Supreme Court cracks down on civil asset forfeiture

[_Xenu_]

This is long past due. The ruling was unanimous with no dissenting votes.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/scotus-cracks-down-on-civil-asset-forfeiture/

[Unbeliever]

Indeed, it is good news! I wonder how local and state governments will fund their gestapos now?

[Cavebear]

This is long past due. The ruling was unanimous with no dissenting votes.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/scotus-cracks-down-on-civil-asset-forfeiture/

Hurray!!!  A rational thought that property fines could be a useful way to combat criminals had gotten WAY out of line.  I'm pleased to see this judgement.  The concept still makes sense, but has to be restricted.

[_Xenu_]

The truth is, very few things make as many people's blood boil across party lines like civil asset forfeiture. Did they really think this tyranny would be allowed forever?

[Cavebear]

The truth is, very few things make as many people's blood boil across party lines like civil asset forfeiture. Did they really think this tyranny would be allowed forever?

When it comes to crimminally ill-gotten gains, it makes sense.  But when you have a parent losing a house because their kid got caught a joint in it, that's out of range... 

[_Xenu_]

When it comes to crimminally ill-gotten gains, it makes sense.  But when you have a parent losing a house because their kid got caught a joint in it, that's out of range... 

Right. I have nothing against the idea of fines, they just need to be proportionate.

But his goes well beyond that. Police shouldn't just be allowed to steal anything they can remotely connect to a crime, that they don't even have to prove in a court of law, then use the money to pad their own budgets. The entire practice is corrupt and beyond dispicable.

[Cavebear]

Right. I have nothing against the idea of fines, they just need to be proportionate.

But his goes well beyond that. Police shouldn't just be allowed to steal anything they can remotely connect to a crime, that they don't even have to prove in a court of law, then use the money to pad their own budgets. The entire practice is corrupt and beyond dispicable.

No argument there. 

[Baruch]

The truth is, very few things make as many people's blood boil across party lines like civil asset forfeiture. Did they really think this tyranny would be allowed forever?

Yes.  The government has been bankrupt since at least 1971 ... we need all your assets and income.

[Baruch]

When it comes to crimminally ill-gotten gains, it makes sense.  But when you have a parent losing a house because their kid got caught a joint in it, that's out of range...

Everything since Jamestown?

[Baruch]

Right. I have nothing against the idea of fines, they just need to be proportionate.

But his goes well beyond that. Police shouldn't just be allowed to steal anything they can remotely connect to a crime, that they don't even have to prove in a court of law, then use the money to pad their own budgets. The entire practice is corrupt and beyond dispicable.

Most police pensions are bankrupt.  They are worried enough ... to come for you.

The Roberts SCOTUS says, per ACA, that fines are taxes, and the Constitution puts no limits on taxes.  So you are totally wrong.

[Unbeliever]

The truth is, very few things make as many people's blood boil across party lines like civil asset forfeiture. Did they really think this tyranny would be allowed forever?

I suspect that's exactly what they thought. If not, they figured they'd get while the getting was good.

[Cavebear]

I suspect that's exactly what they thought. If not, they figured they'd get while the getting was good.

Part of the problem is that local governments, starved for funds, were offerred this source of quasi-legal revenue by legislators who expect that the people they assume culturally to be "criminals from birth to death" would be hardest or entirely hit by this scam.  It is easy to say that mafia or drug lords would be harmed so people would agree, while knowing that "the little folk" (whatever their definition be) would be the main targets. 

There are mean people in this world, and they like to hurt those they don't like.  Think of those people in High School and then think of them in Government.  That's what happens when you play "follow the leader" in elections.  High School all over again. 

[Baruch]

Part of the problem is that local governments, starved for funds, were offerred this source of quasi-legal revenue by legislators who expect that the people they assume culturally to be "criminals from birth to death" would be hardest or entirely hit by this scam.  It is easy to say that mafia or drug lords would be harmed so people would agree, while knowing that "the little folk" (whatever their definition be) would be the main targets. 

There are mean people in this world, and they like to hurt those they don't like.  Think of those people in High School and then think of them in Government.  That's what happens when you play "follow the leader" in elections.  High School all over again.

Correct.  Feds both corrupt and discipline local government.  It is traditional to help your friends and harm your enemies.  It is something exceptional, like Jesus ... who differs.  Which is why the Church doesn't follow him.

[Cavebear]

Correct.  Feds both corrupt and discipline local government.  It is traditional to help your friends and harm your enemies.  It is something exceptional, like Jesus ... who differs.  Which is why the Church doesn't follow him.

Ah "TRADITION".  Yeah, and that's what progressives fight against through history.  And that is why most of us are not serfs or slaves. and live past 40.

[Baruch]

Ah "TRADITION".  Yeah, and that's what progressives fight against through history.  And that is why most of us are not serfs or slaves. and live past 40.

You are a serf, a slave ... to the US.  Your progressivism is just Americanism (death to all non-Americans).  It is debatable to me at this point, if living past 40 was really worth it.