Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that in most cases of identity theft, the defendant sets out to steal someone's identity so to take money from their accounts. In this case, the illegal immigrant wanted to use a false Social Security number as though it was his, but he did not know or care whether it was a real person's number. HUH?? Am I missing something here?
To: COUNTrecount
So much for privacy rights. Someone can run around as you and you are limited in your response.
Our nation has turned against the citizens and supports foreign invaders for political purposes.
2 posted on
05/04/2009 10:02:31 AM PDT by
a fool in paradise
(IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
To: COUNTrecount
but he did not know or care whether it was a real person's number.
If I drive a car with my eyes closed and hit something, will I not be held liable for the accident as I 'did not know or care' what was in front of me?
3 posted on
05/04/2009 10:03:31 AM PDT by
posterchild
(Endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights.)
To: COUNTrecount
9-0 is bad.
Let someone with a stolen passport try this excuse.
4 posted on
05/04/2009 10:07:44 AM PDT by
a fool in paradise
(IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
To: COUNTrecount
The difference is this:
One person steals a SS# they know is false.
Another person knowingly uses a fake SS#, that ends up belonging to another person.
5 posted on
05/04/2009 10:08:13 AM PDT by
earlJam
To: COUNTrecount
Gee, won’t it be wonderful when B.O. packs the Supremes with libs. Barf
7 posted on
05/04/2009 10:12:32 AM PDT by
KeyLargo
To: COUNTrecount
9 - 0. Probably the correct decision since the illegals aren’t really trying to steal an identity and defraud the true person of anything. But there are definitely all sorts of wrongs being committed by using false documents and IDs, numerous misrepresenting about who the illegal is, etc., etc.
8 posted on
05/04/2009 10:12:43 AM PDT by
Will88
To: COUNTrecount
If you read the opinion, you would recognize that the USSC simply applied the law as written. If congress wants to change the law, it is free to do so.
The USSC applied the plain meaning of the words in the statute. Would be thrilled if they did that all the time.
To: COUNTrecount
The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of “aggravated identity theft” because he did not know he was using someone’s Social Security number.....
Oh, Jeeze please!....And what happens to the people who’s id gets duplicated randomly and used?....Sorry Charlie! It’s not “aggravated identity theft” it’s “random identity theft”...you loose! What a pile of crap!
To: COUNTrecount
What is the Supreme Court doing? Punishing the people?
14 posted on
05/04/2009 10:38:18 AM PDT by
freekitty
(Give me back my conservative vote.)
To: COUNTrecount; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; ...
26 posted on
05/04/2009 12:35:31 PM PDT by
HiJinx
(~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
To: COUNTrecount
Could someone please explain what happened here? It doesn’t sound right.
28 posted on
05/04/2009 11:58:43 PM PDT by
freekitty
(Give me back my conservative vote.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson