Law Civil Asset Forfeiture CANCELLED

[SmilinDesperado]

He solved perhaps the worst diplomatic problem in the world between DPRK and ROK. Those are pretty good negotiation skills mate.

Lol No, he did not.
I dont know why Americans keep trying to give him credit for that. You guys know that there is a South Korea, right? What do you think their role in this has been?

Trump was doing the exact opposite. Are we forgetting the "little rocket man" and "my button is bigger than yours" "fire and fury" tweets from Trump?

The SK Moon Jae In government had been working to get better relations with North Korea. It has been heavily criticized by citizens here (I'm in the ROK) because people think they are going way too far to appease the North. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with that. This was President Moon and Jong Un wanting to get it done. Trump just tagged along in the end and acted like he did all the work.
Any deal that NK and SK workout is going to have to involve the US because of the military situation, but it's SK that's been putting in the work on this. It would have never happened without Moon and Un

 

[Quipling]

It feels like they're drawing a bold line here. The depreciated value of a Range Rover is somewhat comparable to the value of $10,000 (it's on the same side of the same order of magnitude, at least). I haven't read deeply but that stands out as interesting & good.

The biggest issue was really the Indiana Supreme Court's idiotic claim that the excessive fines clause doesn't apply to the state application of civil forfeiture. The finding that this was excessive already existed, so Scotus didn't actually have to hold that the range rover was itself excessive.

Sounds like a great day for the Constitution and civil rights. What I don't see is how this curtails the practice of taking property and the owner being forced to prove something in order to have it returned.

True. But that's some low-hanging fruit that's being allowed to rot on the vine.

It doesn't, but that wasn't presented to the court and they did not consider it.

 

[Fawlty]

The biggest issue was really the Indiana Supreme Court's idiotic claim that the excessive fines clause doesn't apply to the state application of civil forfeiture. The finding that this was excessive already existed, so Scotus didn't actually have to hold that the range rover was itself excessive.



It doesn't, but that wasn't presented to the court and they did not consider it.

Thanks.

This isn't something I've looked at much but I was under the impression from various stories of outrageous abuse that seizures were given really wide latitude.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It doesn't, but that wasn't presented to the court and they did not consider it.

Can't imagine they've lacked opportunity.

 

[waiguoren]

Thomas and Gorsuch wrote separate opinions arguing that the 8th amendment is incorporated under the privileges and immunities clause rather than the due process clause. As Gorsuch recognizes, this has no effect on this case.

What's your opinion of that alternative perspective?

 

[Quipling]

What's your opinion of that alternative perspective?

It's a meaningless quibble under most circumstances.

Can't imagine they've lacked opportunity.

Well the last major set of civil forfeiture cases were in the 90s, and these abusive applications of it are mostly within the last decade. I think Brennan predicted them but most of the other justices were unwilling to make a ruling on the basis of a speculative problem.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well the last major set of civil forfeiture cases were in the 90s, and these abusive applications of it are mostly within the last decade. I think Brennan predicted them but most of the other justices were unwilling to make a ruling on the basis of a speculative problem.

Speculative? A couple years ago, for the first time annually, governments seized more wealth than stolen by thieves.

What are the clearest boundaries set by the courts so far?

 

[RerouteToRemain]

It's a meaningless quibble under most circumstances.


Well the last major set of civil forfeiture cases were in the 90s, and these abusive applications of it are mostly within the last decade. I think Brennan predicted them but most of the other justices were unwilling to make a ruling on the basis of a speculative problem.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Speculative? A couple years ago, for the first time annually, governments seized more wealth than stolen by thieves.

What are the clearest boundaries set by the courts so far?

You had a thread on this topic correct?

There were some absolutely disgusting examples posted in there from what I remember.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

In a nutshell, civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize your property and sell it for cash based upon a minimal showing that it was acquired with proceeds from illegal activity. Police departments were abusing the process, so it needed to be reined in (if not eliminated).

Horrible!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You had a thread on this topic correct?

There were some absolutely disgusting examples posted in there from what I remember.

Yeah. I stopped updating it. Pretty sure the case in the OP got dropped. Would need to review for egregious shit that got enforced by law.

 

[Quipling]

Speculative? A couple years ago, for the first time annually, governments seized more wealth than stolen by thieves.

What are the clearest boundaries set by the courts so far?

Yes. A couple decades ago, the boom in civil forfeiture exploitation was speculative. It no longer is. His prediction has since been verified as correct but, at the time, it was speculative.

Most boundaries are set by the states.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property




I support this development. Happy to see that it was a unanimous decision. Thoughts?

Let there be love in the War Room. We can all get behind this.

 

[JamesRussler]

Let there be love in the War Room. We can all get behind this.

The next POTUS candidate should just run on opposing civil forfeiture. It may heal our partisan division.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I'm glad the ability of corrupt police departments to enrich themselves through state-sanctioned theft has been curtailed. Why?

 

[lifelessheap]

Nice job RBG!

Yes, I am also thankful for horrible laws being curbed. Thank you RBG.

 

[Arkain2K]

Nothing to disagree here. Very straight forward and Constitutional. Which means people will likely have to drag Trump into this thread to find something to argue about.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes, I am also thankful for horrible laws being curbed. Thank you RBG.

Yep. And her vote would have mattered if it was needed.

 

[Protectandserve]

Like I mentioned in various other threads, glad to see this go. So many agencies abused the shit out of it.

 

[Prokofievian]

Wow, what a rare occurrence this is. Unanimity on the SCOTUS, everyone in the WR agreeing. Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya.