SCOTUS Muzzles Police State Thievery

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bob0627, Feb 22, 2019.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    1,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Finally a SCOTUS ruling that makes all the sense in the world. Although I would argue it doesn't go far enough and should not only be based on the 8th and 14th Amendments but on the 5th and 9th as well.

    Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday to limit civil forfeiture laws that give state and local law enforcement the ability to seize property involved in crimes.

    The move was made in a ruling that states the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines” on the federal level, also applies to state and local governments.

    The case was brought to the courts by Tyson Timbs, who plead guilty to selling a couple hundred dollars worth of heroin in 2013. Timbs was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation, plus $1,200 in fees and fines.

    The police had also seized his $42,000 Land Rover, which Timbs was driving when he was arrested. Timbs argued that the loss of his car was excessive considering the maximum fine he could face was $10,000.

    In an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recently returned from undergoing surgery related to lung cancer, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on excessive fines applies to states under the 14th Amendment. The Court had previously ruled that excessive fines can include property seizure, according to the New York Times.

    “The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming,” wrote Gingsburg.

    Read the rest ...

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-limit-204022952.html

    IMO the 5th and 9th Amendments prohibit ALL civil forfeiture laws, except in cases where the property seized is stolen property or otherwise acquired illegally. In that case, the stolen property should be returned to the owner, obviously.

     
  2. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    9,020
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cool. Civil asset seizure of all kinds is of the devil.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  3. 10A

    10A Chief Deplorable Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    5,440
    Likes Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good. I don't like Justice Ginsburg, but she did good this time.
     
  4. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,815
    Likes Received:
    13,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After reading the opinion this case had nothing to do with the actual seizure of property but on whether the constitution, which is a limit on federal power, also applies to states.

    It was a constitutional issue.

    The reason the eighth amendment was the focus was because for them to side with Indiana on this they would have had to overturn two previous court rulings on similar matters.

    It is rare for the Court to reverse precedent.

    The biggest thing about this ruling was further encroachment of federal power into the tenth amendment where something not specifically listed in the Constitution now applies at a state level. I can guarantee you that if Kennedy was still on the court he would have dissented on this.
     
  5. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    105,069
    Likes Received:
    37,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree this needed to end

    if corps are people, then when a corp broke the law they gov should of been able to take it all it's assets too if the law was allowed

    "In an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg"

    another good call by RBG and the court, no one should disagree with this
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  6. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    105,069
    Likes Received:
    37,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    glad we can all agree on this one... good call by the courts
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  7. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    30,148
    Likes Received:
    13,746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    . . . whether the Constitution, which is a limit on federal SEIZURE OF PROPERTY power, also applies to State SEIZURE OF PROPERTY power. To ignore the seizure of property is to ignore the finding entirely.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    22,017
    Likes Received:
    5,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Forefeiture should only be permitted as part of sentence for a felony. Problem solved.
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,639
    Likes Received:
    12,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hot damn. Some good news.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 14th Amendment already applies the Bill of Rights to the states and has existed for more than 150 years. There is no "further encroachment" here.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Likes Received:
    1,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's good to see most if not all posters agree with this anti Police State ruling. However some of the reasoning listed in this thread is faulty IMO (as is SCOTUS's ruling).

    1. I vehemently disagree that the state has any power whatsoever to seize property for any reason other than to return it to its rightful owner or in cases where it was otherwise illegally acquired.

    2. I disagree that this is a 10th Amendment issue because every state is bound by the Constitution (in this case the Bill of Rights), the Supreme Law of the Land by the Constitution's own mandate. Each state is also bound by its own Constitution whereby a similar Bill of Rights is contained (there are no exceptions).

    3. I also disagree that this is strictly a 14th Amendment issue, it's far more than that.
     

Share This Page