Please explain how this wasnt a 9-0 decision

[Crazyhole]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/di...ts-cant-be-shielded-from-id-theft-prosecution

4 SCOTUS justices said that illegal immigrants stealing identities is not unconstitutional.

 

[Cubs79]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/di...ts-cant-be-shielded-from-id-theft-prosecution

4 SCOTUS justices said that illegal immigrants stealing identities is not unconstitutional.

That wasn't the argument and I have a feeling you know that. The argument was whether states could prosecute for this or if only the federal government could prosecute these crimes, since it is federal ID's being stolen (or used illegally). Nothing in the argument said that stealing ID's or using someone elses ID was legal.
"Even though IRCA criminalizes that conduct, the Act makes clear that only the Federal Government may prosecute people for misrepresenting their federal work-authorization status," he continued.

 

[NinjaKnight]

That wasn't the argument and I have a feeling you know that. The argument was whether states could prosecute for this or if only the federal government could prosecute these crimes, since it is federal ID's being stolen (or used illegally). Nothing in the argument said that stealing ID's or using someone elses ID was legal.
"Even though IRCA criminalizes that conduct, the Act makes clear that only the Federal Government may prosecute people for misrepresenting their federal work-authorization status," he continued.

You are still trying to use logic and reason with a guy who honestly thinks the world could be flat

 

[fried-chicken]

That wasn't the argument and I have a feeling you know that. The argument was whether states could prosecute for this or if only the federal government could prosecute these crimes, since it is federal ID's being stolen (or used illegally). Nothing in the argument said that stealing ID's or using someone elses ID was legal.
"Even though IRCA criminalizes that conduct, the Act makes clear that only the Federal Government may prosecute people for misrepresenting their federal work-authorization status," he continued.

He probably lifted this smoking hot take straight from a nut job news site and just ran with it with no research.

 

[Crazyhole]

That wasn't the argument and I have a feeling you know that. The argument was whether states could prosecute for this or if only the federal government could prosecute these crimes, since it is federal ID's being stolen (or used illegally). Nothing in the argument said that stealing ID's or using someone elses ID was legal.
"Even though IRCA criminalizes that conduct, the Act makes clear that only the Federal Government may prosecute people for misrepresenting their federal work-authorization status," he continued.

Please, give a single reason why state and local authorities should not be allowed to prosecute people that steal identities. That isnt a federal issue, it's a personal rights issue.

 

[Cubs79]

Please, give a single reason why state and local authorities should not be allowed to prosecute people that steal identities. That isnt a federal issue, it's a personal rights issue.

A personal rights issue? I quoted the reasoning. If you want to rewrite the law then feel free to push your representatives and Senators on that, but justices interpret law, they don't write it. It is obvious what you are trying to do, especially since you didn't even bother to understand the arguments.

 

[Crazyhole]

A personal rights issue? I quoted the reasoning. If you want to rewrite the law then feel free to push your representatives and Senators on that, but justices interpret law, they don't write it. It is obvious what you are trying to do, especially since you didn't even bother to understand the arguments.

The argument against it was that as long as there is a federal form referenced that the states cant prosecute fraud, even if state forms are cited as a primary source. So basically I can steal someone's identity on a federal form and then use that information to defraud someone on a state level and the state can't prosecute me. It's utterly ridiculous that 4 judges would try to side with such a narrow scope and it reeks of political persuasion. If your identity was stolen and someone filed state documents under your name, wouldn't you want your state to have the authority to prosecute that person?

 

[Cubs79]

The argument against it was that as long as there is a federal form referenced that the states cant prosecute fraud, even if state forms are cited as a primary source. So basically I can steal someone's identity on a federal form and then use that information to defraud someone on a state level and the state can't prosecute me. It's utterly ridiculous that 4 judges would try to side with such a narrow scope and it reeks of political persuasion. If your identity was stolen and someone filed state documents under your name, wouldn't you want your state to have the authority to prosecute that person?

Again, rewrite the law. This is in regards to a specific law, that can easily be updated if it needs to be.

ETA: Actually it probably doesn't need to be rewritten at point since the position you are arguing for did win.

 

[fried-chicken]

A personal rights issue? I quoted the reasoning. If you want to rewrite the law then feel free to push your representatives and Senators on that, but justices interpret law, they don't write it. It is obvious what you are trying to do, especially since you didn't even bother to understand the arguments.

He wants activist judges that write the law themselves.

 

[Crazyhole]

Again, rewrite the law. This is in regards to a specific law, that can easily be updated if it needs to be.

ETA: Actually it probably doesn't need to be rewritten at point since the position you are arguing for did win.

Obviously it is unconstitutional because it strips states from their right to prosecute. I'm just amazed that 4 justices went against that ruling.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Who helped them?

 

[Cubs79]

Obviously it is unconstitutional because it strips states from their right to prosecute. I'm just amazed that 4 justices went against that ruling.

There are federal laws that the feds are the ones to prosecute. These are federal forms and ID #s, so I think it can be argued that the Feds should be the ones to prosecute. It is also possible it is just a poorly worded law. Regardless, the states right to prosecute won out, so I don't think this is a big deal.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Quick, get Schumer to issue personal threats!