticipate in a court pick. For example, people forget, today, that Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2 by a court with six Republican appointments out of the nine justices.

Oh, I'm well aware that conservative judges make decisions that may appear contrary to conservative beliefs--especially to someone who doesn't understand how an appellate court functions. It was a Republican-dominated court in California that ruled in favor of gay marriage. People outside of the state made the assumption that is was just a bunch of liberal activist judges. Not the case.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 11:56 AM
I am not going to waste my time answering your stupid question for one thing.

Promises, promises...


You and I know how many libs there are. So stop being a dick head (I know its hard)

Hard? To answer basic civics questions??


Well lets see asshole um in the very near future he will have two picks (Ginsburg and Souter) and Kenndy is older then dirt. So those 3 are very likely to be replaced in next 8 years. Happy ole douche master?

Now replacing them wont change the balance but 7 years is a long time and scalia is getting up there.

Boy, someone sure gets pissy when his covers are pulled.

It's okay Lars, plenty of people don't have a clue about the supreme court. Don't take it so hard. You probably know lots of stuff about lots of things...

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 05:36 PM
Oh, I'm well aware that conservative judges make decisions that may appear contrary to conservative beliefs--especially to someone who doesn't understand how an appellate court functions. It was a Republican-dominated court in California that ruled in favor of gay marriage. People outside of the state made the assumption that is was just a bunch of liberal activist judges. Not the case.

It was a 4-3 CA Supreme Court decision. Regardless, the function of an appellate court is mostly procedural, that is, it's rare that they consider new evidence or argument in a case, but usually base their decisions on the correctness of the legal determination of the lower court's rulings. That's an important in this case, because the trial court was reversed by an appellate court, which was then reversed by the CA Supreme Court.

After Gavin Newsom directed San Francisco to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, two organizations filed actions in San Francisco Superior Court seeking an immediate stay to prohibit the City from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Superior court refused to grant the request for an immediate stay, and the City and County continued to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, at which point the California Attorney General and a number of taxpayers' groups filed petitions seeking to have the California Supreme Court issue an original writ of mandate, asserting that the City's actions were unlawful and warranted immediate intervention by the court. The California Supreme Court directed officials of San Francisco "to enforce the existing marriage statutes and to refrain from issuing marriage licenses not authorized by such provisions." The Court later held in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco that the City and County had acted unlawfully, but was free to bring an action challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws if it wished. In this action, the court acted as an appellate court and reviewed the jurisprudence of the lower court's decision. The case was kicked back to the San Francisco Superior Court, which, surprise surprise, held for the plaintiffs, finding that the marriage restriction was invalid under the strict scrutiny standard based on a suspect classification of gender. This was appealed and in a two-to-one decision, the Court of Appeal of California reversed the superior court's ruling on the constitutional issue. Again, proper review of a lower court's legal interpretation.

Where it gets dicey is the CA Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutional issue, which made the claim that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. This, BTW, goes far beyond simply legalizing same-sex marriage as a civil procedure. Under this ruling, the Boy Scouts could be compelled to permit gay scoutmasters, churches would be penalized for failing to conduct ceremonies for gay couples, adoption services that gave preference to married heterosexual couples would be subject to penalties, and pretty much any action short of enthusiastic embrace of homosexuality would be subject to the scrutiny of the courts. It's a scary precedent.

Lars1701a
05-06-2009, 06:33 PM
Promises, promises...



Hard? To answer basic civics questions??



Boy, someone sure gets pissy when his covers are pulled.

It's okay Lars, plenty of people don't have a clue about the supreme court. Don't take it so hard. You probably know lots of stuff about lots of things...

/yawn....um you say something?