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

81–90 of 457 posts

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

#81

Post by ceejayoz »

DigiMortal wrote: post #48
DigiMortal wrote: post #31

This Ginsburg situation is sketchy

It's at least important to question things - sit back, question it and at the end examine the facts. All I'm saying I'll just sit back and watch, there have been whispers in DC about this for several weeks. Could all just be noise

> Could all just be noise

It is. She was in court Tuesday. Oral arguments are open to the public, and even if they weren't, the conservative judges would have to be in on the conspiracy too.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ginsburg-returns-to-supreme...

You should consider ditching the news sources that treated this as at all credible.

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

#82

Post by ThrustVectoring »

duxup wrote: post #19
chapium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause" Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this clause to lower levels of government.

It seems to be a pattern where protections aren't extended until a state or some government gets silly and the courts just decide that it is absurd to not have the same protection at that level and extends it.

Yeah, that's an issue with how the US justice system works, and a natural tradeoff from the other properties it has. The legal system works off of precedent and cannot write law, so there's no binding opinion until and unless it comes up in a legal case. Also, you have to be harmed by a law in order to have standing to challenge it. So as long as people aren't getting harmed by the lack of an "obvious" legal conclusion, the courts will basically just let it sit there until someone comes and challenges it, whereupon the "yeah, that's absurd, we're going to give a unanimous Supreme Court decision on this" comes into effect.

Sometimes it gets into a weird dynamic where the lower court knows that the Supreme Court would overturn their decision, but there isn't precedent, so they deliberately make a ruling that they expect the Supreme Court to review (and overturn) on appeal.

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

#83

Post by learc83 »

sbov wrote: post #65
mikeyouse wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion. And immigration. "This may seem like a minor niggling point. It's not. The Court's recognition of a right to abortion has been rooted in the Due Process Clause. Thomas & Gorsuch's concurrences document their opposition to grounding substantive rights in that corner of the 14th am." https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1098242972162768901 "Thomas and Gorsuch announce that they would incorporate Bill of Rig…

Wouldn't this completely screw over corporations? Or do we have some other mechanisms that will continue to protect them from these abuses them but not other types of "persons"?

Corporations in general have the constitutional protections that people acting in a group have. Corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction.

For example corporations don't have a right to free speech because they are "persons" but because we extend the rights of the individuals who make up the group to the group itself.

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

#84

Post by nindalf »

Aloha wrote: post #49
DigiMortal wrote: post #31

This Ginsburg situation is sketchy

What Ginsburg situation?

I'm laughing my ass off. GP claimed that Justice Ginsburg is actually dead and her opinions (including on this case) are being ghost written.

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

#85

Post by _Schizotypy »

jrockway wrote: post #71
repiret wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to case law is that ambiguities in the statute are interpreted differently each time. Being subject to the law, I would much rather live in a system designed to automatically reduce ambiguities over time, rather than to have to wait for the legislature to have the political will and resources to address them.

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.

A better way for the executive branch to help the problem would be to abolish the DEA and start work to end the war on drugs.

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

#86

Post by neonate »

Aloha wrote: post #45
Splendor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How disappointing. This leaves individuals forced to prove that a fine was excessive after police have already seized their property.

This is largely a straightforward thing to do - and this ruling will make police departments much more hesitant to seize civil assets.

Is it straightforward to do without a lawyer, though? What if you can't afford one?

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

#87

Post by eco »

colmmacc wrote: post #33
ls612 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessiv…

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.

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

#88

Post by Retra »

saas_sam wrote: post #40
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".

No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.

Everyone should have basic protections, or "fundamental" rights. Those are things that exist as a matter of basic human decency. Nonbasic rights are more like privileges, and they can apply discriminately.

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

#89

Post by ComputerGuru »

One of the most important things about this rule is that the court found that the eighth amendment protections against excessive fines and punishments apply to state/city governments as well, meaning it's finally officially incorporated.

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

#90

Post by renholder »

Tomte wrote: post #67
saas_sam wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.

Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody. Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".

Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.
Post reply on HN