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

291–300 of 457 posts

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

#291

Post by mikekchar »

alasdair_ wrote: post #277
sathackr wrote: post #205

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.

>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.

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

#292

Post by sathackr »

jecxjo wrote: post #213
sathackr wrote: post #205

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.

Respect is not quite the word I'd use. Yes you have to put in your time, but politics play just as much a role in SCOTUS appointments as any other branch. The major difference is that the appointees do not pander to the public for votes, rather they pander to those we have voted into office.

Even including recent events, I think the actual judicial track record of the Supreme Court proves its legitimacy. These people put huge amounts of research, thought, and reasoning into their decision.

Every single person will have some sort of bias. We are all human. Sometimes the court will 'lean' left, sometimes it will lean right. Over the years it has been an anchor of reason and stability that is very much appreciated by this American.

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

#293

Post by sathackr »

alasdair_ wrote: post #277
sathackr wrote: post #205

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.

>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

I wasn't aiming for absolute technical accuracy and don't think it was expected. I'm well aware of the specific technical limitations related to age, time living in the US, and citizenship requirements.

I'll not argue as to the correctness or morality of such a requirement.

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

#294

Post by marktangotango »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #250
School-Cotton wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are tiny communities who use recreational Latin today. Here's the Vicipaedia article on the telephonum: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephonum But that doesn't really constitute a good argument that there is a Latin word for telephones.

Thank you, beautiful refutation of an argumentative quarralous, I would even say bad faith, assertion, which we see entirely to often now imo.

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

#295

Post by xxpor »

milesvp wrote: post #204
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.

Yes actually. The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. Also by limiting their ruling to the narrowest ruling they can, they keep decisions as local as possible. Courts handle exceptional circumstances, and it’s important they not rule too broadly, else there can be huge overarching unintended side effects of their ruling. The parallel in programming would be some god class that handles every e…

>The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature

I hate this meme. This is explicitly not true in the American legal system, as well as similar systems evolved from the British one.

Case law is just as much part of the law as statutes are.

This is the fundamental difference between common law systems and civil law systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_sy...

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

#296

Post by da_chicken »

School-Cotton wrote: post #207
da_chicken wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do anything it wants as long as it isn't specifically prohibited, and citizens are only guaranteed rights if they are specified. I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time, particularly whe…

Well then, how does the EU (whose central authority is extremely limited in scope compared to the US Federal Government, and whose member states are still meaningfully sovereign separate countries) manage to thrive so well? Why couldn't a similar system work well in the US?

Have you not heard Europeans talk about the EU? Pretty much everyone agrees that it's slow, cumbersome, and doesn't address a lot of problems quickly enough. It's also significantly more complex[0] by further dividing the executive position, compared to the American system, and it's only got 28 states.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Org...

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

#297

Post by hannasanarion »

crazypyro wrote: post #150
gowld wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't legal; that's what this case is about. The authorities sometimes break laws.

This case wasn't about the legality of taking the car. It was simply about whether the 8th Amendment applies to states.

The decision was about whether the 8th applies to states. The lower court is now instructed to evaluate whether the fine was excessive, which it obviously was.

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

#298

Post by Pharmakon »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #250
School-Cotton wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are tiny communities who use recreational Latin today. Here's the Vicipaedia article on the telephonum: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephonum But that doesn't really constitute a good argument that there is a Latin word for telephones.

I had no idea this existed, and you just made my day with it.

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

#299

Post by hannasanarion »

Fellshard wrote: post #151
aidenn0 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the executive believes it to be unconstitutional then it's not an abdication of their assigned role.

It's not the executive's role to determine whether something is constitutional or not.

Yes it is, that is literally why the Framers gave them the veto power.

The modern conception of the veto as a political power rather than as one of constitutional defense was invented by Andrew Jackson.

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

#300

Post by RyanShook »

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.

The amount of restraint shown depends largely on the issue and justices. One of the most infamous overreaches was the Dred Scott case where the court went way beyond the issue at hand and essentially decided the case was invalid because of the defendant’s race.
Post reply on HN