Stupid Decision by the Supreme Court

Tags:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/us/05scotus.html?hp

I'm dumfounded, I just don't understand this decision at all.

It seems like the court has given these illegal aliens the right to steal from honest Americans. Our government seems to be laying out a welcome matt for these criminals to enter our borders with little consequence.

Here's a line from the justices that floored me: "a prosecutor must be able to show that a defendant knew that the identification he used actually belonged to another person." WTF? How could you NOT know? Its not your name or numbers on the ID, call me crazy but one would tend to know these facts.

I think that what will ultimately lead our country to its downfall is not threats from the outside but our own lack of common sense. It doesn't make sense to have immigrations laws if we don't enforce them. Illegal Immigrants continue to get access to services (schools, welfare, medicare/medicade, housing) that they have no right to recieve. The services these people get should only be for citizens and immigrants who have come here legally.

Comments

I couldn't agree ...

I couldn't agree more.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Just as when people buy a stolen laptop from someone in a back alley and it has Lojack for computers on it, is located by authorities, they are subject to arrest. There was a news bit on exactly that only yesterday where both the thief and the person who bought the stolen laptop were both arrested.

Caveat emptor.

Instead of being guided by ...

Instead of being guided by the constitution and making every effort to interpret it fairly and without prejudice, the "supreme" court is bent on legislating and sending down decisions that reflect their own agenda and beliefs. Their lifetime appointment to the highest court in America should be, MUST BE, limited to a set number of years (eight at the most) and after that AN ELECTION to replace them, with the president having no part in the process, except to cast his vote. But don't count on it.....

Where in this does the ...

Where in this does the Supreme Court get to do what they did?

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Oops nevermind, I see it.

Oops nevermind, I see it.

Still on that higher wave ...

Still on that higher wave length, I see. I don't know if you are for or against the judges decision, but I have to agree with rkinne on this one.

A second revolution is ...

A second revolution is coming~ this is the handwriting on the wall that points to it

They interpreted the law ...

They interpreted the law properly whether we like it or not. The charges should have been different in my opinion. That is the prosecutor's fault. The culprits should have been charged with something more akin to >improper and unlawful use of an identification not their own". That would have precluded the dilemma the court was presented with.

And the entire coincidental notion that, now when the right wingers can no longer stack the court with their agenda, they suddenly want the court to be weakened, is so obvious it's absurd. They had their way with the court for decades and now that they can't control it they want to undermine it. That's not going to happen. Our Constitution is firmly in place and not in danger of such subversive radicals who would destroy it.

Suck it up right wingers. You forced your agenda on us and the people revolted peacefully against it through the electoral process because it was dead wrong.

Sore losers are so pathetic.

LOL TGIX, just like the ...

LOL TGIX, just like the 'left wingers' chose to see 'Right to bear arms' as NO right for 'regular people' to bear arms, eh? Sure wanna stak the court to uphold THAT one don't they?

Who and what are you ...

Who and what are you talking about Walter? I know hundreds of democrats who support the second amendment and, like myself, even own multiple firearms. I also never hear a single politician say what you claim they stand for, nor do I see any action in the courts or in legislature to deny people the right to bear arms. Even Washington, DC, after trying a pistol ban for a while, reversed that.

Everyone I hear on the news talking about the issue agrees that the fear mongering is all that's driving up arms sales and it's driven by the gun lobby for profit. There simply isn't any substantiation to their claims.

Oh I forgot TGIX, YOU ...

Oh I forgot TGIX, YOU don't live in California! The home of Nancy Pelosi and ALL the anti gun people. Soooo sorry to have actually believed you pay attention to anything outside of Baltimore or Maryland or wherever you live. But out here, the anti gun politicians have been working to ban guns both at the state level AND the national level. YOU believe what you want, but I live in the 'real' world. Well as real as California pretends to be, anyway.

WADV, under the new dept. ...

WADV, under the new dept. of homeland security directive that was recently distributed, YOU are considered a radical, right-wing threat to national security. So are war weary veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan. So are NRA members, which throws me in with you guys. Pro-life? you are not only considered racist, but a threat also. Against same sex "marriage"? you too are included on this list. In other words, if you stand up for whats right, you will eventually be forced to recant or you will be imprisoned or worse, executed.

All unsubstantiated. You ...

All unsubstantiated. You cite not one single specific example. All you do is fabricate or parrot (like followers of the druggie Rush Limbaugh known as "ditto heads" do - That's why you are called "ditto" heads).

So you Lie or perhaps you actually buy into and believe that paranoia. Either way, it's the same result; you do harm when you are incorrect. Accuracy is good. Being wrong is bad.

You are not well. Paranoia is a mental illness. Get professional help.

Nancy Pelosi on Gun ...

Nancy Pelosi on Gun Control (since you asked)-

* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

What the hell does gun ...

What the hell does gun control, marriage, all the other crap have to do with the topic at hand?