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

311–320 of 457 posts

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

#311

Post by ec109685 »

gumby wrote: post #131

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…

What would the point of suing the entity for punitive damages if you didn't see any of the money?

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

#312

Post by mc32 »

mikekchar wrote: post #291
alasdair_ wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm sure the congress would find a workaround if that came to be. Perhaps you'd just have consider it (the swearing in) just a part of the ceremony and not part of a belief? Of course, an atheist zealot would probably have an issue with that, but I imagine the kind of atheist to get elected would be the pragmatic kind.

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

#313

Post by sathackr »

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?

IANAL, which should be evident, but..

The lower courts already felt the fine was excessive, but declined to rule so because they felt they were not subject to the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that they were in fact subject to the 8th amendment, and sent the case back to the State court to re-evaluate under the new guidance.

The Supreme court generally tries to rule as precisely and efficiently as possible. Since the most prominent question under their jurisdiction was the application of the 8th amendment to the states, they ruled on that issue and remanded for the remainder of the case to be resolved by the lower case with the 8th amendment applied.

Now the lower court, which is a perfectly capable entity, will rule on the case, applying the 8th amendment as directed by the Supreme Court. If the lower court then rules the fine was not excessive, that ruling as well would be subject to review by the higher court.

But it was not necessary at this time for the Supreme Court to rule on this as the ruling on the 8th amendment will permit the lower court to do it's job and re-evaluate.

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

#314

Post by tomatotomato37 »

int_19h wrote: post #271
CharlesColeman wrote: post #245

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. 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…

The problem with SCOTUS is its reputation, which is dragged down by basically everything else in our politics. When politicians (on both sides of the aisle) openly talk about "liberal judges" and "conservative judges", and promise to appoint the kind that will rule the way they and their constituents want (as opposed to ruling according to what the law says) - and then those same people actually nominate or confirm a…

It's such a tragedy how much the actions of the SC are generalized and sound-bited by politicians and the media. If you go out and read the arguments they all give they are really quite elegant, especially when compared with the sheer stupidity of some of the debates that take place a block over

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

#315

Post by pvg »

xxpor wrote: post #295
milesvp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's not really a 'meme', it just uses a shorthand for 'statutory law' which is what most people think of when they they see 'law'.

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

#316

Post by keko039ndnfm »

da_chicken wrote: post #310
keko039ndnfm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madiso…

>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by…

In a professional capacity they are. As individuals they are not, but even still they toe the line.

While we revere the Founders for being outspoken of the status quo. Contemporary leadership relies on it.

And note where I said it’s hardly scandalous.

I was really just contrasting it with another posters view of their culture. American culture relies on hewing to what leadership finds emotionally true.

Nice of y’all to white knight for SCOTUS though. And get all technical with me, as if you’re educating a moron you don’t even know.

Like I said this forum just plays to its emotional biases like the others.

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

#317

Post by dragonwriter »

pvg wrote: post #315
xxpor wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

It's not really a 'meme', it just uses a shorthand for 'statutory law' which is what most people think of when they they see 'law'.

> It's not really a 'meme'

It is, in fact, a self-replicating unit of behavior.

(It's also true in one sense, which is one of the bases of it's relative reproductive fitness as a meme.)

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

#318

Post by keko039ndnfm »

solveit wrote: post #275
keko039ndnfm wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second statement is false. How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. That eliminates anyone that can’t raise money. And Kavanaugh’s nomination casts doubt on the third statement. You can be a vile POS, but become a SCOTUS judge so long as you’re networked with the right people.

>How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. Key word being correlated. Winners raise more money in large part because people donate to candidates they think will win. So your third statement is technically true, but in a very uninteresting way that you probably didn't intend.

My intention was to call into question the statement “anyone can be President or a legislator.” Which you’ve agreed is nonsense.

But yes let’s just disconnect it from context and polish the shit out of it

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

#319

Post by njovin »

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 am surprised that the Indiana Supreme Court ruling basically upheld that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to states in the absence of specific SCOTUS rulings. Can you imagine if individual states felt they have the right to suppress free speech or the press?

I read the official decision from the state court[0] but it's a bit dense for me to get through. It seems like a legal punt, of sorts, in the hopes that SCOTUS would pick up the case.

I'd love to hear someone more qualified break down the state decision.

[0] https://www.leagle.com/decision/ininco20171102267

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

#320

Post by slavik81 »

MFLoon wrote: post #194
School-Cotton wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are not people, and the Supreme Court has never found that they are -- this soundbite is a misunderstanding of Citizens United v. FEC .

That's just not true. Corporations have been recognized as legal persons in the US for well over a century prior to Citizens United, in both judicial precedent and federal statutes. I agree with what I assume you believe - that this ought not be the case, and corporations should be more restricted in their rights than natural persons. But simply claiming it to be so is willful ignorance.

The legal fiction of corporate personhood does not grant them all the rights of a natural person. For example, in SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal ruled that corporations did not have a constitutional right to privacy, despite the California constitution extending privacy rights to all people.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-holds-corporation...

Post reply on HN