Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?
U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
121–130 of 258 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#122Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#123Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation). That means that they can seize property or cash under a certain value with near impunity because the cost of recovering it is greater than the cost…
Maybe so, but did you read the article? This is a person who the Government decided to do a forfeiture after a conviction. I'm glad the SCOTUS is looking at this because it seems to be adding additional penalties after a conviction. However, in the past additional penalties implemented after a conviction (like sex offender registries) have been upheld.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't for the life of me understand why the 10th amendment does not have a more prominent place in the American political system than it does. It is because government would be hamstrung if they respected it? It would seem to the layman that is the entire reason it exists!
Technically you're right. The 10th amendment has been largely neutered by selective incorporation, a very broad reading of the commerce clause, and other decisions. That said, the world in which the 10th amendment is very strong and the fourteenth is weak is much worse for civil rights. Suddenly the states can declare official support for Christianity, ban dissenting speech, shut down newspapers they dislike, search…
"Quartering Troops" sounds archaic, but every now and then lawmakers propose it, like forcing private airlines to provide discounted or free arrangements for servicemen traveling. (As opposed to negotiating rates with them, or soliciting competitive bids). These proposals usually don't get very far, but it shows you that the Government still thinks it's OK to _force_ a citizen or private business to give free services or accommodations to soldiers.
(For example, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/congressman-bruce-... and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/delta-troops-afgha... The Government should reimburse him, and try to negotiate the best rates from the Airlines. I'd be all for the Airlines offering a discount, but they shouldn't be forced to.)
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#125I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the six. Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.
Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?
No...you're thinking of conservatives which tend to lean more authoritarian than liberals.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#126I guess that they didn't steal enough money from the guy that is suing them...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#127I'm calling it now: 6-3. Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the six. Thomas has made his position clear about this in the past, Roberts sensibilities are often libertarian, and the others are liberals.
Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?
You may be conflating liberal (those who agree with the political ideology) with liberal (used inaccurately to describe supporters of the Democratic Party), though I doubt you would find significant support for civil forfeiture among either group.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#128I've said this before in another thread and I'll reiterate it...
A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Civil forfeiture is an excellent example of tyranny. If the Supreme Court decides it's legal, I better see an armed uprising.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? "Liberal" doesn't mean "pro-government". What definition are you using that suggests they would?
The colloquial definition used by most of the US citizenry and on television news programs on both 24-hour cable networks and broadcast television. That doesn't make that definition correct...
> The colloquial definition used by most of the US citizenry and on television news programs on both 24-hour cable networks and broadcast television.
Could you be more specific?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case
#130Can someone please argue the position of the side in favor of civil forfeiture?
Although I don't agree with it, I am knowledgeable about the side in favor of civil forfeiture. (I grew up in Indiana, and my dad was an attorney there.)
The "other side" says: Seizing Land Rovers from drug dealers helps fund underfunded rural police departments, and keeps them from having to raise taxes on law-abiding citizens.
I have no doubt that every aspect of this viewpoint is debatable. However, that's the viewpoint, per your request.