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

301–310 of 457 posts

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

#301

Post by tfigment »

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?

I think that norms are what are keep them most things in check and to preserve legitimacy they rule mostly on constitutional issues but I'm sure they can review any ruling in lower courts that they like or even overturn old rulings as they see fit. They cannot write new law as that is explicitly congress but they could take cases and interpret them broadly or narrowly to skew the desired result. If they tried to write laws themselves presumably they would be ignored or removed either via impeachment or by physical force. In a situation where parties are adhering to the rules then either congress can pass new law to clarify intent (and probably fight again) or pass an amendment to constitution or states could call constitutional convention to overrule an undesired court ruling.

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

#302

Post by int_19h »

colmmacc wrote: post #108
GeekyBear wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite recently, we have had two Presidents claim that non-citizens had no right to challenge their imprisonment by the United States (Bush in Gitmo and Obama on Bagram AFB in the Middle East) who ran smack into a Supreme Court that found their actions unconstitutional. The notion that Constitutional protections cannot apply to non-citizens is simply not true, even when applied to non-citizens being held by the US off…

I understand this and I'm heartened that the Supreme Court majority continues to find that. I was getting at the distinction between what the majority ruled; that excessive fines are a breach of due process, which applies to all "persons", and the comment that Justice Thomas would have preferred to arrive at the 'same outcome' on the basis that it was a breach of the 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unite…

Speaking as another non-citizen, you should be concerned that something as important as protection of rights of non-citizens, hinges in its entirety on a very convoluted and non-obvious reading of the Due Process Clause of 14A.

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

#303

Post by hannasanarion »

Fellshard wrote: post #74
jrockway wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The executive branch can also help here. Someone can run for district attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone. What is scary is that that's not the platform people run on, or win elections by running on.

That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.

Nobody said it solves the problem. The point is that it helps.

Also, "I am not going to use an unjust power that I have" is hardly an abdication of their role, it's just a choice made using the power of the office.

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

#304

Post by hannasanarion »

repiret wrote: post #101
bitwize wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA is a common-law jurisdiction which means that convention and "how things were always done" have outsized significance when compared to civil-law jurisdictions like much of western Europe. Civil-law jurisdictions tend to rely more on statute, but they also have legislatures that can actually get things done, rather than cultivate this bogus adversarial relationship between the people and the government wherein…

I agree that the structure of American democracy allows for the dysfunctional equilibrium that the US Congress presently finds themselves in, and I agree that some of that structure is in contrast to other contemporary classically liberal democracies. But even a more functional and productive legislature does not have the same bandwidth to look at individual ambiguities, nor the mandate to do so, thats found in the f…

It is not unrelated, because it means that the lawmakers have to be more careful and take their jobs as legislators and writers of policy seriously, instead of merely yelling for a living.

In civil law jurisdictions, the law is what the legislator says it is, no more, no less. What you write is what the law is, period. Judges can take each others advice and try to apply it consistently, but they can't go beyond or against what's written.

In common law jurisdictions, the law is ancient and practically unknowable. Your laws can be struck down for being out of whack with some older precedent, or it can be re-interpreted to be something better or worse than it is. It is common in common law jurisdictions for legislators to poop out something vague and inconsistent and then rely on the courts and the regulators to turn it into actual policy.

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

#305

Post by rhizome »

sathackr wrote: post #205
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.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

>It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

If that were true, more justices would ascend to the court quite close to their deaths. In reality, it's maybe half a life, less if you subtract youth.

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

#306

Post by rhizome »

jecxjo wrote: post #214
da_chicken wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, definitely. It was a minimal ruling, but it's still a landmark. Honestly, though, this case is so perfect that I almost wonder if the Supreme Court of Indiana didn't rule the way they did just to force the issue.

The more I follow SCOTUS rulings the more I think this happens quite often.

There's a thing called "forcing a circuit split," which is a precondition for SCOTUS cert, but AFAIK it's usually a strategy by parties to a case (see: forced-birth organizations), not judges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split

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

#307

Post by da_chicken »

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?

The SCotUS has extremely broad leeway in it's decision making. Any court case can rise to the SCotUS, but the SCotUS also has the power to deny hearing any case it wants.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (that is, the first court the case must be heard in) in a very narrow set of circumstances defined by the US Constitution (in Article III): "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."

However, the Constitution goes on: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (More here [0].)

So, for state courts (which try violations of state or municipal law, which are the vast majority of cases), you would have your original jurisdiction court (civil court, criminal court, etc.). If the case is appealed, it goes to the state appellate court. If that decision is appealed, it goes to the state supreme court. If that decision is appealed, it goes to the SCotUS. Not all states have both a supreme court and a designated appellate court. Some cities also have their own courts for municipal laws (New York and Chicago both do) but they work the same basic way and I believe they appeal to state appellate courts.

For federal courts (which try violations of federal law or that occur on federal land or that cross state lines, but also any trial in Washington, D.C., because the federal government regulates that), you start at the district court[1]. Appeals to that cast go to the circuit court[2], and appeals to that go to the SCotUS.

There is no appealing a decision by the SCotUS. It would require an act of Congress, Constitutional Amendment, or a completely different trial where the SCotUS reversed it's prior decision. This has happened, most famously in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (legalized racial segregation) was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954) [3].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_jurisdiction_of_the_S... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_circuit_court [3]: https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-...

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

#308

Post by outworlder »

wtf_is_up wrote: post #253
discordance wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minus the odd occasion of sexual assault [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...

*alleged

Even if 'alleged', this should have been enough to stop the confirmation until it was properly investigated. Or frankly, it should have stopped it outright.

Few positions are more important, and fewer still require a higher standard of morality than a supreme court position. Why settle for less than a spotless record? The person should be beyond reproach, so much so that an invalid allegation could be easily dismissed(during the confirmation, or any time afterwards).

You are placing someone in a position where they are able to influence lives of countless people, with repercussions that can span generations.

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

#309

Post by novacole »

eco wrote: post #87
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".

The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") means aliens are afforded the same protections as citizens.

This reads to me as a way for the authors of the amendment to narrow any potential loopholes in the protection of the newly freed slaves at the time. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. However, this says nothing about whether or not you are a citizen of the particular state you were born in. So potentially, a state could deny equal protection under the law (protections under state law or infringe upon federally protected rights) if this clause mentioned "citizens", rather than "persons". "Citizen" could be misinterpreted or (mal-interpreted) to mean citizen of the state in question. Additionally, it could apply to a non citizen resident/visitor of a state. If I am a citizen of Pennsylvania and am I work in New York, New York must provide me with the same protections under the law as they would provide a citizen of New York. The 14th amendment did not have immigrant aliens in mind but rather was narrowly focused on newly freed slaves who were before it ratification citizens of no place at all. So when we speak of "aliens", we must keep in mind that while it applied to "aliens" today, it was not meant to protect the rights of foreign "aliens" in particular.

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

#310

Post by da_chicken »

keko039ndnfm wrote: post #259
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

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 existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.

Post reply on HN