Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

  1. #1

    Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

    Wow. Unanimous. Pretty solid win.

    States are bound by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and fees when they seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday.

    It's a decision that hands a major victory to critics of civil asset forfeiture, and it opens another avenue to legal challenges against that widely used (and often abused) practice by which states and local governments can seize cars, cash, homes, and pretty much anything else that is suspected of being used to commit a crime.

    The case before the Supreme Court, Timbs v. Indiana, involved the seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover SUV from Tyson Timbs, who was arrested in 2015 for selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation. On top of that, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover—which he had purchased with money received from his late father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales—on the ground that it had been used to commit a crime.

    Timbs challenged that seizure, arguing that taking his vehicle amounted to an additional fine on top of the sentence he had already received. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected that argument, solely because the U.S. Supreme Court had never explicitly stated that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states.

    On Wednesday, the high court did exactly that.

    "For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies," she wrote, or can become sources of revenue disconnected from the criminal justice system.
    https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/20/s...GHRavUcYcwDQys

    Now for the next question. Are States bound by the Second?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Now for the next question. Are States bound by the Second?
    Yes. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Yes. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
    Then it seems to me certain laws such as concealed carry, banning of large capacity magazines, etc. could be challenged using this ruling as a guideline.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Then it seems to me certain laws such as concealed carry, banning of large capacity magazines, etc. could be challenged using this ruling as a guideline.
    They have been.

    In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.

    In Moore v. Madigan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling in December 2012 that required the Illinois Legislature to modify existing State law to adopt a concealed carry law to allow the denizens of Illinois the right to bear arms outside of the home. In February 2013, the entire Court of Appeals decided to let stand the December 2012 decision of a three-judge panel. Following a final 30-day extension, Illinois was required by the court to draft a concealed carry law by July 9, 2013. In the end, the legislature overrode a veto of the governor and approved Illinois concealed carry to begin January 2014, at the latest.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDona...ity_of_Chicago
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  6. #5
    Good.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  7. #6

    Thumbs up Ruth Bader Ginsburg nails it

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg nails it in her majority opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  8. #7
    Excellent. The headline didn't include the word 'challenge', so good news when I was ready for bad.
    "The Patriarch"

    willie with tan lines: enjoy the shots and the woman
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    The man did not think clearly. It was almost as if he had brain cancer of something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The foreigners will take 100% of your income and then your life.

  9. #8
    This bodes well for any challenge to Marco Rubio’s bill that allows states to violate the 1st Amendment.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Constitutional
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Excellent. The headline didn't include the word 'challenge', so good news when I was ready for bad.
    Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.
    Nullification is only legitimate when it protects the rights of the citizens or the states, this was a case of the state violating the rights of citizens so it is a good thing that they lost.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.
    Like always, you have a good point. This probably should be handled at the state level and it's a damn shame people tolerate this. That's what I get for posting on smoke breaks, just a quick reaction and then back to work.
    "The Patriarch"

    willie with tan lines: enjoy the shots and the woman
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    The man did not think clearly. It was almost as if he had brain cancer of something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The foreigners will take 100% of your income and then your life.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.
    What about the rest of the Bill of Rights? Null and void if the states want to eliminate them?
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Are we celebrating the federal govt overruling states laws then? Just wanting it to be clear. So much for nullification.
    The states did all agree that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

    What does that mean? State law? Certainly not. That would make this section vacuous and meaningless. What would be the point of a state saying, we are not allowed to do something unless we say it's ok?

    How about constitutional law then or should it be natural law? Should natural law use the bill of rights as it's framework? It seems rather obvious that it should.

    I'd argue the states did authorize the fed to overrule any laws that violate the constitution or any amendment. It is no longer about states rights then. They already willingly gave up that right. All for the better too.

    I'm not seeing the connection with nulification here from my perspective. Unless it is about abortion? Please tell me it's not about abortion.
    Last edited by Grandmastersexsay; 02-20-2019 at 06:33 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Grandmastersexsay View Post
    The states did all agree that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
    If due process means a (18th century common law) jury trial and the common man could actually understand this, we would never need to write another law. Think about that.

  17. #15
    The Bill of Rights is not a gift from the Federal Government, at least that's my understanding ,
    the Federal Government and the States are required to uphold it.

    Neither the States Nor the Federal Govt are allowed to ignore it, they both do though.


    ''All laws repugnant to the constitution are null and void'' -Marbury Madison 1803

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    If due process means a (18th century common law) jury trial and the common man could actually understand this, we would never need to write another law. Think about that.
    Would you rather go to trial for misgendering in California under 18th century common law or under constitutional law?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Excessive fines?

    How does this stop seizure of cash/assets when theres no conviction?

    Or this $#@!:

    Astonishingly awful Supreme Court decision lets the government seize all your assets before trial.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

  21. #18

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Nullification is only legitimate when it protects the rights of the citizens or the states, this was a case of the state violating the rights of citizens so it is a good thing that they lost.
    Yes, I would like to think that this is the case.

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  23. #20
    Half-A-Cheer For Supremes' Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling

    Written by Daniel McAdams
    Thursday February 21, 2019

    Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on civil asset forfeiture - that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment - may be a step in the right direction, but it's only a baby step. Police are still free to steal from individuals not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted of a crime. They are just now told to not steal too much. The real issue that needs to be addressed is that the government should not be able to steal from the people. It's that simple. A break down of the ruling and what it means in today's Liberty Report:



    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...eiture-ruling/
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  24. #21
    Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge
    SCOTUS = Supreme Court Stopped Clock of the United States
    "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana (paraphrase)

    Unfortunately, those who do learn from history are doomed to repeat it, too - because they unwisely imagine that what they've learned makes them clever enough to get away with it this time ...



    MOFA - Make Orwell Fiction Again

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by RonZeplin View Post
    Half-A-Cheer For Supremes' Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling

    Written by Daniel McAdams
    Thursday February 21, 2019

    Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on civil asset forfeiture - that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment - may be a step in the right direction, but it's only a baby step. Police are still free to steal from individuals not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted of a crime. They are just now told to not steal too much. The real issue that needs to be addressed is that the government should not be able to steal from the people. It's that simple. A break down of the ruling and what it means in today's Liberty Report:



    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...eiture-ruling/
    Disagree. This will apply to everyone. The states will no longer be able to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    With this, I wonder if we'll see anything big get shaken up. Take alimony for example. States haven't been bound by due process. They can just say half of what you own now belongs to her and there was no recourse. Could we have a supreme court case that challenges that? Could a person be forced to prove how much wealth they brought to a marriage before simply be given half of everything?
    Last edited by Grandmastersexsay; 02-21-2019 at 02:52 PM.

  26. #23
    Please help me to understand.

    The federal government gets its power to exist from the states.

    However, so long as a state chooses to stay within the "union", a state cannot pass a law which violates the Constitution (ban firearms for example).

    Correct?
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Please help me to understand.

    The federal government gets its power to exist from the states.

    However, so long as a state chooses to stay within the "union", a state cannot pass a law which violates the Constitution (ban firearms for example).

    Correct?
    Correct.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court Deals Unanimous, Welcome Blow to Administrative State
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-04-2018, 10:16 PM
  2. Supreme Court to Hear Indiana Civil Asset Forfeiture Case
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-17-2018, 02:31 AM
  3. Canadian Supreme Court Delivers Huge Win For Internet Privacy
    By DamianTV in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2014, 03:52 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-17-2013, 09:42 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-30-2013, 01:51 PM

Posting Permissions

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