RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: 9-0: SCOTUS Delivers Devastating Decision To State Sponsored Seizure S - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

9-0: SCOTUS Delivers Devastating Decision To State Sponsored Seizure S Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,881
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 21 February 2019 - 11:28 AM

9-0: SCOTUS Delivers Devastating Decision To State Sponsored Seizure Schemes



https://bigleaguepolitics.com
Published Feb 20, 2019
By Jose Nino






Article:


The Supreme Court has just put the clamps on states' ability to impose excessive fines and use civil asset forfeiture to seize private property.

On Wednesday February 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Eight Amendment's ban on excessive fines also applies to states. This landmark ruling bolsters property rights and could curtail controversial law enforcement seizures, especially those carried out via civil forfeiture.

In the decision, Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court sided with small time drug offender Tyson Timbs, whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement officials. Civil asset forfeiture is one of the most controversial methods used to raise revenue across the nation. However, it has garnered considerable criticism from political figures across the political spectrum.

In a previous case, Austin v. United States, the Court ruled that the Eight Amendment, which is clear about its prohibition of "excessive fines", limits the federal government's ability to seize property. Timbs v. Indiana now extends those limits to the states.

For once, Justice Ruth Ginsburg gets it right. She wrote:

"The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming."

Ginsburg drew from Anglo-American legal traditions to rule in Timbs's favor:

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties."

She also presciently noted the potential abuse that excessive fines engender:

"Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies."

If only she applied such reasoning to other cases where she has let judicial activism get the best of her…



Full Story
0

#2 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 35,172
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 21 February 2019 - 11:38 AM

View Postarticle, on 21 February 2019 - 11:28 AM, said:

For once, Justice Ruth Ginsburg's staff gets it right. She They wrote:


Not to derail the thread, but I fixed this portion of a sentence...
0

#3 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,109
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 21 February 2019 - 01:27 PM

Good to see the notorious RBG still alive and kicking.
0

#4 User is online   Bubbajoebob 

  • M dwarf stars
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 21 February 2019 - 01:53 PM

My non-lawyer take: This is a good first step. But it's based on the "excessive fines" principle, so it still allows civil asset forfeiture if the taking isn't "excessive", which allows lots of wiggle room and still lets governments take property from someone who has never been charged with a crime. Another suit needs to make it to the supreme court which argues against civil forfeiture based on due process: taking property from a citizen and forcing the person to go to court and prove the property is "innocent" certainly deprives the person of presumption of innocence and takes property without due process. It's a legal fiction to claim that by the government filing suit against the property instead of the person that the person loses the constitutional right to due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments:

The Fifth Amendment reads in part, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies a similar provision to states. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
0

#5 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,579
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:03 PM

Quote

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties."


Did the nefarious RBG just invoke white privilege? :rant:
0

#6 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,830
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:41 PM

Holy crap, this is huge.

Oki
0

#7 User is offline   USNJIMRET 

  • Rule 1:The Chief is right Rule 2:If in doubt, check Rule 1
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,181
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 21 February 2019 - 06:23 PM

View Postgravelrash, on 21 February 2019 - 03:03 PM, said:

Did the nefarious RBG just invoke white privilege? :rant:


:biglaugh:
0

#8 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,239
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 21 February 2019 - 07:57 PM

Quote

For once, Justice Ruth Ginsburg gets it right.


Perhaps her close proximity to death's door has woken her slumbering sense of right and wrong?

Nah... She's probably just confused and nobody is willing to admit it.
0

#9 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,472
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 21 February 2019 - 10:42 PM

Very good news.

Quote

Civil asset forfeiture is one of the most controversial methods used to raise revenue across the nation.

And they identified it for what it truly is instead of trying to make it sound any kind of noble.
0

#10 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 9,934
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 22 February 2019 - 01:40 AM

View PostBubbajoebob, on 21 February 2019 - 01:53 PM, said:

My non-lawyer take: This is a good first step. But it's based on the "excessive fines" principle, so it still allows civil asset forfeiture if the taking isn't "excessive", which allows lots of wiggle room and still lets governments take property from someone who has never been charged with a crime. Another suit needs to make it to the supreme court which argues against civil forfeiture based on due process: taking property from a citizen and forcing the person to go to court and prove the property is "innocent" certainly deprives the person of presumption of innocence and takes property without due process. It's a legal fiction to claim that by the government filing suit against the property instead of the person that the person loses the constitutional right to due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments:

The Fifth Amendment reads in part, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies a similar provision to states. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

I agree completely.

I don't know how anyone could think that shifting the burden of proof onto the accused to prove their innocence for them to get their property or belongings back is remotely morally or legally acceptable.

It is incredible that we even have to have this conversation.
0

#11 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,239
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 22 February 2019 - 01:41 AM

View PostTimothy, on 22 February 2019 - 01:40 AM, said:

I agree completely.

I don't know how anyone could think that shifting the burden of proof onto the accused to prove their innocence for them to get their property or belongings back is remotely morally or legally acceptable.

It is incredible that we even have to have this conversation.


I feel the same way about American sovereignty.
0

#12 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 55,756
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 22 February 2019 - 01:46 AM

View PostTimothy, on 22 February 2019 - 01:40 AM, said:

I agree completely.

I don't know how anyone could think that shifting the burden of proof onto the accused to prove their innocence for them to get their property or belongings back is remotely morally or legally acceptable.

It is incredible that we even have to have this conversation.


Who are you, and what have you done with the real Timothy?

:coolshades:
0

#13 User is offline   DJGoody 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 07-June 16

Posted 22 February 2019 - 07:34 AM

View PostTimothy, on 22 February 2019 - 01:40 AM, said:

I agree completely.

I don't know how anyone could think that shifting the burden of proof onto the accused to prove their innocence for them to get their property or belongings back is remotely morally or legally acceptable.

It is incredible that we even have to have this conversation.



To me this is no different than shutting down organized crime. A shake down with no recourse. I am with you. I can't believe it took this long.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users