U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#31

Post by 394549 » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #29

Analemma_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever its other faults, SCOTUS is usually pretty good about not letting crummy defendants blind them to setting good precedent. For example, Miranda warnings came about when they threw out the conviction of a man who had almost certainly kidnapped and raped a teenager.

Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, which may well be right, but your example might not be the best example to demonstra…

> Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period.

Because the Supreme Court is an institution with an institutional culture. Furthermore, its members obsessively study it's past decisions and their reasoning, so I'd expect its culture to have quite a bit of inertia.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#32

Post by GabrielBen » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

balozi wrote: post #17

I'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?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#33

Post by mijoharas » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #30

dhd415 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because of selective incorporation. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine ). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

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!

Sorry, could you explain what the 10th amendment is? (The Wikipedia page has some assumed knowledge that I do not have as I'm not American.)

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#34

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

dhd415 wrote: post #15

Navarr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the lower courts all agreed that the forfeiture was excessive, I'm not inclined to worry too much about that. It appears to be going to the supreme court b/c the Indiana Supreme Court said that the amendment regarding excessive fines doesn't apply to the states. So the real question being asked to the SC in this case is "Must states abide by the 8th amendment?" Since they must 1st, 2nd, and others - I don…

It's because of selective incorporation. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine ). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

>For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

No. The second amendment was always incorporated "against" (for) the states.

McDonald only clarified what was always the reality. That a state can not preempt federal laws with keeping and barring arms for self defense. Notice that last part, the SPECIFIC INTENTION of the case is for self defense.

Your own link makes note that selective incorporation doesn't apply to the bill of rights. Well, it does but not objectively. It's pretty ridiculous to make the assertion 2010's McDonald and not 2008's Hellar the "the 2A law". But that was your goal to find something that fit an antigun narrative.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#35

Post by GavinMcG » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

GabrielBen wrote: post #32

balozi wrote: post #17

I'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? "Liberal" doesn't mean "pro-government". What definition are you using that suggests they would?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#36

Post by ricree » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #30

dhd415 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because of selective incorporation. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine ). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

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!

Because the 10th provides little that is particularly concrete, and because the prevailing interpretation of other clauses has been fairly broad. That is to say, by and large the federal government has been acting withing the powers granted by the constitution, but at the moment those powers are held to be quite broad. Interstate commerce clause, in particular, means that the government can do quite a bit to regulate, so long as it is in some manner related to interstate trade. I don't personally agree with these interpretations, but they are the prevailing ones.

Likewise, incorporation doctrine is derived from the constitution. So anything that is considered barred by incorporation is therefore "prohibited by it[the constitution] to the States".

It has, in the past, been called "a truism" by the courts, and that's not a totally unreasonable read. Still, there issue has come up in court from time to time, and the wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... ) lists some examples.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#37

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

Civil 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 of the goods themselves. This makes it a fantastic tool against the poor, since they'll have no real remedies.

You only really started to hear about Civil Forfeiture once the police started going too far and taking things from the wealthy or powerful, but they've been at this for years, take vehicles from accused but un-prosecuted "drug dealers."

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#38

Post by Finnucane » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #30

dhd415 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because of selective incorporation. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine ). For example, the Second Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

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!

The Supremacy clause of the constitution means that state law can’t be contrary to the constitution. So if the 8th amendment applies in this case, the state law is overruled.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#39

Post by elygre » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:24 PM UTC

GabrielBen wrote: post #32

balozi wrote: post #17

I'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?

Why would they?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#40

Post by cuckcuckspruce » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #35

GabrielBen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't liberals be pro-forfeiture?

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...