151–160 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.
If the executive believes it to be unconstitutional then it's not an abdication of their assigned role.
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations in general have the constitutional protections that people acting in a group have. Corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction. For example corporations don't have a right to free speech because they are "persons" but because we extend the rights of the individuals who make up the group to the group itself.
> we extend the rights The constitutional basis for that is not secure. It's not obvious that your right to free speech extends to secretly paying someone else to speak. If I leave an iPod in a public park playing a speech, the authorities can remove or disable the iPod, not a violation of my speech rights.
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
Unrelated question, but who is paying for all these lawyers? Timbs himself out of his pocket?
Originally, they had the phrase "life, liberty, and property", if I recall, but "happiness" sounded more poetic or something in the Declaration of Independence. They definitely had protection of property from the government in mind when writing the Constitution.
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
You are correct that they didn't rule on it. But they did write an opinion that was highly suggestive of what the particular finding in this case should have been. It doesn't carry the weight of law, but it isn't nothing, either.
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
Unrelated question, but who is paying for all these lawyers? Timbs himself out of his pocket?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana
Otherwise, yes, Timbs would have to pay. You can file a petition to ask the court to waive your court costs (there's a Latin legal term for it that I believe means "with pockets turned out" or "with pockets empty" but I can't remember it), but your lawyer's time isn't covered by that.
BTW, if you have civil forfeiture at all (which I think should't exist), why does the money go to the seizing agency? Shouldn't it all go straight to the general fund to avoid a conflict of interest? Ditto punitive damages in court cases (where the defendent pays, say, $3M in restitution but say $500M in punitive damages because they could easily afford the $3M and need to suffer enough to change their ways). Why doe…
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
You are correct that they didn't rule on it. But they did write an opinion that was highly suggestive of what the particular finding in this case should have been. It doesn't carry the weight of law, but it isn't nothing, either.
Honestly, though, this case is so perfect that I almost wonder if the Supreme Court of Indiana didn't rule the way they did just to force the issue.