Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 457 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#281

Post by ssambros »

School-Cotton wrote: post #212
crooked-v wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens have the most important privilege: the ability to vote.

What makes you say that the ability to vote is the most important privilege? For example, I'd happily give up my right to vote before my right to legal due process. I'd rather live in undemocratic Singapore than in somewhere with free elections but widespread corruption and poor rule of law like India, Turkey, or Mexico.

You keep confusing the terms. You say "privilege to vote" in one sentence and "right to vote" in another. Constitution sees due process as a right of "persons", and ability to vote as a "right of citizens".

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#282

Post by int_19h »

School-Cotton wrote: post #212
crooked-v wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens have the most important privilege: the ability to vote.

What makes you say that the ability to vote is the most important privilege? For example, I'd happily give up my right to vote before my right to legal due process. I'd rather live in undemocratic Singapore than in somewhere with free elections but widespread corruption and poor rule of law like India, Turkey, or Mexico.

Because your right to vote ultimately affects all those other rights. With enough people voting for such, protection for rights can be repealed, or even ignored outright.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#283

Post by jessriedel »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #152
da_chicken wrote: post #125

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?

More generally, I believe that by the time a cases nears the level of the Supreme Court, legal fees typically become less of an issue in practice. There are many orgs on bath sidee that fund cases with important precedent, and plenty of great lawyers willing to argue for free since it's so prestigious.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#284

Post by vasilipupkin »

there are only two truly valuable and scarce commodities in this universe: time and the rule of law. The hegemony of Unites States( and other countries with similar attitude towards law ) lies not its army or the dollar - but in the fact that at its core it is ruled by law. this 9-0 verdict is proof of it.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#285

Post by TheGRS »

hannasanarion wrote: post #280
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

And why is it a good thing that they didn't rule on the other merits of the case, such as clarifying that a confiscation of a $45000 car is "excessive" for a crime with a maximum fine of $1200?

Probably because what constitutes excessive is going to be a fairly arbitrary and subjective amount at any point in time and depending on the person in the case. I don't think that's what's really the meat of the argument. The 8th amendment not applying to states however is a huge deal as its a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment and its broader intentions.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#286

Post by TheGRS »

sathackr wrote: post #205
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

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.

This comment doesn't seem to of been made with the last 3 or so years of history in mind.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#287

Post by TheGRS »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #236
thatoneuser wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires. Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

Yes good point. Kavanaugh's appointment showed us that if you aspire to be a SC judge you better make sure you behave well right from your teens. Some dubious instant from 30 years ago might come to hurt you.

I would probably argue that it didn't show us that at all.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#288

Post by TheGRS »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #152
da_chicken wrote: post #125

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?

Others have more specific answers, but more broadly if you have a case that's Supreme Court worthy there are numerous organizations willing to step in to represent your side. The ACLU is sort of built on this principle.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#289

Post by mikekchar »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #193
da_chicken wrote: post #125

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…

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

Not American here, but would SCotUS even be able to rule on anything outside of their narrow window? My impression was that they only rule on constitutional issues. I guess that's why they vacated the rest. When it gets to that level, is there any oversight to ensure that they don't go beyond the boundaries of their mandate?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#290

Post by [deleted] »

TheGRS wrote: post #285
hannasanarion wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why is it a good thing that they didn't rule on the other merits of the case, such as clarifying that a confiscation of a $45000 car is "excessive" for a crime with a maximum fine of $1200?

Probably because what constitutes excessive is going to be a fairly arbitrary and subjective amount at any point in time and depending on the person in the case. I don't think that's what's really the meat of the argument. The 8th amendment not applying to states however is a huge deal as its a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment and its broader intentions.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN