This Ginsburg situation is sketchy
U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
31–40 of 457 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#32[deleted]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#33> Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”…
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessiv…
As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#34This article has left me confused. Does this mean civil forfeiture is unconstitutional? Or just that it can only be used if it does not constitute an "excessive" fine?
Only if it's not excessive.
How disappointing. This leaves individuals forced to prove that a fine was excessive after police have already seized their property.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#35> Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”…
In the WSJ article[0], RBG appears to agree explicitly with Thomas as well.
0. https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-exc...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#36Good thing, it only took about 35 years or so. This was one of legacies of the glorious War On Drugs.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#37> Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the 14th Amendment.”…
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessiv…
For the curious, this is called the "incorporation doctrine".
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessiv…
> Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome. Do you read anything into this? Is there a reason a justice would prefer to highlight the excessive fines provision over the due process protections?
Its guidance for future rulings in the lower courts.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#39Non-paywalled press release from the Institute for Justice, who worked on this case as part of their mission to fight civil forfeiture: https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimo...
"Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause" Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this clause to lower levels of government.
For anyone who wants to read/learn more - the concept here is called "incorporation" - as in, the specified right is "incorporated against the states"
The 14th amendment made this possible, but until the supreme court actually rules on a given right, there's no case law to compel states to treat the right that way.
Another relatively recent example of this is McDonald v Chicago that incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessiv…
As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".
No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.