Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices sympathetic to immigrant in ID theft case (How could this be?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_identity_theft;_ylt=AiUXDt.EByBZ0MEjZZ7VuMJMEP0E ^

Posted on 02/25/2009 8:23:59 PM PST by indianyogi

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to rule that undocumented immigrants who use phony Social Security numbers to get work should not be considered identity thieves, even if those numbers belong to real people.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; idtheft; immigration; scotus

1 posted on 02/25/2009 8:23:59 PM PST by indianyogi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

I think it’s time to start piss testing these so-called “judges” for drugs.


2 posted on 02/25/2009 8:25:47 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Just being a "U.S. citizen" does not make one an American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

wow.

has O gotten to them?


3 posted on 02/25/2009 8:26:00 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, won't you be my Face Book friend??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

9 more names to remember when the revolution comes


4 posted on 02/25/2009 8:26:23 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, won't you be my Face Book friend??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

Making up a phoney 10-digit number is not the same thing as stealing someone else’s identity. Still, I think illegals should be rounded up and ...


5 posted on 02/25/2009 8:26:30 PM PST by PackerBoy (Just my opinion ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

Just another “intent” thing.


6 posted on 02/25/2009 8:26:39 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi; gubamyster; AuntB; Tennessee Nana
Undocumented workers commonly buy ID cards from forgers without any intention of invading someone else's privacy, he said.

Yeah, and the affected U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident is just "collateral damage." /sarc

7 posted on 02/25/2009 8:26:46 PM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

what if they get a credit card in another name and run up a million in debt? do the victims have to pay up?


8 posted on 02/25/2009 8:28:05 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, won't you be my Face Book friend??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

OMG


9 posted on 02/25/2009 8:29:14 PM PST by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Kind of like divining the voter’s intent.

Especially all those new 20 million Democrat voters.

It’s like this nation is TRYING to kill itself.


10 posted on 02/25/2009 8:30:44 PM PST by Old Sarge ("Remember, remember, the Fourth of November, the Socialist treason and plot...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Hmmm..how do we get Judge Roberts info? Oh I know, just ask an illegal.


11 posted on 02/25/2009 8:31:14 PM PST by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

They broke the law to come here, took a job to which they were not legally entitled, and then immediately commited a fraud.

And, they’re not all innocently making up a Social Security number. Quite a few have used stolen, actual Social Security numbers.

Do I sense a trend, here?


12 posted on 02/25/2009 8:31:46 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
What is it you have been saying about SCOTUS and fraternizing?
13 posted on 02/25/2009 8:32:48 PM PST by Just A Nobody (I *LOVE* my Attitude Problem - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

Anyone who has watched questioning before is just making guesses in trying to figure out how the SCOTUS will rule on a case from questioning.

It was a natural and valid question - does the law require any intent, and if it does, does the government need to provide evidence of it. Of course, such things would mean nothing if our car slammed into a police cruiser, we would be charged with the enhanced crime of assault on a police officer, no matter what our intent might be. The rules are different for government employees, vs you and me.


14 posted on 02/25/2009 8:33:02 PM PST by kingu (Party for rent - conservative opinions not required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

what the hell?

this violates the equal protection clause, 14th amendment.

so will every criminal meth=head, id fraud criminal have the right to get out now?


15 posted on 02/25/2009 8:37:49 PM PST by machogirl (not one of Rush's top-ten gal names)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
As long as they don't steal my credit cards, they're welcome to deposit as much money on my social security number as they want. :)

Sometimes, you just gotta' laugh...

16 posted on 02/25/2009 8:39:29 PM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

Better hope they don’t retire and start drawing on “their” Social Security before you do.


17 posted on 02/25/2009 8:40:27 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug
As long as they don't steal my credit cards, they're welcome to deposit as much money on my social security number as they want. :)

Just wait until they default on a big loan and your social security number is tracked back to your credit rating. You'll be having lots of fun.

18 posted on 02/25/2009 8:55:32 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody; mojitojoe; Polarik; STARWISE; ckilmer; null and void; Fred Nerks; LucyT; AJFavish; ..
What is it that you have been saying about SCOTUS and fraternizing?

What concerns me and other FReepers is the overt fraternizing of the SCOTUS justices with Obama, given the several cases challenging his constitutional eligibility to be president that SCOTUS has already considered and the other cases likely coming its way.

Judges shouldn't be socializing with people who are parties or attorneys in cases coming before them; to do otherwise violates the canons of judicial ethics.

I don't think you would be to happy if, for example, you were suing someone and you spotted your opponent hobnobbing privately with the judge(s) assigned to the case. An honest, ethical judge should never even create the slightest suspicion that he is partial to one side in a case before him or which will likely come before him.

19 posted on 02/25/2009 9:08:46 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The trend you are sensing is the government trying to avoid the social security revolt that would ensue if the average American knew their money has been stolen by letting illegals put some of it back under false pretenses.


20 posted on 02/25/2009 9:16:42 PM PST by willyd (My Driver's License is under Obama's Birth Certificate officer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi

If the law is too vague or poorly written, let the govt rewrite it for specificity and clarity.

Then arrest, convict, jail and deport “identity thieves” of all types.


21 posted on 02/25/2009 9:23:12 PM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

The concern grows daily, especially with this type of ruling.


22 posted on 02/25/2009 9:34:01 PM PST by Just A Nobody (I *LOVE* my Attitude Problem - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi
Should someone get two extra years in prison "if it just so happens that the number you picked out of the air belongs to someone else?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Justice Department lawyer Toby Heytens.

I guess random criminal acts are OK as long as the actor doesn't know the victim.

23 posted on 02/25/2009 10:48:14 PM PST by Mike Darancette (We have nothing to fear but Obama himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The issue is not whether illegal aliens have committed a crime— that is not disputed. The issue is whether this particular alien committed the specific crime he is being charged with, which is identity theft.


24 posted on 02/26/2009 10:38:52 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...

Ping!


25 posted on 02/26/2009 11:18:22 AM PST by HiJinx (~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Noone seems to be addressing the fact that the retailer gets stuck and is the victim too....this is unbelievable.


26 posted on 02/26/2009 11:22:01 AM PST by Kackikat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: indianyogi
"Look, Officer. I did not INTEND to shoot that illegal stealing my car...I didn't intend to leave a cartridge in my shotgun..and I didn't intend to go off when I saw my car belong stolen...and I'm sure that the Mr. Gonzalez did not INTEND to get in the way of the buckshot...from a gun I didn't KNOW was loaded....and i'm sure that he didn't KNOW that the car belonged to me and did not INTEND to steal it."

Ahem....

27 posted on 02/26/2009 2:21:35 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

It’s time for more direct action.


28 posted on 02/26/2009 2:23:17 PM PST by Sir Gawain (With Obama's "tax cut" I can afford a torch and a pitchfork in just TWO WEEKS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
"Look, Officer. I did not INTEND to shoot that illegal stealing my car...I didn't intend to leave a cartridge in my shotgun..and I didn't intend to go off when I saw my car belong stolen...and I'm sure that the Mr. Gonzalez did not INTEND to get in the way of the buckshot...from a gun I didn't KNOW was loaded....and i'm sure that he didn't KNOW that the car belonged to me and did not INTEND to steal it." Ahem....

All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you. In this case, the trial judge told the jury that the defendant was guilty if he used someone else's SSN whether or not he knew it belonged to someone else or intended to commit identity theft. If the Supreme Court reverses, there will probably be a new trial, but the jury will be instructed that the defendant is not guilty unless he intended to steal someone else's identity.

29 posted on 02/26/2009 3:21:35 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Judges shouldn't be socializing with people who are parties or attorneys in cases coming before them; to do otherwise violates the canons of judicial ethics. I don't think you would be to happy if, for example, you were suing someone and you spotted your opponent hobnobbing privately with the judge(s) assigned to the case. An honest, ethical judge should never even create the slightest suspicion that he is partial to one side in a case before him or which will likely come before him.

You may remember from a couple of years ago when the Supreme Court denied the motion to disqualify Justice Scalia from hearing a case against Vice President Cheney, even though Scalia and Cheney went hunting together. Scalia said that they didn't talk about the case during the hunting trip, and that was enough. So the same precedent seems to apply here.

30 posted on 02/26/2009 3:24:47 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

What happens when the tax collector (POH) wants to talk to you about the income taxes due?


31 posted on 02/26/2009 4:40:01 PM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
So the same precedent seems to apply here.

If so, just remember that the SCOTUS has set many bad precedents down through the years which have resulted, generally speaking, of a severe watering-down of the Constitution and the rule of law.

32 posted on 02/26/2009 5:12:46 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ..

Thanks justiceseeker93.


33 posted on 02/26/2009 9:06:04 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you.

So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.

34 posted on 02/26/2009 11:47:39 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Never mind, I see what the problem is here. The poorly written article does not explain that the law requires that a person "knowingly" uses another person's ID. The defendant in question here already has a 51 month sentence for other crimes, so he won't escape punishment completely.
35 posted on 02/27/2009 5:40:53 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.

Different crimes have different intent requirements. Murder and voluntary manslaughter require intent to kill; involuntary manslaughter doesn't. Drunk drivers are typically convicted only of the latter.

36 posted on 02/27/2009 10:12:56 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

OK, see #35.


37 posted on 02/27/2009 1:23:18 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson