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

411–420 of 457 posts

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

#411

Post by aeorgnoieang »

wpasc wrote: post #376
sjy wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the original meaning given by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. The word ‘meme’ is more than a repeated fact – first, it doesn’t have to be a fact, and second, it suggests that our culture is the result of evolution in an environment where memes are selected for reproductive fitness (‘virality’).

I've read the Selfish Gene and loved it, but I had NO idea that meme originated from that book. I must have skimmed that paragraph. Thank you for this!

If I'm remembering the book correctly, it's discussed at some length in a later chapter; maybe the last chapter.

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

#412

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #199
colmmacc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

Indeed. If they can successfully rebind the Bill of Rights as applied to states based on P&I instead of the due process clause, the Bill of Rights may evaporate for non-citizen immigrants. A state(i.e. Republican ones) may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against.

> may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against.

Cannot they already do this to some limited extent (and perhaps are even required to do so)? For example, laws concerning voting.

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

#413

Post by thinkling »

writepub wrote: post #226
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…

> 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

The crucial detail is that civil forfeiture works by suing the property, not its owner. The owner is just an "interested party" and has limited standing to fight the seizure. It's mind-blowingly bizarre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States

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

#414

Post by AlexB138 »

yesenadam wrote: post #388
chidg wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems likely the person you are replying to has english as a non-first language and may be using this phrase incorrectly.

Maybe. In Australia, 'bleeding heart' used by people on the right to describe people on the left who act with conscience, ethics, compassion or recommend a course of such acts. It's a term of abuse, because they think such actions and desires must be pretense, as the right doesn't feel those things themselves. (The right has and doesn't want others to have, a position that hardens the heart.) I took the phrase in tha…

> Maybe. In Australia, 'bleeding heart' used by people on the right to describe people on the left who act with conscience, ethics, compassion or recommend a course of such acts. It's a term of abuse, because they think such actions and desires must be pretense, as the right doesn't feel those things themselves. (The right has and doesn't want others to have, a position that hardens the heart.) I took the phrase in that sense.

That is a laughably bias interpretation. The phrase "bleeding heart" is used as an insult, suggesting the targets lack reason and are completely guided by their feelings. Your descriptions paints those you disagree with as mustache-twirling cartoon villain caricatures and comes off about as genuine as "They hate us for our freedom".

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

#415

Post by TFortunato »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #394
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…

A big difference between programming and law is that the programmers ultimate incentive is independent of the processors incentive. In law and politics there are multiple agents each with their own incentives, so it is extremely important to uniformize the application of the law (in order to be equal before the law). That nearly all systems do provide leeway for the judge (anglosaxon common law emphasizes this and ci…

On reading, this sounds a lot to me like "trial by a jury of one's peers", only the response to the system being (choked for democratic consultations / having massive court backups and shortage of jurors) has unfortunately so far been mostly public apathy, and people being pushed into accepting plea deals / waiving their rights for a jury trial in many cases.

EDIT: I dont say this to be snarky. On the contrary, the idea of "law's being applied equally" being enforced by citizens exercising their powers democratically, vs. the whims of one judge, is really appealing, and explains a lot of why we supposedly have things like jury trials being a right for all.

It's just unfortunate that the reality is, we are trying to do this, but if you look at folks who are actually trying to highlight things like discrimination in the system or "hey, maybe we arent applying these laws equally"...well the response they get for doing that isn't always what one would hope for from an enlightened body of citizens.

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

#416

Post by cat199 »

wallace_f wrote: post #369
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yea... But I think this comment puts them in better light than perhaps is deserved. There are arguments SCOTUS are not defenders of the constitution. Look at Clarence Thomas's dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich, where somehow SCOTUS defended the Fed's oppressing someone for growing their own medical marijuana... In a state with legal medical marijuana. There is no constitutional basis for that. Using the Commerce Clause is…

> In a state with legal medical marijuana

umm.. not familiar with this case, but:

from a federal position there is no such thing as legal marijuana, and from a constitutional position federal law trumps state law -

which is not to say i disagree about the sheer human folly of regulating the existence of plants via legislation.

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

#417

Post by kortilla »

kortilla wrote: post #330
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…

>Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary And that’s exactly what we got. I urge you to look into what the legislative branch does and look into constitutional amendments. The system changes all of the time. Based on your description of the GOP, you sound upset that the country isn’t more socialist. That’s hardly related…

Reply to sibling since it’s dead:

>Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public?

This isn’t a direct democracy. The law reflects the super majority of the representatives/senators or the majority of the representatives/senators and the president.

The entire purpose of that is to prevent small majorities from steamrolling in laws. 60% for legalization or whatever topic you want isn’t enough to make a federal law changes if the majority isn’t spread around all of the states as well.

Obama didn’t even want gay marriage when he went into office. People elected him again anyway. I think most of your confusion comes from the fact that you don’t understand representative democracies.

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

#418

Post by thoughtstheseus »

gamblor956 wrote: post #255
keko039ndnfm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

Not one of the judges on the SC questions their place the correctness of the process They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...

You can also read their published opinions to see exactly how they came to a conclusion.

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

#419

Post by Fellshard »

hannasanarion wrote: post #299
Fellshard wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that power can only be applied before the law is passed, not after.

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

#420

Post by c3534l »

mikekchar wrote: post #289
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.

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?

As an interesting side note, they don't have to rule only on constitutional issues. They used to quite regularly hear big-news criminal cases.
Post reply on HN