« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Supreme Court cozies up to immigrants/aliens by a 7-2 margin

And they overturned Kentucky’s Supreme Court to do so!

Meet Jose Padilla. The other one. Maybe it’s the name that brings it out, but he’s a bad apple. Caught in Kentucky with a truck stuffed full of marijuana. His lawyer advised him to plead guilty (he was caught red handed) and so he did, and got what was coming to him.

Here’s where it gets fun. Jose is not an American, but a Honduran. Naturally, transporting a giant load of drugs around the country was an offence that was going to get him deported. But the left couldn’t stand that. Aided by 5 justices on the court who held a broad opinion (and to give out fair criticism, both Alito and Roberts concurred but with a narrower holding.) What does this do for existing cases?

Well if you’re here as an immigrant now and get arrested, if your lawyer does not go into detail about the possible effects on your immigrations status, the Supreme Court decided you get another chance at convincing one of those 12 people on the jury that you decide to let you go. To be fair to Alito and Roberts, their narrow holding only applies if you ask your lawyer and they give you an answer that is manifestly false, but the other 5 justices who wrote the majority opinion go even farther, to the absurd standard mentioned before.

Yet another ‘right’ we’re giving those taking over our country, most of them illegally.

From ScotusBlog

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion that could affect the criminal and immigration proceedings of tens of thousands of immigrant defendants, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense attorneys to advise their immigrant clients of the possible deportation consequences of a guilty plea.  In overturning a contrary decision by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, the Court has potentially paved the way for significant changes in the way criminal trials for immigrant defendants are handled.

COMMENTS

  • notreallyrepublican

    ScotusWiki link as well.

  • http://www.havearoach.com Lee Hempfling

    Purely from a legal perspective (not political ideological icecream):

    So what? This shows the court has upheld the concept behind Miranda. Ignorance is bliss and a defense.

    Stupid for sure, but already in law. If anyone wants to put together a Constitutional convention, please take that up. Ignorance of the law used to be no excuse. Today it is free ticket.

  • AndrewHyman

    I really don’t like it when people get legal immigrants mixed up with illegal immigrants. In this case, Jose Padilla was a legal immigrant, having lawfully resided in this country for 40 years, not to mention fighting in our military during the Vietnam War.

    I really don’t have a big problem with the SCOTUS decision in this case, though I thought that Justice Alito’s concurring opinion was much better than the majority opinion.

    Here’s the full text of the opinion in case anyone wants to take a look. I am 100% opposed to illegal immigration, but legal immigration is an entirely different matter. This is a nation of immigrants, and people like this Jose Padilla must not be confused with illegal immigrants.

    The Sixth Amendment says:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    In other words, there is not just a right to counsel, but also a right to counsel who assists rather than hurts you. If a lawyer doesn’t give you some clue that a guilty plea will get you bumped out of the country, then that is not assistance of counsel, IMHO.