Posted on 05/04/2006 9:35:00 PM PDT by calcowgirl
so can we also can suppose 'judge' Consuelo Marshall has no problem with pimps an protsitutes loitering in front of her house too?
Because illegal aliens were the only plaintiffs, no one had standing to raise the Constitutional issue (if any), would they?
Why should the U.S. Constitution tell some city in California to hand out federal rights to illegal aliens anyway?
I'm an American. I'm white. And, if I want to stand on a street corner advertising my need to obtain employment I have the right to do that.
For anyone to argue that is stupid.
Hailing a cab is a lot like signaling someone you are available for work. Does that mean you can't wave down a cab. I'm sorry but anyone that supports the city's ordinance deserves to be suited.
It's a NO-BRAINER!
another case this judge sabotaged:
U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall ruled that police could not use digital photos of child-pornography , found on an alleged child molesters computer . The decision meant that the case could not be prosecuted in federal court on seven counts of possession of child pornography, which carried a maximum penalty of 35 years in prison.
http://www.irvineworldnews.com/Astories/oct30/kline.htm
Marshall, Consuelo Bland
Born 1936 in Knoxville, TN
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 20, 1980, to a seat vacated by Robert Firth; Confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 1980, and received commission on September 30, 1980. Served as chief judge, 2001-2005. Assumed senior status on October 24, 2005.
Education:
Los Angeles City College, A.A., 1956
Howard University, B.A., 1958
Howard University, LL.B., 1961
Professional Career:
Deputy city attorney, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, California, 1962-1967
Private practice, Los Angeles, California, 1968-1970
Commissioner, Juvenile Court, Los Angeles Superior Court, California, 1971-1976
Judge, Civil and Criminal Division, Inglewood Municipal Court, Inglewood, California, 1976-1977
Judge, Criminal Division, Los Angles Superior Court, California, 1977-1980
Race or Ethnicity: African American
Gender: Female
you cant solisit illegel labor , or do you support your right to prostitiute?
Our judicial system, and our nation itself, is falling apart at the seems because of these dishonest, agenda-driven judges and the do-nothing politicians who refuse to do anything about this judicial legislating and usurpation of their power.
I would gladly contribute if some pimps would hang around in front of her house.
And if you were drunk and urinating in the street what then?
Bridges v. Wixon. Justice Murphy's concurring opinoin is one of the worst rulings I've ever read.
"How did it ever come to pass that non-citizens are entitled to citizen's rights? And how is it that loitering in the streets while waiting for somebody to come by and offer you a job is considered to be "speech". If this is the case then any 'john' soliciting a hooker should be protected because he is exercising his 1st Amendment rights."
We have to, as a civilized nation based on a foundation of human rights, extend those rights to all humans, even if they are tourists or illegal immigrants. I have mixed feelings about this, in the face of current events.
If we do not accord people in our country (regardles of their legal status) basic human rights, then what DO we allow them?
It's an interesting debate - what rights SHOULD a visitor to our country enjoy? (Legal or not). Does the law of habeus corpus get thrown out if the suspect is not a US citizen? Do Miranda rights only apply to US citizens? Does the freedom of speech only apply to US citizens (and isn't THAT a lovely path to wander down, so many non citizens I'd love to have silenced...)
But, in the end, you are correct to question how and why rights are being given to non-citizens. I don't know, I suspect it's been a slow process, a Chinese water torture method of slipping in more and more over years, if not decades. The concept is sound, the generousity of according righst to visitors that we enjoy, but like everything else, it's been abused and shockingly warped by liberal judges and government beaurocracies.
"Our judicial system, and our nation itself, is falling apart at the seems because of these dishonest, agenda-driven judges and the do-nothing politicians who refuse to do anything about this judicial legislating and usurpation of their power."
And, if left unchecked, will lead to non-citizens being given MORE rights, and seperate rights. If this is allowed to stand, then how long until a Clinton appointee decides that not only can private business forbid gathering for day work on their property (Home Depot, 7-11, ect...), but they also must provide shelter, safety, and portajohns. It's typical that these days, the solution punishes the innocent, and rewards the criminal.
Expect more of this before the tide turns. Sadly, I don't think it's going to happen soon, the forces to turn the tide are just now waking up to the fact that we're drowning, and it will be a while before sufficiant forces (voting booths) can start the change.
Wrong.
This is saying solicitation of an illegal act is free speech.
CALL ICE!!
U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall...that says it all....good luck buckwheat
Yes. Illegal aliens have Constitutional rights, whereas citizens have privileges. It why our 'leaders' are so hot to give them amnesty.
-----------
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
______________________________________________________________________
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
______________________________________________________________________
Why should the U.S. Constitution tell some city in California to hand out federal rights to illegal aliens anyway?
They're not federal rights, they're NATURAL rights which existed before the creation of government.
.
This ruling is ridiculous!
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.