Below is my column in the Washington Post (Sunday) on our recent victory in the Sister Wives case. The column looks at the most significant aspect of the case — the rejection of morality codes that once controlled across the country in prohibiting everything from homosexuality to adultery to fornication. These morality laws were upheld in the decision in Reynolds in 1876 in a polygamy case out of Utah. The Brown decision returned us to the same question involving the same issue in the same state. Some 136 years later however the answer from this federal court was very different. We are a different country today and, despite what one hears from politicians like Rick Santorum, I believe that we are a better country today.
There does seem to be confusion about the ruling with some saying that polygamy is still not legal after the opinion. That is simply wrong. Polygamy is not the same a bigamy. One is the crime defined under cohabitation statutes of living as a plural family or with a person married to another person. The other is the crime of having two or more marriage licenses. The latter has nothing to do with the structure of your family and has almost exclusively involved people who hold themselves out (falsely) as monogamous. We always argued that the state could prosecute people who obtained more than one marriage license. Bigamy has not been an offense committed by polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. Indeed, the law targeted polygamy with the cohabitation provision precisely because there is a difference between the two. The state fought for years to preserve this law because it reached beyond simple bigamy. Before this opinion, it was a crime for polygamists to live, as do the Browns, in a plural family. After the opinion, it is legal. This is precisely what occurred in Lawrence v. Texas where homosexual unions were a crime but then became legal when the Texas law was struck down. This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises. They will be allowed to be open plural families. They are now legal relationships. Legality of polygamy is entirely different from recognition of plural marriages just as the legality of homosexual relations is different from the recognition of same-sex marriage.
There is also a lack of knowledge about the existence of such laws outside of Utah. This law does exist outside of Utah. Indeed, the very same language is found in the Canadian cohabitation law. I was called as a legal expert in the recent challenge to that law. However, the Canadian Supreme Court in British Columbia upheld the law. Putting these distinctions aside, the thrust of this article is how this decision is part of a larger trend toward the repeal or the striking down of morality codes, including the rejection of a cohabitation law in Virginia this year.
——————————————-
The decision this month by a federal court striking down the criminalization of polygamy in Utah was met with a mix of rejoicing and rage. What was an emancipating decision for thousands of plural families was denounced as the final descent into a moral abyss by others.
Former senator Rick Santorum was among the social conservatives trying to claim the moral high ground. He tweeted on Sunday: “Some times I hate it when what I predict comes true” — referring to his 2003 claim that legalizing “consensual sex within your home” would lead to the legalization of polygamy and “undermine the fabric of our society.” (On Wednesday, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, he expressed outrage over the removal of a Nativity scene at a South Carolina military base, tweeting: “Our Constitution protects free exercise of religion. No govt entity/official has the right to limit that.”)It’s true that the Utah ruling is one of the latest examples of a national trend away from laws that impose a moral code. There is a difference, however, between the demise of morality laws and the demise of morality. This distinction appears to escape social conservatives nostalgic for a time when the government dictated whom you could live with or sleep with. But the rejection of moral codes is no more a rejection of morality than the rejection of speech codes is a rejection of free speech. Our morality laws are falling, and we are a better nation for it.
In the Utah case, I was the lead counsel for the Browns, the polygamous family featured in the TLC reality program “Sister Wives.” They are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, and they have one marriage license and three “spiritual” marriages among them. After the first episode of “Sister Wives” aired, state prosecutors threatened to bring charges under a Utah law that made it a crime when a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The Browns were under investigation for two years and were publicly called felons before they took prosecutors to court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.
The case was never about the recognition of multiple marriages or the acceptance of the religious values underlying this plural family. It was about the right of consenting adults to make decisions for themselves and their families. Judge Clark Waddoups, a conservative George W. Bush appointee,ruled that the criminalization of cohabitation clearly violated the due process clause and the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution.
In doing so, he departed from the prevailing precedent: the Supreme Court’s opinion inReynolds v. United States , which upheld a ban on polygamy in 1879. Waddoups wrote that courts today are “less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups, especially when blatant racism . . . religious prejudice, or some other constitutionally suspect motivation, can be discovered behind such legislation.”
Indeed, in Reynolds, religious and racial prejudice were vividly on display. The court unleashed a tirade of indignation and condemnation, stating, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Just a few years later, the Supreme Court also upheld the criminalization of mixed-race relations in Pace v. Alabama .
The idea that polygamy was a “barbarous practice” and contrary to democratic principles drove the demand in the late 1880s and ’90s that Utah outlaw it as a condition of statehood. And in Mormon Church v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court labeled polygamy as “abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”
The stigma attached to polygamy continued to distort legal analysis into this century. As recently as 2006, Utah Justice Ronald Nehring began his opinion in a ruling upholding the criminalization of polygamy by lamenting, “No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.” Nehring frankly admitted that this hostility “has been present in my consciousness, and I suspect has been a brooding presence . . . in the minds of my colleagues, from the moment we opened the parties’ briefs.” Rather than overcome that prejudice, Nehring not only yielded to it but warned any Utah judge of the peril of being the first to recognize the rights of polygamists: “I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection.”
Well, it wasn’t. A federal judge in Utah assumed that burden. Gov. Gary Herbert objected to the court making “decisions on social issues.” (He has not yet announced an appeal.) Waddoups, however, was not dictating a decision on a social issue but rather saying that governments could not impose a single version of morality. He limited prosecution under Utah’s anti-polygamy law to cases of bigamy, where someone acquires more than one marriage license — which is an offense more common to monogamous couples, who care about state recognition, than polygamists, who care about spiritual recognition.
Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end. This year, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. And this week, the New Mexico Supreme Court and another federal judge in Utah struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in those states — bringing the number to 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples can marry. Meanwhile, Virginia recently repealed its 1877 cohabitation law and Colorado replealed a criminal adultery law from the 1850s — both relics of a time when states used their criminal codes to force citizens to comply with the religious values of their neighbors.
Most states have wisely turned away from absurd laws criminalizing masturbation and fornication. Obscenity laws have also been curtailed by the Supreme Court in deference to the First Amendment.
Still rightly on the books are laws against bestiality, which involves an obvious lack of consent as well as manifest harm. Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.
Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories.
Critics often ignore these other plural relationships (and even polygynists like the Browns) in favor of a stereotype of “compound polygamists,” living in remote walled communities where women appear captive and molestation flourishes. It is Warren Jeffs, not Kody Brown, whom critics want to invoke in debating decriminalization — a sinister figure in a secluded compound where women wear prairie outfits and hairdos from the 19th century.
Obviously, there will always be abusers like Jeffs among polygamists — just as there are abusers among monogamists. However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.
One of the great ironies about the focus on compound polygamists is the circular logic of criminalization. The government first declared polygamists felons and then pointed to their hiding as evidence of their guilt. But decriminalization will allow these families to be plural, open and law-abiding as they reintegrate into society.
In truth, 19th-century Americans were no more moral than we are today. It simply appeared that way with the imposition of official morals, including (as Santorum recalls so fondly) being told whom we could love in our own homes. It is not a single moral voice that is heard today but a chorus of voices. Each speaks to its own values but joins around a common article of faith: the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and lead counsel in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case.
Washington Post (Sunday) December 22, 2013
There will be no end to the complaining and legal maneuvering over what and what is not covered by health care until we have Medicare/Medicaid for everyone. Single payer for everyone and cut the for-profit motive out of the system. We do not have a true non-profit health care system even in the M’care/M’caid system now. It is run by contractors who are paid by the government. The difference between what the government pays them and what they can deny patients is all profit. At the moment it is a crazy quilt, with some of the third party carriers easier for health care providers to deal with than others.
There should also be no such thing as “out of network,” unless the doctor or clinic has been convicted of fraud or incompetent care. If the provider is willing to accept the payment schedule, then the patient should be able to see their provider of choice.
OS wrote: “There will be no end to the complaining and legal maneuvering over what and what is not covered by health care until we have Medicare/Medicaid for everyone. Single payer for everyone and cut the for-profit motive out of the system. ”
I don’t think that is going to work either. People like me don’t want the government involved at all in our health choices. The closest you might come to compromise is a public option that people can choose to sign up for or choose not to sign up. Let there be a public option that removes all profit motives from healthcare, and let it compete with the existing healthcare system. Ideally it would be best to let that public option exist at the State and local level, with emphasis on the county, but at this point, that would never happen.
Otteray Scribe – We are human beings and we all make mistakes – I doubt that there is a physician on the planet that has not misdiagnosed or misprescribed a drug or remedy. Perhaps that is why it is called a practice, as they do in law. One of the things the free market does is weed out those the patients or their families believe are incompetent as they are the ones who choose who are preferred. This is also true for the pharmacist as well.
Just like with my job as an appraiser. I was involved in over 4,000 appraisals and to think that I did not make any significant mistakes would be stupid. What I can say is that none of them were malicious or done on purpose nor did I ever take a gift or money to push a value.
The banksters and politicians have basically destroyed the appraisal industry, trying to regulate it. Cronyism is rampant and the banks discriminate against many decent appraisers using various methods. I think that it would be safe to say that we have lost well over 50% of the residential and commercial real estate appraisers in the country and they are not easy licenses to get. Minimum of two years experience under the training, supervision and liability of a licensed appraiser. Interesting that the licensing programs do not teach you how to appraise, so you must acquire that from the industry.
Judging medical practitioners as to who is competent or not, will also exclude many who practice alternative medicines, as the allopathic community and government does today, despite the evidence available from around the world.
These are just two of the many contraindications of socialized medicine and their are many more that will surface as the system matures.
The question is will the contraindications of the system, negate the very intentions of it’s proponents???
**Tony C. 1, January 3, 2014 at 3:05 pm
I said I would be willing to close the borders in return for a liberal immigration policy.
**
I don’t want to close the borders in case someone needs/wants to leave.
And I also do not want to adopt the Native American’s immigration policy.
I would like to see the Mexican people be successful in taken back the nation from the corrupt globalist bank/insur trash.
And if the US needs foreign workers companies should be force to pay them much higher wages then US citizens. 50% more, 2X, 3X?
That way if there’s a legitimate need for workers they’ll pay up, if not they’ll hire Americans.
But with Obama’s govt with a current 6% approval rating from the American people I strongly doubt anything positive can happen at this point.
Don’t worry about the toxins from the Gulf of Mexico, Jap/GE Nuke Mess, Agent Orange is coming back to finish you off slow like my ole long gone friend Hank.
You know, 1st couple days back to work, the govt/corporate fascist setting around asking themselves what kind new & colorful ways can injure the gen pop.
I know, lets bring back Agent Orange it so much fun in Nam after all. (sarc off lol)
** USDA report opens door to seeds modified to resist herbicide used as Agent Orange ingredient
16 minutes ago
MTI’s 6,100 Pip Pivot Prediction
Get inside the mind of a Forex analyst to see exactly what he sees and learn how he approaches large trading opportunities. To learn how you can take advantage of this HUGE trading opportunity, register and attend this free webinar.
Click Here!
By M.L. JOHNSON
(AP:MILWAUKEE) MILWAUKEE (AP) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture opened the door Friday to commercial sales of corn and soybean seeds genetically engineered to resist the weed killer 2,4-D, which is best known as an ingredient in the Vietnam War-era herbicide Agent Orange.
The U.S. military stopped using Agent Orange in 1971, and it has not been produced since the 1970s. Scientists don’t believe 2,4-D, which is legal and commonly used by gardeners and some farmers, was responsible for the health problems linked to Agent Orange.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published a draft environmental impact statement Friday as part of the process for potential deregulation of the seeds, which can now be used only in tightly controlled field trials. Deregulation would allow commercial development of the seeds and presumably lead to greater use of the herbicide.
The USDA has oversight over the seeds, not the herbicide.
The public has 45 days to comment on its report. The Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a separate review of 2,4-D, although it previously found it safe to use.
Some corn and soybean farmers have eagerly anticipated a next generation of herbicide-resistant seeds as weeds immune to Monsanto’s Roundup, known generically as glyphosate, become more common. Most corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered, usually with the Roundup resistant trait.
But some scientists and environmentalists regard the development with alarm, noting 2,4-D can easily drift beyond the area where it is sprayed, threatening neighboring crops and wild plants.
The USDA’s plant inspection agency found the greatest risk from the seeds, developed by Dow AgroSciences, was that increased use of the herbicide could hasten the evolution of weeds resistant to it. But it said resistance was inevitable because 2,4-D, sold by Dow AgroSciences and other companies, is the third most-used weed killer in the nation.
The herbicide has had limited use in corn and soybean farming because it becomes toxic to the plants early in their growth. The new seeds would allow farmers to use 2,4-D throughout the plants’ lives.
The EPA will look at the impact of expanded use of 2,4-D in a report expected to be released for public comment in the coming months. The EPA and APHIS are expected to make final decisions simultaneously on use of the chemical and seeds. That could happen in the spring or early summer.
Dow AgroSciences has asked APHIS to deregulate one variety of corn and two varieties of soybeans. Both soybean varieties resist 2,4-D, but they differ in their immunities to other herbicides. All three seeds have immunity to multiple weed killers.
APHIS said farmers could help deter the development of 2,4-D resistance by using a variety of means to fight weeds and not relying solely on it.
Scientists do not believe 2,4-D was responsible for the health problems in Vietnam veterans that have been linked to Agent Orange. Instead, they have focused on dioxin, a cancer-causing contaminant found in another ingredient known as 2,4,5-T. EPA banned 2,4,5-T in 1985.
**
Skip: They come here to work. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country are working for sub-minimum wage. Many are migrant workers doing farm labor, some are doing janitorial work, piece work for companies, etc.
This is something else I have seen first hand. It works like this: A company hires a legitimate American company to do their janitorial work. The rate for that worked out to less than minimum wage, for the work involved, but it was a flat rate without hours mentioned.
The owner of that company was a legal immigrant that spoke fluent Spanish, and he hired illegal immigrants, paying them cash for the day (working out to much less than minimum wage) to do the janitorial work for the entire building under his supervision. The hiring company never paid an illegal (wink wink) to do any work, and the owner of the janitorial company never kept any records of who worked or for how long. Regardless, any problem with using undocumented workers was on him. Good luck proving anything.
A similar scheme works for landscaping work.
And for stuffing envelopes, by direct mailers, something I saw about a decade ago. A legitimate contractor give a flat rate for stuffing 50,000 envelopes, takes the material away in his truck and brings it back finished. How? He’s using illegal immigrants and sub-minimum wage Americans, mostly women working out of their living rooms, that he personally knows via word-of-mouth in the hood. As far as the bulk mailer is concerned, he doesn’t care, and is careful not to know. He pays a legitimate company, and even though he knows it costs half as much as what he could hire to get it done himself, HE isn’t going to get caught breaking any laws. I am sure he would pretend to be shocked, shocked, to learn undocumented workers were involved. Shocked!
Skip: Is this how you roll now, just lie about anything?
I said I would be willing to close the borders in return for a liberal immigration policy.
Tony C. That’s not a lie. That’s just making fun of you for wanting to tell people where they can or cannot live. Since I am in favor of open boarders, the thought of spending money to line people up along the borders to stop short darker people, many who speak Spanglish, from living where they want seems just wrong. We are a nation of immigrants. I’m here first, so everyone else must wait in line for the “privilege” that was a liberty for me.
Skip wrote: “That’s just making fun of you for wanting to tell people where they can or cannot live. Since I am in favor of open boarders, the thought of spending money to line people up along the borders to stop short darker people, many who speak Spanglish, from living where they want seems just wrong. We are a nation of immigrants. I’m here first, so everyone else must wait in line for the “privilege” that was a liberty for me.”
I understand what you are saying here, but if half of Congress thinks like you do, then nothing gets done to fix immigration. What Tony C proposed was the kind of leading that we need in Congress. He is willing to say okay to secure borders in exchange for a healthy immigration policy. The problem in Congress is that the dialogue gets shut down because one side refuses to hear the other side. One side ridicules the other for talking about Secure Borders, but that is an issue for some Representatives. If only we could all treat each other with respect and work on the immigration issues in a holistic way.
Bron says: and they could not be seen at the emergency room.
I do not believe in letting people die, or starve, or become crippled, over money. I find that repellent. As does most of the rest of the country.
Tony C wrote: “I do not believe in letting people die, or starve, or become crippled, over money. I find that repellent. As does most of the rest of the country.”
Yup. Hey, we are agreeing on a lot today. I like it!
Have you ever seen immigration policies work? Some counties try to keep people from leaving and some countries try to keep people from coming in. Neither seem to work well.
Oky1/DavidM/Skip/Tony C:
I am in favor of open immigration, the more people the better. More people means a bigger market. The only stipulation I would place would be they could not get government handouts for 30 years and they could not be seen at the emergency room. Plus they would have to be screened for contagious diseases and would have to have at least $20,000 to be able to subsist or have a relative who could take care of them until they found a job.
Individuals who were so inclined could set up charities to fund new immigrants for the first few months or year and act as a guardian so to speak.
Bron, If you did not give them handouts, why on Gods green earth would most people come here for? Except for the few who are really escaping political terrorism or professionals seeking higher wages?
Let people live where they want and stop all the welfare to all but the truly needy.
There are a number of articles claiming that people are actually leaving here and going back to their native lands. I know of two Romanians, husband and wife, who are doing this. I have the contract on their house, pending.
Skip wrote: “If you did not give them handouts, why on Gods green earth would most people come here for?”
I think many Mexicans come over for the opportunity to work. There is more opportunity for them to work and earn more money here than in Mexico.
Someday someone will put together the (near) complete list of the tyranny we currently live under today.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-32
**California Supreme Court grants law license to man who has lived in US illegally for 20 years
10 minutes ago**
** By JASON DEAREN
(AP:SAN FRANCISCO) SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court granted a law license Thursday to a man who has lived in the U.S. illegally for two decades, **
The AP’s headline & 1st sentence claims the man was illegal.
Looks like I was suckered in by some Obama/Demo hog slop propaganda.
Because we know nation wide Obama/Demos are doing everything they can to illegally aid the illegals to vote.
ie: Giving illegals drivers licenses.
The real narrative of the new year is Obama/Biden/Holder’s Impeachment hearings.
DavidM says: Both sides are intransigent,
I don’t find that a useful characterization, since the word carries pejorative connotation.
What if I am intransigent because I refuse to pass a racist agenda, or laws that I think violates human or Constitutional Rights, or tear families apart?
I think the Republicans are engaging in racism and protectionism on behalf of a Tea Party base that still scares them.
For what its worth, I would have no problem closing the borders tight as a drum in return for liberal immigration reform. Post a (federal government employee) guard every half mile, 24/7. I am quite serious about that, it would be a good jobs program for us. I would be okay with a physical fence in addition to that. I am not okay with the use of lethal force unless fired upon, and I would have more details, but basically I think the border SHOULD be closed very tight. Right now, I think a terrorist could transport just about anything they want across the Canadian border or one of our shores with a virtually 100% chance of success.
Tony C. Figures. Now you want to tell people where and where they cannot live. The Constitution say to regulate, not prohibit naturalization.
Tony C wrote: “What if I am intransigent because I refuse to pass a racist agenda, or laws that I think violates human or Constitutional Rights, or tear families apart?”
Everybody thinks they have a good reason when they are intransigent. When we demonize people for it, it only makes the intransigence stronger.
Tony C wrote: “I think the Republicans are engaging in racism and protectionism on behalf of a Tea Party base that still scares them.”
I have no idea how to even process this sentence. I don’t see any racism at all.
Tony C wrote: “For what its worth, I would have no problem closing the borders tight as a drum in return for liberal immigration reform. Post a (federal government employee) guard every half mile, 24/7. I am quite serious about that, it would be a good jobs program for us. I would be okay with a physical fence in addition to that. I am not okay with the use of lethal force unless fired upon, and I would have more details, but basically I think the border SHOULD be closed very tight. Right now, I think a terrorist could transport just about anything they want across the Canadian border or one of our shores with a virtually 100% chance of success.”
Holy Smokes! You sound like a Republican here. You are more right wing on immigration than I am.
Let me tell you, if all the Democrats approached the Republicans with this kind of attitude, I think Congress could actually succeed with immigration reform. I wish the President would adopt this attitude and rally the Democrats and Republicans to reform immigration.
Personally, I don’t care about borders at all, but it grieves me to meet so many people in a similar situation like this Sergio Garcia. We must find a way to incorporate them into society with a path to citizenship. I’m not afraid of the Amnesty word either. So many Republicans criticize Reagan for Amnesty, but I think we need more Republicans like Reagan to create a more comprehensive immigration reform law. If we could get Democrats to accept secure borders in the manner you just did, and Republicans to accept the word Amnesty in connection with secure borders, that would go a long way toward accomplishing immigration reform.
David,
Just remember what is moral to some is amoral to others….
AY: Actually sometime shortly after their September 2013 oral arguments and I think it took effect Jan 1, 2014; two days ago.
DavidM says: The law allows only a certain number, and his number hasn’t come up yet.
Which is true, and I will point out, is a form of protectionism and government interference in the labor market, by the supposedly “free market” Republicans that roadblock immigration reform at every turn.
Tony C wrote: “I will point out, is a form of protectionism and government interference in the labor market, by the supposedly “free market” Republicans that roadblock immigration reform at every turn.”
Yes, but Republicans are not alone in regards to the roadblock. I personally would favor open borders to fixing immigration, but most of my Republican colleagues would not. However, if Democrats would accept the principle of secure borders, then some form of immigration form could probably be done. Both sides are intransigent, so what to do?
If I was elected to Congress, immigration is the single big issue I would push through at all costs. I would talk to all sides, figure out the problems and areas of compromise, and then fix it. It seems nobody has enough will power to push through a fix. They keep trying, but the reforms are not comprehensive enough and not enough real work is done so the effort dies.
Tony…. I think just last year the governor of California signed legislation that answered the question for the California Sct ….. They had the authority to admit him to the bar…..
Skip: Or perhaps you want some new law passed to prevent instances like this?
Because if you do, you are no different than those of us you vilify, because that is what we want, laws passed to prevent what we see as injustices visited upon workers, investors, citizens and the environment. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Skip says: How can an Officer of the Court be an illegal alien? If so a slick way to get around the law.
You have missed the point entirely; in their review of the law, the California Supreme Court [CSC] finds no law at the Federal or State level that prohibits a non-citizen, legal or not, from being licensed to practice law in California. He isn’t getting around the law, there is no law on the books to circumvent!
You might believe this is something that should be corrected, but do not characterize it as circumventing law that does not exist. The CSC followed the law as written. Are you arguing that courts should not obey the law as written?
Oky1: ( I guess I’m a racist for even bring it up.)
Not necessarily, perhaps just a resentful, petty or jealous person that has to blame others for their own lack of progress or achievement. I fail to see how not being a citizen should prevent one from either attending college, taking the bar, or being given a law license. Thousands of foreign students attend my university and graduate with degrees every year, without being citizens.
Garcia was a minor when brought to the country by his parents. He applied for a visa upon becoming an adult and his status has been “Pending” for 19 years, which is what he has listed on forms for school and employment.
As a minor brought to the country by his parents, I fail to see how he committed any crime by entering the country; but that is just my opinion.
The opinion of the court is that after a thorough review of federal and state law, they find no provision that prohibits such licensing, and therefore they ruled in Garcia’s favor. Particularly since, in response to their first arguments in September of 2013, the California state legislature and governor signed into a law a bill clarifying the only ambiguity the Court had found, in Garcia’s favor.
Isn’t that how we want it, as citizens?
If there is no law against it, we can do it?
The ruling is pretty detailed.
Isn’t a BAR Member an Officer of the Court?. How can an Officer of the Court be an illegal alien? If so a slick way to get around the law. They must have thought that he was such a good sociopath, that is was worth getting him into the BAR even though it thwarts immigration policy. I’m not big on immigration policy as I find it difficult to force people to live places where they don’t want to, where they are bad living conditions or where there are so many fascists that they make it intolerable for many to live .
Skip wrote: “How can an Officer of the Court be an illegal alien?”
In this particular case, he is not really “illegal” because his visa is pending. He has been waiting 19 years to become a legal resident. His parents are already legal residents. The reason the federal government has been so negligent in processing his application to be “legal” is because of our broken immigration laws. The law allows only a certain number, and his number hasn’t come up yet. It is like sitting in a chair at driver’s license office waiting for them to call you up, but instead of waiting minutes you have to wait 19 years.
Being in Florida, I’ve heard a lot of stories of a similar nature.
Tony C wrote: “Garcia was a minor when brought to the country by his parents. He applied for a visa upon becoming an adult and his status has been “Pending” for 19 years, which is what he has listed on forms for school and employment. As a minor brought to the country by his parents, I fail to see how he committed any crime by entering the country; but that is just my opinion.”
I agree with you here, Tony. Cases like this one reveals how broken our immigration laws are. I don’t understand why Congress does not come together to fix this broken problem. They need to make the path of citizenship easier, and being here already should be plus not a minus for those desiring to become citizens.
I’m glad the State of California looked past the negligence of the federal government and accepted him.
Now on the other hand if you’re serial felony foreigner, well just come on in & they’ll help you set up shop.
Never mind that Equal Protection stuff. (wink)
( I guess I’m a racist for even bring it up.)
**California Supreme Court grants law license to man who has lived in US illegally for 20 years
10 minutes ago**
** By JASON DEAREN
(AP:SAN FRANCISCO) SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court granted a law license Thursday to a man who has lived in the U.S. illegally for two decades, a ruling that advocates hope will open the door to millions of immigrants seeking to enter other professions such as medicine, accounting and teaching.
The unanimous decision means Sergio Garcia, who attended law school and passed the state bar exam while working in a grocery store and on farms, can begin practicing law immediately.
It’s the latest in a string of legal and legislative victories for people who are in the country without permission. Other successes include the creation of a path to citizenship for many young people and the granting of drivers licenses in some states.**
I had to change this other line:
“This is a bright new day …. and bodes well for the total destruction of America’s future,
In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is … America?
http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008
Bron,
I may have went a little to Galt for GeneH’s taste? lol
They don’t like me doing business here, fine, I’ll take overseas.
They want to look for Al qaeda in my families underwear at the airport, fine, I won’t buy the seats on the plane or stay in the hotels.
They want to lower the legal limit to looking at a beer cap, fine, I won’t go into their hotel/restaurant bar.
They don’t want me on their highway, fine, I’ll stay off it the best I can.
I think I’m far from the only one that knows they’re just Phk’in with us.