241–250 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.
Minus the odd occasion of sexual assault [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...
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.
It isn't, on its own, a final judgment on the case, but that doesn't mean it lacks force of law.
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…
> Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn't buy with drug money. Shouldn't the burden of proof of financing lie with the state before property possession is carried out? It is unfair for the defendant to prove the source of funds for his own property
Or more precisely, evil people will happily violate entire tranches of law while the good people are stuck prosecuting one case at a time, painfully establishing precedent by precedent, and in the meantime the world has moved on.
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…
> Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn't buy with drug money. Shouldn't the burden of proof of financing lie with the state before property possession is carried out? It is unfair for the defendant to prove the source of funds for his own property
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.
> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.
> No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators.
You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise.
Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones around the competency of Supreme Court confirmees is stronger than most.
Hmm I wonder how this will affect the other civil forfeiture practice of charging the item itself with the crime (eg: "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" [0]) where the owner of the property is never actually charged with a crime. Maybe this will stop that because without a conviction any fine could be considered excessive? The logic behind these cases has always baffled me. How do courts get around due proc…
This specific case was taken and argued by the Institute for Justice ( https://ij.org ), a civil liberties legal charity, that has a goal of addressing exactly this problem. The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. The rationale was you had drug dealer types that were successfully evading prosecution on the tougher criminal standards of pro…
No, they were in admiralty/customs law and predate the US, but came along with the body of law the US kept at it's founding.
There was some new activity around Prohibition.
Then big activity starting in 1970 around the drug war.
(That's for federal civil forfeiture, while state level civil forfeiture has the same pre-US history, the later evolution varies by state.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justice Thomas has been fighting a long battle trying to restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment after it was effectively removed from the constitution in the Slaughter-House Cases. He'll often issue dissents or concurrences just to raise the issue of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Institute For Justice (who argued this case, somewhat coincidentally) has a podcast about the 14th Am…
Background on the Slaughterhouse Cases: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landma...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not this case, in which police abused their power to pick on a citizen?
Perhaps because it's a citizen who was able to afford the expensive car by profiting off of something illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.
>> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. > No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise. Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones aro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For reference, in forma pauperis means "in the shape of a poor man"; pockets aren't mentioned. As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't have pockets and so there would be no way to express the concept in Latin.
Latin was the international language of Europe for almost a thousand years after the collapse of the Roman Empire, during which time many scientific advancements were made. There are plenty of Latin words for things that didn't exist in Antiquity.
But that doesn't really constitute a good argument that there is a Latin word for telephones.