|

California passes bill to let non-citizens serve on juries!

The California legislature passed a bill this week that would make the state the first of many blue states in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

The government lets non-citizens serve in the military. It’s simply a small step to no doubt justify voting by non-citizens in the near future. Who needs a comprehensive immigration law, when we have California politicians? Is the U.S. Constitution used in California anymore – anywhere?

Have non-citizens studied the laws of the land or taken a civics course in high school? Are there any standards for jurors to be capable of interpreting the judge’s instructions to the jury? Are there any standards for anything in California?

Excerpt:

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat – Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced – voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge.

It’s good to know that there are minimal restrictions in California  to be a juror. As far as comparing the citizenship of a juror to California judges, the California judge’s decisions have been reversed by the U.S. Appellate and Supreme Courts so many times the state should cease trying cases and just let the verdict go directly to the upper courts. That would take care of any juror shortage.

Excerpt:

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

“Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding,” Harkey said before the vote. “I hope we can focus on that. Let’s not break something; it’s not broken now. Let’s not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There’s a reason for it.”

In California the reason is probably that being a juror is simply another job that most Americans won’t do, so let non-citizens take that job, too!

How many appeals do you think will result from this law, after a defendant is found guilty, not by a lawful judgment of his peers, but a jury that includes non-citizens of the United States?

Another overturned California ruling anyone?

 

Share:

21 Comments

  1. They already get welfare benefits, why not let them serve on juries? (sarc/off)

  2. Brian Opsahl

    Big word on this is….Legally in this Country….whats the big deal…?

  3. Soooooo. . . Ted, you’re OK with them fighting and dying for the US in our military, but serving on a jury is bad? Ummmm. . . why?

    • Ted Biondo

      monkey – they should do neither. They are not citizens of America.

  4. Brian Opsahl

    Corparations get welfare ….and you have never complained about them…so..?

    • Ted Biondo

      Brian, on Jan 25, 2013 I wrote – Also, I’m just as much against corporate welfare as the regular kind – both take taxpayers earnings to give to others that have not earned the money.

      On July 17 2012 I wrote – I”m with you both Brian and wilson. I’ve posted many times about corporate welfare subsidies, etc. We need to stop most permanent subsidies for corporations. If the business can’t make it in the free enterprise system – then their service or product must not be wanted by the consumers.

      On July 1, 2012 I wrote – I don’t favor home deduction, primarily because it is social engineering and so are farm subsidies, solar power and wind power and oil subsidies. Let the market work – if the business doesn’t get the demand compared to the supply, it needsto go bankrupt. Corporate welfare is worse to me. Temporary welfare to get someone back on their feet is Ok too – but not as a permanent way of life like it is today – a permanent subsidy!

      On July 20, 2012 – Also the people who will lose their jobs when the corporate welfare or corporate socialism, if you prefer, is abolished. I abhor corporate welfare – I should have mentioned that in the post.

      Subsidies for oil, large industrialized farms, and so-called alternative energy industries, that couldn’t even begin to survive in a free market, because they are so inefficient and do little to replace existing energy sources, should be abolished.

      The American socialist-lite government should get out of all of these subsidies and let the free-enterprise system work. These socialized and corporate handouts need to be reduced to only those areas that produce results and further decrease our need for more government!

      March 8, 2011 – I wrote – I’ll answer your question Walnut. It’s simple in a FREE Capitalistic society, there can be no limit on sales and profit by the government. If the price is too high you buy somewhere else. It’s not up to the government to determine either price or profit!

      It also should not be up to government, at least the federal government, to give corporate welfare from our tax dollars to the company or their shareholders. Letting them keep some of their own profit, however, is not giving them money either.

      On March 27, 2011, I wrote – Dude – I don’t think anyone should be funded by the government. Corporate welfare is just as wrong as giveaways to everyone else. It’s not the government’s job to be anybody’s nanny.

      On Feb. 5, 2011, I wrote – And there is corporate welfare just as there is welfare for individuals with the government using our tax dollars to do their bidding.

      That’s enough; I think you get the idea of my thoughts on corporate welfare and I have publically expressed that I am against it many times as you can see.

  5. Brian Opsahl

    My comment was at Nuss….sorry …and after seeing all those text it looks as though you have said several times..we agree on something today..Ted

  6. Thanks for the response, Ted. I agree with you on this one. Have never understood why we allow non-citizens in the military. I also agree in the story with the Repub who said that basically this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Doesn’t seem like most areas have issues filling jury pools. It’s an odd piece of legislation.

  7. Speaking of California
    Naturally: California awards billion-dollar high speed rail contract to firm partly owned by Dianne Feinstein’s husband
    http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/27/firm-dianne-feinstein-husband/

  8. If a LEGAL immigrant is willing to join our military, and serve honorably, I see no reason not to fast-track their application for citizenship. Once they become a citizen, THEN they can serve on juries, vote, run for office, etc..

  9. Brian Opsahl

    Wasn’t Chenneys company Haliburton….and didn’t they get several no-bid contracts that cost us taxpayers millions in bloted fee’s ….hhhmmm ?

  10. Brian Opsahl

    Republicans love to complain about illegales,but if they were not hiring them to re-place American workers in the first place we would not have very many here,those low paying jobs that they get hired for is why they are here. isnt this like the pot calling the kettle black….so to speak…?

  11. Brian, why don’t we send all the illegal aliens overseas, to do Halliburton’s work? That way, we solve two problems at once.

  12. Brian, just like the Obama administration is giving Haliburton no bid contracts? You Libs are such hypocrites
    OOPS! Brian it appears that Mitt isn’t the only one, but it is OK becasue they are Democrats right?
    The parent company of a “green” car venture with ties to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leader Terry McAuliffe is incorporated in the tax shelter country of the British Virgin Islands,
    http://watchdog.org/81836/mcauliffe-car-co-parent-in-off-shore-tax-shelter/

  13. truth hurts

    Id like to say this supprises me. But it does not.

    Unfortunately it is not just a CA brand of insanity and illegality.

    We have our own version with 50% of kids getting kidscare are illegal aliens/lawbreakers (per article in RRSTAR last year).

    Also don’t forget now giving illegal aliens/LAWBREAKERS drivers licences.

    Be it CA or IL illegal is still illegal

  14. truth hurts

    Brian I have an idea.

    Maybe we would not have lawbreakers (oops I mean illegals to be nice to liberals) taking those “low wage jobs no american wants to do” if we would STOP paying welfare to those who can work BUT CHOOSE NOT TO due to the “compassionate handouts” that have no end.

    Just an idea

  15. Brian Opsahl

    Where is your passion for all those Corporate welfare recievers….Mr.Truth and your pandering to who with your insults sir.

    Stereotyping people and judging folk’s is not nice and i’m not going there. drive on out to blackhawk island and tell me how great those folks are living you jerk.

  16. truth hurts

    Ah Brian I see you used two of the liberal tactics on my comments.

    Tactic one name call. Standard and never goes unused.

    Tactic two do not directly address the points the person you attack made.

    I pointed out that like CA we have programs and laws that allow illegal alien (aka LAWBREAKERS) to do or get things that is just as wrong.

    In no way did you address this as an adult or even tell how that those two examples are not wrong or justifiable. Probably due to the fact you cannot.

    Tactic three. Muddy the waters with issues that have ZERO relavance to the origional topic at hand.

    To refresh your memory it was how CA is allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to serve on juries.

    I am baffled how this applies to corporate welfare or the residence of blackhawk island.

    Just to entertain you brian I have never been nor ever supported corporate welfare. If you have PROOF of this then bring it. Other than that you are just throwing bull and hope it sticks. Epic fail

    As for the people living on blackhawk island do you REALLY want to go there?

    Seems the RRSTAR put out articles over the years how most of them not only did not want to leave, did not want a buyout to move (and put it back to wetlands), but also statistics how more than a minority of them are involved in illegal activites.

    Not saying there are not good people there or maybe a FEW have no choice.

    Lastly brian maybe if WE WERE NOT SPENDING SO MUCH ON ILLEGALS there WOULD BE MORE FOR THEM.

    But hey dont let things like FACTS get in the way of your rant.

  17. JRM_CommonSense

    Just for the record Brian, those people living on Blackhawk Island choose to live there. No one is forcing them to be there. In fact there have been quite a few attempts to buy them off of the island to save all kinds of public money spent each year when they become “flood victums”. The island residents have rebuffed the offers because they were not good enough offers. According to them, their “flood prone” homes are worth 10 to 20 times more than they are being offered to them.

  18. truth hurts

    JRM you and I agree on something (the crack about blackhawk island).

    Nice to be on the same side on something.

  19. JRM_CommonSense

    It would happen more often, truth hurts, if you really looked closely at what I am writing rather than quickly assuming that you know what I mean. Read, don’t interpret. Words to live by. We are not nearly as far apart as you think. I have told you that before, but you seem to refuse to believe that I am a moderate conservative and have been a Republican a very long time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *