Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Timbs 9 - 0 Indiana

  1. #1

    Default Timbs 9 - 0 Indiana

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vil-forfeiture

    The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 9-0 that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, written into the Eighth Amendment, applies to the states as well — a sweeping ruling that strengthens property rights and could limit controversial police seizures, such as those done through civil forfeiture, nationwide.
    It feels like this is kinda huge.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    Civil forfeiture is one of the most egregious abuses government can do. It is insane that the supreme court hasn't completely struck it down.

  3. #3
    It's always a good sign when rulings are unanimous; proving that left/right can agree on principle.

    However, this caught my eye:

    In separate opinions, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas argued that the ban on excessive fines should be incorporated through the privileges or immunities clause, which states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (Crucially, the privileges or immunities clause is specific to US citizens — not “any person,” like the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.)
    Not sure what that means practically or legally, but it looks like a loophole that might be exploited by a "Rights only extend to US citizens" mindset in the future.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Civil forfeiture is one of the most egregious abuses government can do. It is insane that the supreme court hasn't completely struck it down.
    I agree. Huge abuse of power.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's always a good sign when rulings are unanimous; proving that left/right can agree on principle.

    However, this caught my eye:



    Not sure what that means practically or legally, but it looks like a loophole that might be exploited by a "Rights only extend to US citizens" mindset in the future.
    It's a separate opinion with only two justices signed to it. It means nothing practically or legally. Some court in the future may seize on the language to provide moral support for something they'd decided to do anyway but that's about the limit of its possible impact.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •