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

431–440 of 457 posts

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

#431

Post by amanaplanacanal »

cryptonector wrote: post #378
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 .

They are people associating freely, however, which is protected under the First Amendment.

> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I believe current law is that people have the right to peaceably assemble only for the purpose of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

It sounds wrong, but there it is.

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

#432

Post by amanaplanacanal »

lososos wrote: post #114

Link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf Based on one very quick reading of the case, my understanding is: 1. Defendant ("D") purchased a $42,000 Land Rover using funds from a life estate policy covering the life of his now-deceased father. 2. D sells $225 worth of heroin to undercover cops. Ends up paying ~$1200 in fines, one year on house arrest, 5 years probation 3. Max pen…

> To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must be convicted of a crime

This is very unclear to me. I can see how that could be read into the decisions, but I don't think that's what they are actually saying.

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

#433

Post by Sacho »

Spivak wrote: post #179
tyingq wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, nobody will go to jail for it. I'm happy for the ruling, but it doesn't seem to do much to discourage future abuse, since nobody actually gets held accountable.

I'm not sure why you want someone to go to jail for this incident specifically. The police acted in a manner that, at the time, they believed to be lawful. When the state was sued they also thought the police acted within the law, backed the officers, and won their appeal. Then after both sides made the best case they could, the supreme court ruled their actions were ultimately unconstitutional. Do you really expect…

> Do you really expect a random police officer to be a constitutional scholar?

You expect that from citizens, as ignorance of the law is not a defense against not breaking it, but police officers are given a myriad of protections(QI), sometimes jokingly called "The Reasonably Stupid Cop Rule"[0]. I don't think police officers should be constitutional scholars, but immunity gives them an incentive to either not learn or just ignore the law.

[0] (https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/11/30/the-unreasonable-ex...)

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

#434

Post by User23 »

lmm wrote: post #398
User23 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the notion that citizens don't have privileges, because otherwise citizenship is worthless. Obviously the natural rights of all persons ought to be respected.

> otherwise citizenship is worthless Would that be such a bad thing?

For citizens.

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

#435

Post by User23 »

vonmoltke wrote: post #162
aqme28 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution really clearly delineates between "persons" and "citizens." I hate the notion that none of the protections apply to noncitizens. Additionally, a lot of the constitution is actually phrased as limits on the government rather than rights as citizens.

> Additionally, a lot of the constitution is actually phrased as limits on the government rather than rights as citizens. This is because the Constitution is supposed to be an enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. The limitations are there to narrow the scope of those enumerated powers. In this context, enumerating most rights of citizens would have been redundant. The enumerated citizen rights were th…

Sadly most people, who lack a grounded understanding of Anglo-American legal tradition, revert to their native frame of reference where the law is just another tool of the local powers to inflict their will. It is only in the Anglo-American tradition that law is understood as a restraint on the power of the sovereign, rather than a tool of the sovereign. This is the primary philosophical distinction between the common law and the various civil codes.

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

#436

Post by masonic »

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.

Several of the Founders we're not even Christian, hence Adams calling Paine a "filthy athiest" (untrue: he was a Deist).

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

#437

Post by speedplane »

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.

> Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being ... ?

Quite the opposite. The first amendment's establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion, i.e., forcing religious on someone.

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

#438

Post by pmoriarty »

sathackr wrote: post #292
jecxjo wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appr…

"These people put huge amounts of research, thought, and reasoning into their decision."

What makes you think the judges are the ones who actually do all that research, thought, and reasoning? They all have a staff to do that for them.

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

#439

Post by andromedavision »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #263
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.

> showed some bleeding heart As if the court being overly sentimental would be the only reason to overturn confiscations of property of this kind?

Anytime you get an opportunity to reduce the overreaching powers of the state, that's a good thing! Today, we on the right have Trump, tomorrow there'll be someone on the left as president and that won't make us happy and vice-versa.

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

#440

Post by ionised »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #428
yesenadam wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don’t have data about the right in Australia, but in the U.S., the term arises due to the prevalence of virtue signaling by left leaning Hollywood that doesn’t align with the reality of all the statistics pointing to far greater levels of charity as a percentage of income/wealth exhibited by those on the ‘right’. This mismatch results in some of this derisive language in the U.S.

> due to the prevalence of virtue signaling by left leaning Hollywood that doesn’t align with the reality of all the statistics pointing to far greater levels of charity as a percentage of income/wealth exhibited by those on the ‘right’.

Gonna need numbers on that mate, because everything I've read suggests conservatism is correlated with reduced amount, degree and frequency of charitable behaviour.

Post reply on HN