Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment

Quequeg said:
Any power that Govt.(law enforcement) takes is nearly impossible get back, Constitution or not.
Click to expand...

Did you hit your head or something? I can't believe I just read this from you.
 
Quequeg said:
I will believe it when I see it. Civil forfeiture is one of the worst thing the Govt. does.
Click to expand...

War is worse, but I share your sympathy with how destructive it is to our liberties.

Unless this ruling goes the way we all seem to want it to go, watch for CAF to explode in the event the drug war actually winds down.
 
Police departments and federal law enforcement agencies rely too heavily on civil forfeiture. I really don't see the SC changing this as the unions for these people will be in their ears giving them doomsday scenarios for when they can no longer steal people's money.
 
I read several articles on policing for profit, disgusting abuse of power. They would seize hundreds of thousand dollars worth of property without a conviction
 
Quequeg said:
Lefties are the biggest civil libertarians, which side is for continuing the war on drugs?
Click to expand...
Neocons... that's about it, whom aren't anything more than figure heads waiting to waste away now. Amazing that you're such a proponent of civil rights, but don't seem to respect the most fundamental one though?
 
second sight said:
I read several articles on policing for profit, disgusting abuse of power. They would seize hundreds of thousand dollars worth of property without a conviction
Click to expand...

Without even articulating a crime... Then its up to you to show the burden of proof you weren't using the funds in the commission of a crime.
 
xcvbn said:
Police departments and federal law enforcement agencies rely too heavily on civil forfeiture. I really don't see the SC changing this as the unions for these people will be in their ears giving them doomsday scenarios for when they can no longer steal people's money.
Click to expand...
High Altitude said:
They are stealing people’s shit who have never been convicted. Innocent and free people. I can’t believe this is allowed to happen, but it is. Most fucked up unamerican thing ever.
Click to expand...
Or even charged in some cases.
 
While I'm excited to see SCOTUS tackle civil forfeiture, this case appears to be about taking "too much" from someone who's received due process. Where's the case where someone has their shit confiscated with no due process and is required to prove their innocence in order to reclaim their property?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
While I'm excited to see SCOTUS tackle civil forfeiture, this case appears to be about taking "too much" from someone who's received due process. Where's the case where someone has their shit confiscated with no due process and is required to prove their innocence in order to reclaim their property?
Click to expand...
There is a chance the SC kills two birds with one stone. Could go any which way for better or worse.
 
xcvbn said:
There is a chance the SC kills two birds with one stone. Could go any which way for better or worse.
Click to expand...

That'd be great, but my understanding is they generally don't rule outside the scope of the case before them. Hope I'm wrong on that.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
That'd be great, but my understanding is they generally don't rule outside the scope of the case before them. Hope I'm wrong on that.
Click to expand...
My hope is they indirectly shut down that type of forfeiture but you're probably right. Will have to wait a few more decades before we get that ruling.
 
KILL KILL said:
The first time I heard of civil forfeiture being abused, I had to Google it because it didn't seem real. I can't imagine having your shit stolen without any type of related conviction.
Click to expand...

I’d never heard of it until reading it here a few years ago and it seemed too insane to be anything other than a fringe case. Crazy.
 
Obama stopped some parts of it, then the Trump admin reinstated it, think about that Trumtards.
 
Quequeg said:
Obama stopped some parts of it, then the Trump admin reinstated it, think about that Trumtards.
Click to expand...

This may be one of the few things I liked about Obama after they sent him into the Star-chamber before starting his presidency.
 
I'm glad to see it. It's a pain in the ass to deal with, especially chain of title. No insurer will underwrite a policy with a DA seizure in its history because they don't know if it's defensible. That's my personal gripe.

Legally I can't see how it's constitutional to seize the asset before a conviction and when the asset is owned by someone other than the alleged criminal perpetrator. It's still property and the 4th and the 8th should still be in play.
 
Greoric said:
Neocons... that's about it, whom aren't anything more than figure heads waiting to waste away now. Amazing that you're such a proponent of civil rights, but don't seem to respect the most fundamental one though?
Click to expand...

Was Eisenhower a neocon? i recall him being angry about "liberal judges" ruling against government in 1st Amendment cases.

Then there is every major Republican since Nixon including Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,979
Messages
55,458,746
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top